Answers in Genesis and fractals

[Jarhyn]

No, learner, our world under the "vault of the sky" is not flat. Our universe may be flat, but our world is not.

The only "vault" over our sky is an ever-expanding sphere of microwave radiation emitting plasma which hasn't even been there for 14 billion years, wherever it is, which will never even correlate to "here". From our perspective it's future does not exist.

It does not follow that just because you might be able to transform the orbits of the planets to an epicycle description, that the earth does not orbit the sun. It is a tortured transformation..

I could have a good long and rather enjoyable discussion about what "spiritual" things are.

I would at no time purport that what I see as "spiritual" things are non-existent. I believe that the things you say are spiritual exist, as real material phenomena! I can in fact point to what those phenomena are. I just don't think you would like very much where that discussion goes.

What it doesn't do is sensibly flatten the sphere of the earth.

 

[excreationist]

In terms of the general concept of 'God the Almighty' who is said to see everything. I suppose one could also say, that such an entity, could see the world as flat, when viewing from His heavenly seat in the spiritual domain/dimension. God doesn't have the human physical limitations/awarness IOW.

That reminds me of:
Isaiah 40:22
"God sits on his throne high above the earth. Its people look like grasshoppers to him. He spreads out the heavens like a cover. He sets it up like a tent to live in."

The tent and seeing everyone suggests a flat earth - if it was a ball it would be hard to put a tent on it and see all of the people like grasshoppers (unless you had x-ray vision)

The Ancient Hebrews and other ancients like the Chinese used the lunar system e.g., full moon making each month 29.5 days which has been consistent (no leap years, clocks going forward and backward etc..).

Actually there's about 29.5306 days in a lunar month...

 

[Learner]

No, learner, our world under the "vault of the sky" is not flat. Our universe may be flat, but our world is not
The only "vault" over our sky is an ever-expanding sphere of microwave radiation emitting plasma which hasn't even been there for 14 billion years, wherever it is, which will never even correlate to "here". From our perspective it's future does not exist.

From our perspective, yes ... as mere mortals, I'm ok with not knowing eveything about the universe, or the bible.

It does not follow that just because you might be able to transform the orbits of the planets to an epicycle description, that the earth does not orbit the sun. It is a tortured transformation..

ok, no dispute here.

I could have a good long and rather enjoyable discussion about what "spiritual" things are.

I would at no time purport that what I see as "spiritual" things are non-existent. I believe that the things you say are spiritual exist, as real material phenomena! I can in fact point to what those phenomena are. I just don't think you would like very much where that discussion goes.

I would be very intrigued where the discussion goes, if the topic was on spiritual things, I would gladly engage. Perhaps for another thread though, different from the topic of the OP..

What it doesn't do is sensibly flatten the sphere of the earth.

Fair enough, I haven't defended the flat earth idea anyway, only the bible.

 

[Learner]

In terms of the general concept of 'God the Almighty' who is said to see everything. I suppose one could also say, that such an entity, could see the world as flat, when viewing from His heavenly seat in the spiritual domain/dimension. God doesn't have the human physical limitations/awarness IOW.

That reminds me of:
Isaiah 40:22
"God sits on his throne high above the earth. Its people look like grasshoppers to him. He spreads out the heavens like a cover. He sets it up like a tent to live in."

All I see is a discription by mere mortal man who seems to be explaining with words available to him - that he can only fathomly describe and comprehend.

The tent and seeing everyone suggests a flat earth - if it was a ball it would be hard to put a tent on it and see all of the people like grasshoppers (unless you had x-ray vision)

Or unless you were like God? Even I, a mere mortal can see the whole world on my phone via google maps.

The Ancient Hebrews and other ancients like the Chinese used the lunar system e.g., full moon making each month 29.5 days which has been consistent (no leap years, clocks going forward and backward etc..).

Actually there's about 29.5306 days in a lunar month...

I see what you mean...

Pedantcally there's actually quite a big difference?

 

[excreationist]

In terms of the general concept of 'God the Almighty' who is said to see everything. I suppose one could also say, that such an entity, could see the world as flat, when viewing from His heavenly seat in the spiritual domain/dimension. God doesn't have the human physical limitations/awarness IOW.

That reminds me of:
Isaiah 40:22
"God sits on his throne high above the earth. Its people look like grasshoppers to him. He spreads out the heavens like a cover. He sets it up like a tent to live in."

All I see is a description by mere mortal man who seems to be explaining with words available to him - that he can only fathomly describe and comprehend.

It could have added that the people on the side of the earth near God's throne look like grasshoppers. It could say the heavens are like a shell - shells are typically around ball-shaped objects. Though the heavens are actually a huge distance away.

The tent and seeing everyone suggests a flat earth - if it was a ball it would be hard to put a tent on it and see all of the people like grasshoppers (unless you had x-ray vision)

Or unless you were like God? Even I, a mere mortal can see the whole world on my phone via google maps.

It appears to be talking about God's view from this throne above the earth. But I guess you have a point - in Google maps you have a virtual viewing location. Though you can't see people live - either you'd need to be using a satellite or a simulation.

The Ancient Hebrews and other ancients like the Chinese used the lunar system e.g., full moon making each month 29.5 days which has been consistent (no leap years, clocks going forward and backward etc..).

Actually there's about 29.5306 days in a lunar month...

I see what you mean...

... Pedantcally there is quite a big difference?

28.00000 or 29.5000000 days is very neat - and seems designed. 29.5306 days (but still not exact) appears like what you'd expect from an accident.

 

[bilby]

Though the heavens are actually a huge distance away.

Are they?

During the daytime, the blue light from the sky originates only a few km up.

Obviously the 'fixed stars' of the night sky are dramatically further away (a minimum of a few light years, and mostly much farther than that); But did the writers of Isiah know that there was such a huge difference? I suspect that they would have estimated the heavens to be pretty close by - more the distance of the daytime sky than the night sky - probably just high enough to clear the tops of the mountains.

After all, the tower of Babel is supposed to have plausibly reached (or at least nearly reached) the heavens.

 

[excreationist]

Though the heavens are actually a huge distance away.

Are they?

I mean some of the heavens are actually far away.... (according to science - not the Bible)
Genesis 1:16b-17
"He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth"

During the daytime, the blue light from the sky originates only a few km up.

Obviously the 'fixed stars' of the night sky are dramatically further away (a minimum of a few light years, and mostly much farther than that); But did the writers of Isiah know that there was such a huge difference? I suspect that they would have estimated the heavens to be pretty close by - more the distance of the daytime sky than the night sky - probably just high enough to clear the tops of the mountains.

After all, the tower of Babel is supposed to have plausibly reached (or at least nearly reached) the heavens.

Yes as usual the Bible supports the flat earth view with all of the stars being inside the firmament.

 

[Learner]

In terms of the general concept of 'God the Almighty' who is said to see everything. I suppose one could also say, that such an entity, could see the world as flat, when viewing from His heavenly seat in the spiritual domain/dimension. God doesn't have the human physical limitations/awarness IOW.

That reminds me of:
Isaiah 40:22
"God sits on his throne high above the earth. Its people look like grasshoppers to him. He spreads out the heavens like a cover. He sets it up like a tent to live in."

All I see is a description by mere mortal man who seems to be explaining with words available to him - that he can only fathomly describe and comprehend.

It could have added that the people on the side of the earth near God's throne look like grasshoppers. It could say the heavens are like a shell - shells are typically around ball-shaped objects. Though the heavens are actually a huge distance away.

It could have added that, but it may not of been that important in mind to mention.

Daniel couldn't understand his own prophecies, and was also using words available to him, that he could only describe.
He was to seal up his words for the last generations who would eventually understand it.

Daniel 12: 8-10
8. And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 9. And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 10. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

The tent and seeing everyone suggests a flat earth - if it was a ball it would be hard to put a tent on it and see all of the people like grasshoppers (unless you had x-ray vision)

Or unless you were like God? Even I, a mere mortal can see the whole world on my phone via google maps.

It appears to be talking about God's view from this throne above the earth. But I guess you have a point - in Google maps you have a virtual viewing location. Though you can't see people live - either you'd need to be using a satellite or a simulation.

The Ancient Hebrews and other ancients like the Chinese used the lunar system e.g., full moon making each month 29.5 days which has been consistent (no leap years, clocks going forward and backward etc..).

Actually there's about 29.5306 days in a lunar month...

I see what you mean...

... Pedantcally there is quite a big difference?

28.00000 or 29.5000000 days is very neat - and seems designed. 29.5306 days (but still not exact) appears like what you'd expect from an accident.

Thats a flawed way of determining design or not, when you can easily adjust 'conventional' units of time to fit exactly, by stretching the gaps between the incxrements, setting a new and precise standard.

You see I have always had a little trouble with the concept of a 'digitized perfection', like the matrix etc.. Because logically to me, It would actually be an inferiror design imo, fawlty and quite crash-prone. In short : This physical and natural world, would be far more advanced as a design, compared to, lets say, the binary code for a computer example e.g., one fault or bit error in a word byte could disrupt the whole program, etc...

The natural world, organically does NOT necessarily need to work according to increments of processing digital precision, as you seem to define it, when we see for ourselves it functions and adapts accordingly quite well, contrary to your idea. Each life form has its own timing witin its own particular life span or life cycle, depending on the various time scales it follows, just not a human one. A multitude of differing systems should in our minds, clash, but only if... we were to take the particualr view, that a perfect design means being similar to a digitized on-off state, switch universe - which imo is an inferior design.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

After all, the tower of Babel is supposed to have plausibly reached (or at least nearly reached) the heavens.

Plausibly? God feared it!

1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.

3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Ironic—because they did this to not be scattered over the face of the whole earth, but their actions actually caused the Lord to scatter them over the face of the whole earth. 10 DAMN!

 

[excreationist]

It could have added that the people on the side of the earth near God's throne look like grasshoppers. It could say the heavens are like a shell - shells are typically around ball-shaped objects. Though the heavens are actually a huge distance away.

It could have added that, but it may not of been that important in mind to mention.

If it said the heavens are like a shell around the ball of the earth then there would have been at least one Bible verse against a flat earth. BTW in the NIV Isaiah 40:22 says above "the circle of the earth".

28.00000 or 29.5000000 days is very neat - and seems designed. 29.5306 days (but still not exact) appears like what you'd expect from an accident.

Thats a flawed way of determining design or not, when you can easily adjust 'conventional' units of time to fit exactly, by stretching the gaps between the increments, setting a new and precise standard.

The 365.24238 days in a year probably has endless random seeming decimal digits. And this isn't consistent - apparently millions of years ago there were more than 400 days in a year

How long was an early Earth year?

Roughly how long did it use to take for the early Earth 4.5~ billion years ago to complete one revolution around the Sun? (I know the Earth was spinning much faster, so a day would only take 2-3 h...

astronomy.stackexchange.com

 

[Learner]

It could have added that the people on the side of the earth near God's throne look like grasshoppers. It could say the heavens are like a shell - shells are typically around ball-shaped objects. Though the heavens are actually a huge distance away.

It could have added that, but it may not of been that important in mind to mention.

If it said the heavens are like a shell around the ball of the earth then there would have been at least one Bible verse against a flat earth. BTW in the NIV Isaiah 40:22 says above "the circle of the earth".

I see what you're saying but as I said, this may not of been that important to mention, a ball earth or flat earth, and also considering this is described by the words of a mortal man who's world view of the time had no vocabulary for the cosmology we know today.

28.00000 or 29.5000000 days is very neat - and seems designed. 29.5306 days (but still not exact) appears like what you'd expect from an accident.

Thats a flawed way of determining design or not, when you can easily adjust 'conventional' units of time to fit exactly, by stretching the gaps between the increments, setting a new and precise standard.

The 365.24238 days in a year probably has endless random seeming decimal digits. And this isn't consistent -

Regardless of the variational changes through time, it has no effect in having the ability to divide 12 months and days equally, as humans can do, to mark time, as long as someone is willing to make those adjustments, to suit changes in time. And... why would a universe with variable changes be a difficult concept to grasp as design, as opposed to the concept of having exactly "rounded-off measurements units" for days in a year - exactly 365 days, or exactly 29 or 30 days in a month, not difficult to grasp as an indication of design?

apparently millions of years ago there were more than 400 days in a year

How long was an early Earth year?

Roughly how long did it use to take for the early Earth 4.5~ billion years ago to complete one revolution around the Sun? (I know the Earth was spinning much faster, so a day would only take 2-3 h...

astronomy.stackexchange.com

When I was at school as a kid, I was taught that the spin of the planet was faster and the days were much shorter. So this would mean logically, those 400 days in a year... may be a mistake on your part, and you posted hastily, or.... I'm really outdated still and millions of years ago, the days and years were "slower" than today as you're suggesting, and it's been speeding up ever since.

 

[excreationist]

If it said the heavens are like a shell around the ball of the earth then there would have been at least one Bible verse against a flat earth. BTW in the NIV Isaiah 40:22 says above "the circle of the earth".

I see what you're saying but as I said, this may not of been that important to mention, a ball earth or flat earth, and also considering this is described by the words of a mortal man who's world view of the time had no vocabulary for the cosmology we know today.

There are a large number of verses that suggest a flat earth
e.g. this talks about 200+ verses

Refuting flat earth

Refuting flat earth teachings with horizon, time zones, southern hemisphere, constellations, circumnavigation, South Pole.

creation.com

The Bible talks about numbers in their millions - surely it can talk about a shell and a ball.
If God knew the future he'd know that a significant number of people would come to believe in a flat earth - and a major reason for that is the Bible.

Regardless of the variational changes through time, it has no effect in having the ability to divide 12 months and days equally,

So then that's 30.436865 days in each month... (approximately)

as humans can do,

Actually in our culture we divide it into 28, 29, 30 or 31 day months.

to mark time, as long as someone is willing to make those adjustments, to suit changes in time. And... why would a universe with variable changes be a difficult concept to grasp as design, as opposed to the concept of having exactly "rounded-off measurements units" for days in a year - exactly 365 days, or exactly 29 or 30 days in a month, not difficult to grasp as an indication of design?

Let's say there were two situations - a solar system where there are 365.24238 days in a year and that is constantly changing - or 360.00000 days that is always exactly 360.0 days. If you were God and you wanted to show modern day atheists that you existed which would you prefer? Also you could make all of the other planets have random days and years so that the earth is obviously special.

How long was an early Earth year?

Roughly how long did it use to take for the early Earth 4.5~ billion years ago to complete one revolution around the Sun? (I know the Earth was spinning much faster, so a day would only take 2-3 h...

astronomy.stackexchange.com

When I was at school as a kid, I was taught that the spin of the planet was faster and the days were much shorter. So this would mean logically, those 400 days in a year... may be a mistake on your part, and you posted hastily, or.... I'm really outdated still and millions of years ago, the days and years were "slower" than today as you're suggesting, and it's been speeding up ever since.

Actually if you look at the link it says there are less days in a year but the days are getting longer. (there apparently used to be less than 18 hours in a day)

 

[Learner]

If it said the heavens are like a shell around the ball of the earth then there would have been at least one Bible verse against a flat earth. BTW in the NIV Isaiah 40:22 says above "the circle of the earth".

I see what you're saying but as I said, this may not of been that important to mention, a ball earth or flat earth, and also considering this is described by the words of a mortal man who's world view of the time had no vocabulary for the cosmology we know today.

There are a large number of verses that suggest a flat earth
e.g. this talks about 200+ verses

Refuting flat earth

Refuting flat earth teachings with horizon, time zones, southern hemisphere, constellations, circumnavigation, South Pole.

creation.com

The Bible talks about numbers in their millions - surely it can talk about a shell and a ball.
If God knew the future he'd know that a significant number of people would come to believe in a flat earth - and a major reason for that is the Bible.

Well there are many who don't believe in the flat earth. Quite a few well known preachers are publicly rubishing it.

Regardless of the variational changes through time, it has no effect in having the ability to divide 12 months and days equally,

So then that's 30.436865 days in each month... (approximately)

By the prefered units of measure acusstomed to ... absolutely.

as humans can do,

Actually in our culture we divide it into 28, 29, 30 or 31 day months.

Yes that's the Gregorian calender we're using today, which has alternating leap years.

to mark time, as long as someone is willing to make those adjustments, to suit changes in time. And... why would a universe with variable changes be a difficult concept to grasp as design, as opposed to the concept of having exactly "rounded-off measurements units" for days in a year - exactly 365 days, or exactly 29 or 30 days in a month, not difficult to grasp as an indication of design?

Let's say there were two situations - a solar system where there are 365.24238 days in a year and that is constantly changing - or 360.00000 days that is always exactly 360.0 days. If you were God and you wanted to show modern day atheists that you existed which would you prefer? Also you could make all of the other planets have random days and years so that the earth is obviously special.

It wouldn't matter to me as a human, to understand any concept for creation, be it exactly 360.0 days or 365.24238, It wouldn't matter to me as a creator, because there would be believers in any case, who could have been atheists once.

How long was an early Earth year?

Roughly how long did it use to take for the early Earth 4.5~ billion years ago to complete one revolution around the Sun? (I know the Earth was spinning much faster, so a day would only take 2-3 h...

astronomy.stackexchange.com

When I was at school as a kid, I was taught that the spin of the planet was faster and the days were much shorter. So this would mean logically, those 400 days in a year... may be a mistake on your part, and you posted hastily, or.... I'm really outdated still and millions of years ago, the days and years were "slower" than today as you're suggesting, and it's been speeding up ever since.

Actually if you look at the link it says there are less days in a year but the days are getting longer. (there apparently used to be less than 18 hours in a day)

Apologies, you are right here, my mistake. I was the one hastily posting not you, a brief moment of thinking in reverse. Yes of course ... shorter days would mean extra days in a given year.

 

[excreationist]

Well there are many who don't believe in the flat earth. Quite a few well known preachers are publicly rubbishing it.

But are there any Bible verses that are against a flat earth? I think Christians that are against a flat earth are basing it only on science

as humans can do,

Actually in our culture we divide it into 28, 29, 30 or 31 day months.

Yes that's the Gregorian calendar we're using today, which has alternating leap years.

But then there are further rules: "except for years evenly divisible by 100, but not by 400" - and even then it isn't fully correct.

Let's say there were two situations - a solar system where there are 365.24238 days in a year and that is constantly changing - or 360.00000 days that is always exactly 360.0 days. If you were God and you wanted to show modern day atheists that you existed which would you prefer? Also you could make all of the other planets have random days and years so that the earth is obviously special.

It wouldn't matter to me as a human, to understand any concept for creation, be it exactly 360.0 days or 365.24238, It wouldn't matter to me as a creator, because there would be believers in any case, who could have been atheists once.

Considering the Bible says that most people are going to hell eternally I thought he'd put more effort into trying to minimise this by providing a lot more evidence he exists - not just some kind of god, but the Christian God which is required to be saved.

 

[atrib]

There is a large number of things that God could have done to provide more evidence he exists. Considering the Bible says that most people are going to hell eternally I thought he'd put more effort into trying to minimise this by providing a lot more evidence he exists.

God wants people to burn in hell. why else would he create hell?

 

[excreationist]

There is a large number of things that God could have done to provide more evidence he exists. Considering the Bible says that most people are going to hell eternally I thought he'd put more effort into trying to minimise this by providing a lot more evidence he exists.

God wants people to burn in hell. why else would he create hell?

Matthew 25:41
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Though some Christians say:

Believe What the Jewish Apostles Taught -- Why Conditional Immortality Is True and Biblical

Why hell is destruction, not eternal torment. Absolute Biblical proof of conditional immortality. What was taught in the Old Testament? What did Judaism teach? In-depth discussion on Conditional Immortality, Annihilationism, Traditionalism, and more! Here are the answers/Scriptures that you...

www.jewishnotgreek.com

"It was never, never made for humans. Humans will perish in the fire, not be preserved in the fire"

 

[bilby]

There is a large number of things that God could have done to provide more evidence he exists. Considering the Bible says that most people are going to hell eternally I thought he'd put more effort into trying to minimise this by providing a lot more evidence he exists.

God wants people to burn in hell. why else would he create hell?

Matthew 25:41
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Though some Christians say:

Believe What the Jewish Apostles Taught -- Why Conditional Immortality Is True and Biblical

Why hell is destruction, not eternal torment. Absolute Biblical proof of conditional immortality. What was taught in the Old Testament? What did Judaism teach? In-depth discussion on Conditional Immortality, Annihilationism, Traditionalism, and more! Here are the answers/Scriptures that you...

www.jewishnotgreek.com

"It was never, never made for humans. Humans will perish in the fire, not be preserved in the fire"

Yeah, that's not really a defence.

It's like standing up at the Nuremberg trials and saying "I don't know what you guys are so upset about. We only targeted subhumans".

If the devil and his angels were moral agents (beings able to choose between good or bad actions), then excessive punishment (and infinite punishment for finite crimes can only be excessive) is immoral.

And if they were not moral agents, then punishment is literally insane - it puts God in the same absurd position as Basil Fawlty beating his car with a tree branch to punish it for not starting.

Cruel and unusual punishment isn't rendered acceptable, just because it's reserved for others.

 

[excreationist]

Matthew 25:41

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Though some Christians say:

Believe What the Jewish Apostles Taught -- Why Conditional Immortality Is True and Biblical

Why hell is destruction, not eternal torment. Absolute Biblical proof of conditional immortality. What was taught in the Old Testament? What did Judaism teach? In-depth discussion on Conditional Immortality, Annihilationism, Traditionalism, and more! Here are the answers/Scriptures that you...

www.jewishnotgreek.com

"It was never, never made for humans. Humans will perish in the fire, not be preserved in the fire"

Yeah, that's not really a defence.

It's like standing up at the Nuremberg trials and saying "I don't know what you guys are so upset about. We only targeted subhumans".

If the devil and his angels were moral agents (beings able to choose between good or bad actions), then excessive punishment (and infinite punishment for finite crimes can only be excessive) is immoral.

And if they were not moral agents, then punishment is literally insane - it puts God in the same absurd position as Basil Fawlty beating his car with a tree branch to punish it for not starting.

Cruel and unusual punishment isn't rendered acceptable, just because it's reserved for others.

I think eternal punishment just for immortal angels who chose to follow Satan is a huge improvement on the traditional church belief that most humans will receive eternal punishment. Note that the first sinners didn't even know what good and evil meant before they disobeyed God. I think the angels are a million times more deserving of eternal punishment than most humans are (assuming eternal punishment needs to be used at all).

 

[bilby]

Matthew 25:41

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Though some Christians say:

Believe What the Jewish Apostles Taught -- Why Conditional Immortality Is True and Biblical

Why hell is destruction, not eternal torment. Absolute Biblical proof of conditional immortality. What was taught in the Old Testament? What did Judaism teach? In-depth discussion on Conditional Immortality, Annihilationism, Traditionalism, and more! Here are the answers/Scriptures that you...

www.jewishnotgreek.com

"It was never, never made for humans. Humans will perish in the fire, not be preserved in the fire"

Yeah, that's not really a defence.

It's like standing up at the Nuremberg trials and saying "I don't know what you guys are so upset about. We only targeted subhumans".

If the devil and his angels were moral agents (beings able to choose between good or bad actions), then excessive punishment (and infinite punishment for finite crimes can only be excessive) is immoral.

And if they were not moral agents, then punishment is literally insane - it puts God in the same absurd position as Basil Fawlty beating his car with a tree branch to punish it for not starting.

Cruel and unusual punishment isn't rendered acceptable, just because it's reserved for others.

I think eternal punishment just for immortal angels who chose to follow Satan is a huge improvement on the traditional church belief that most humans will receive eternal punishment. Note that the first sinners didn't even know what good and evil meant before they disobeyed God. I think the angels are a million times more deserving of eternal punishment than most humans are.

A million times any finite number is no closer to infinity than the original number.

infinite punishment for finite crime is monstrous.

 

[excreationist]

I think eternal punishment just for immortal angels who chose to follow Satan is a huge improvement on the traditional church belief that most humans will receive eternal punishment. Note that the first sinners didn't even know what good and evil meant before they disobeyed God. I think the angels are a million times more deserving of eternal punishment than most humans are.

A million times any finite number is no closer to infinity than the original number.

infinite punishment for finite crime is monstrous.

Not only do large numbers of Christians say that eternal punishment for all unsaved humans is just, they can also say that God is infinitely loving.

 

[bilby]

I think eternal punishment just for immortal angels who chose to follow Satan is a huge improvement on the traditional church belief that most humans will receive eternal punishment. Note that the first sinners didn't even know what good and evil meant before they disobeyed God. I think the angels are a million times more deserving of eternal punishment than most humans are.

A million times any finite number is no closer to infinity than the original number.

infinite punishment for finite crime is monstrous.

Not only do large numbers of Christians say that eternal punishment for all unsaved humans is just, they also say that God is infinitely loving.

Yeah, which just goes to show how commonplace insanity is, and how vile and abhorrent apparently normal people are capable of being.

Which really shouldn't surprise anyone who has even a passing familiarity with history.

 

[Learner]

Well there are many who don't believe in the flat earth. Quite a few well known preachers are publicly rubbishing it.

But are there any Bible verses that are against a flat earth? I think Christians that are against a flat earth are basing it only on science

Verses against flat earth? Well that depends, how one sees it, for example the Christians against the flat earth, like W.C.Lane or John Lennox, also base their views of the bible on 'allegory, figure of speech, a manner of speaking'. Do you remember those debates on some of the earier threads or rather the previous forums where there were atheists who would argue that the bible was far more Allegoric than literal? The bible has it ALL, on many levels.

as humans can do,

Actually in our culture we divide it into 28, 29, 30 or 31 day months.

Yes that's the Gregorian calendar we're using today, which has alternating leap years.

But then there are further rules: "except for years evenly divisible by 100, but not by 400" - and even then it isn't fully correct.

Sure and it's not an issue, as I ve said - the idea that a creation can have variations, as I sort of summarized in a previous post.

The notion that "rounded numbers and repeatable precision, would somehow be the only means, or indication for a creation," and not the type of universe we live in - having all those variable changes (days and months as mentioned), can be problematic as I said in a previous post and may have some confliction with the simulation/ computer universe idea. although I think yours maybe a variant of that, perhaps we can discuss further sometime, on your dedicated thread.

Let's say there were two situations - a solar system where there are 365.24238 days in a year and that is constantly changing - or 360.00000 days that is always exactly 360.0 days. If you were God and you wanted to show modern day atheists that you existed which would you prefer? Also you could make all of the other planets have random days and years so that the earth is obviously special.

It wouldn't matter to me as a human, to understand any concept for creation, be it exactly 360.0 days or 365.24238, It wouldn't matter to me as a creator, because there would be believers in any case, who could have been atheists once.

Considering the Bible says that most people are going to hell eternally I thought he'd put more effort into trying to minimise this by providing a lot more evidence he exists - not just some kind of god, but the Christian God which is required to be saved.

When God's presence was around, engaging with humans through His prophets and whilst He passed judgement, there and then, as described in the OT, people still turned their backs on Him. However... since Jesus's departure... Christians have still gone out sharing the Gospel (for those who want to hear) till this day - it should be noted that despite the variations that exist as denomoinations... Christianity is the largest faith in the world.

 

[lostone]

The concept of Eternal punishment has served as justification for acts of great cruelty in punishing so-called heretics, sinners, and non-believers over the centuries. After all, from the viewpoint of clergy, such people endanger the souls of everyone else with their sins, heresies and/or non-belief, if they should cause anyone else to fall away from their faith. It served as justification for the Inquisition and rooting out paganism.

 

[steve_bank]

I know the Earth is the center of the universe, I can watch it rotatearound with my eyes.

Or, the Earth is at the center of a giant shell and those points of light are holes in the shell through which god;s light shines through.


The biblical literalist is incapable of telling the difference between fact and poetry, metaphor, allegory, and plain old story telling around the campfire.

A bucnch of nomadic camel jockeys sitting around the fire on a clear night speculating and making up stories about what te universe is, TV was yet to come, it is how they passed the time.

 

[excreationist]

Well there are many who don't believe in the flat earth. Quite a few well known preachers are publicly rubbishing it.

But are there any Bible verses that are against a flat earth? I think Christians that are against a flat earth are basing it only on science

Verses against flat earth? Well that depends, how one sees it, for example the Christians against the flat earth, like W.C.Lane or John Lennox, also base their views of the bible on 'allegory, figure of speech, a manner of speaking'. Do you remember those debates on some of the earier threads or rather the previous forums where there were atheists who would argue that the bible was far more Allegoric than literal? The bible has it ALL, on many levels.

I'd say William Lane Craig and John Lennox would say it isn't literal because their belief in a round earth is from science so they have to say that. Otherwise if it is literal and the Bible is true then they'd have to conclude that the earth is flat - which would make them a laughing stock.

 

[excreationist]

.....A bunch of nomadic camel jockeys sitting around the fire on a clear night speculating and making up stories about what the universe is, TV was yet to come, it is how they passed the time.

The New Testament also seems to have no verses against a flat earth and many that imply one.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'd say William Lane Craig and John Lennox ... they'd have to conclude that the earth is flat - which would make them a laughing stock.

I mean, they already are laughing stocks.

 

[excreationist]

I'd say William Lane Craig and John Lennox ... they'd have to conclude that the earth is flat - which would make them a laughing stock.

I mean, they already are laughing stocks.

I mean in an even worse way - amongst many fellow Christians.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'd say William Lane Craig and John Lennox ... they'd have to conclude that the earth is flat - which would make them a laughing stock.

I mean, they already are laughing stocks.

I mean in an even worse way - amongst many fellow Christians.

I mean... I can't help but think this is still already the case.

 

[excreationist]

I'd say William Lane Craig and John Lennox ... they'd have to conclude that the earth is flat - which would make them a laughing stock.

I mean, they already are laughing stocks.

I mean in an even worse way - amongst many fellow Christians.

I mean... I can't help but think this is still already the case.

I think both are against a young earth and Lennox at least is well respected - I mean Christians have given me books of his. I get the impression that mainly the only Christians against them are young earthers and flat earthers.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'd say William Lane Craig and John Lennox ... they'd have to conclude that the earth is flat - which would make them a laughing stock.

I mean, they already are laughing stocks.

I mean in an even worse way - amongst many fellow Christians.

I mean... I can't help but think this is still already the case.

I think both are against a young earth and Lennox at least is well respected - I mean Christians have given me books of his. I get the impression that mainly the only Christians against them are young earthers and flat earthers.

I mean Craig's butchery of logic in his Kalam Cosmological argument presents such that a half-braindead high schooler could recognize the circularity of it.

 

[excreationist]

I mean Craig's butchery of logic in his Kalam Cosmological argument presents such that a half-braindead high schooler could recognize the circularity of it.

It is difficult to make a proof for God water-tight when God doesn't exist (or my belief - that it exists but intentionally is impossible to prove to skeptics)

Kalam cosmological argument - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Though I'm not sure how he argues that God is "personal" (which I also believe in)

 

[Jarhyn]

I mean Craig's butchery of logic in his Kalam Cosmological argument presents such that a half-braindead high schooler could recognize the circularity of it.

It is difficult to make a proof for God water-tight when God doesn't exist

Which is why they are, in many ways, laughing stocks.

 

[lostone]

We cannot say God exists or does not exist; it is all a best guess, based on how we interpret the evidence, and even what we consider to be evidence. Much of the logic that makes people adopt theism seems to me to be based on a desire to make it personal. IMHO, the description of the properties of the being most people give of what God is sounds like a description of a being who likely does not exist, by people who very much want such a being to exist.

 

[bilby]

Well there are many who don't believe in the flat earth. Quite a few well known preachers are publicly rubbishing it.

But are there any Bible verses that are against a flat earth? I think Christians that are against a flat earth are basing it only on science

Verses against flat earth? Well that depends, how one sees it, for example the Christians against the flat earth, like W.C.Lane or John Lennox, also base their views of the bible on 'allegory, figure of speech, a manner of speaking'. Do you remember those debates on some of the earier threads or rather the previous forums where there were atheists who would argue that the bible was far more Allegoric than literal? The bible has it ALL, on many levels.

I'd say William Lane Craig and John Lennox would say it isn't literal because their belief in a round earth is from science so they have to say that. Otherwise if it is literal and the Bible is true then they'd have to conclude that the earth is flat - which would make them a laughing stock.

If those guys don't want to be a laughingstock, I have some very bad news for them.

 

[bilby]

I'd say William Lane Craig and John Lennox ... they'd have to conclude that the earth is flat - which would make them a laughing stock.

I mean, they already are laughing stocks.

GMTA

 

[bilby]

We cannot say God exists or does not exist

Yeah, we can.

I mean, as much as we can say anything exists or doesn't exist. Amateur and novice philosophers might find solipsism appealing, but ultimately reality is real, and Gods aren't.

 

[excreationist]

We cannot say God exists or does not exist....

So then watertight arguments that "prove" that God exists can't be made.... ? (or that "prove" that no gods exist)

 

[lostone]

Watertight arguments of any sort are hard to come by - I have none of them, have heard none of them, and have my doubts about the claims of those who claim to have such. Every argument I have ever heard can be challenged sufficiently to throw some doubt on it.

 

[bilby]

Watertight arguments of any sort are hard to come by - I have none of them, have heard none of them, and have my doubts about the claims of those who claim to have such. Every argument I have ever heard can be challenged sufficiently to throw some doubt on it.

But why is 'some doubt' the standard?

'Reasonable doubt' is a better alternative. Maybe even 'a preponderance of evidence'.

We don't acquit someone of murder because their lawyers argue that the twenty eye-witness accounts of them doing it, and the dozens of pieces of forensic evidence, could have been convincingly faked by a sufficiently powerful, but currently unknown, party or parties.

It's impossible to prove that the whole thing isn't a set up to frame the defendant; Yet despite this, murderers are routinely convicted by juries.

God claims are typically far less convincing than that pathetic travesty of a legal defence.

If something could be true, but only if we discard General Relativity or Quantum Field Theory, then in sane layman's terms, it's false.

No reasonable person accepts that Russell's Teapot exists. There's no evidence to support its existence, and for it to exist would require a lot of things that are very well established as almost certainly true, to in fact turn out to be false. Gods, as described by current Abrahamic sects, are less plausible than Russell's Teapot. They require contraventions of scientific law that the teapot does not.

You would be considered a nutter, if you appealed for others to at least respect the beliefs of those who think there really is a teapot orbiting somewhere in the asteroid belt. And yet appeals to respect the beliefs of those who think gods are real are somehow immune from ridicule.

But such appeals are ridiculous.

When the absolute BEST evidence for the existence of a hypothesised entity is "We cannot prove with complete certainty that it doesn't exist", the only sane provisional stance to take is "it doesn't exist". That's just as true of gods as it is of cosmic teapots.

Watertight arguments are an absurd and unreasonable standard. That gods do not exist is WAAAAAY beyond a reasonable doubt. That ought to be good enough for anyone with the slightest respect for reality.

 

[excreationist]

I mean Craig's butchery of logic in his Kalam Cosmological argument presents such that a half-braindead high schooler could recognize the circularity of it.

Though you can't have a watertight argument for the existence of God maybe you could at least have an argument that is less circular than Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument... or are all arguments for the existence of God circular?

 

[Learner]

Well there are many who don't believe in the flat earth. Quite a few well known preachers are publicly rubbishing it.

But are there any Bible verses that are against a flat earth? I think Christians that are against a flat earth are basing it only on science

Verses against flat earth? Well that depends, how one sees it, for example the Christians against the flat earth, like W.C.Lane or John Lennox, also base their views of the bible on 'allegory, figure of speech, a manner of speaking'. Do you remember those debates on some of the earier threads or rather the previous forums where there were atheists who would argue that the bible was far more Allegoric than literal? The bible has it ALL, on many levels.

I'd say William Lane Craig and John Lennox would say it isn't literal because their belief in a round earth is from science so they have to say that. Otherwise if it is literal and the Bible is true then they'd have to conclude that the earth is flat - which would make them a laughing stock.

Possibly yeah, if that were the case.

And on that....

... Do you think, they believe in the flat earth and they're are pretending they don't ?

"No case 'me lud'... wasting court's time".

 

[excreationist]

Possibly yeah, if that were the case.

And on that....

... Do you think, they believe in the flat earth and they're are pretending they don't ?

"No case 'me lud'... wasting court's time".

They tend to prioritize mainstream science over always taking the Bible literally - so they would reject the possibility of a flat earth. On the other hand there are people like Young Earth Creationists, etc (who take the global Flood, etc, literally). Then there is the late Bishop John Shelby Spong who disbelieves in the virgin birth due to science, etc. Same with Martin Luther King Jr.

John Shelby Spong - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[steve_bank]

Well there are many who don't believe in the flat earth. Quite a few well known preachers are publicly rubbishing it.

But are there any Bible verses that are against a flat earth? I think Christians that are against a flat earth are basing it only on science

Verses against flat earth? Well that depends, how one sees it, for example the Christians against the flat earth, like W.C.Lane or John Lennox, also base their views of the bible on 'allegory, figure of speech, a manner of speaking'. Do you remember those debates on some of the earier threads or rather the previous forums where there were atheists who would argue that the bible was far more Allegoric than literal? The bible has it ALL, on many levels.

I'd say William Lane Craig and John Lennox would say it isn't literal because their belief in a round earth is from science so they have to say that. Otherwise if it is literal and the Bible is true then they'd have to conclude that the earth is flat - which would make them a laughing stock.

Possibly yeah, if that were the case.

And on that....

... Do you think, they believe in the flat earth and they're are pretending they don't ?

"No case 'me lud'... wasting court's time".

No rational person can believe interpretations of cosmology and physical realities from the bible are truths. The literalist who believes the bible is all literal truth have to find ways to interpret scripture to match realty, or claim reality matches the bible.

 

[Learner]

Well there are many who don't believe in the flat earth. Quite a few well known preachers are publicly rubbishing it.

But are there any Bible verses that are against a flat earth? I think Christians that are against a flat earth are basing it only on science

Verses against flat earth? Well that depends, how one sees it, for example the Christians against the flat earth, like W.C.Lane or John Lennox, also base their views of the bible on 'allegory, figure of speech, a manner of speaking'. Do you remember those debates on some of the earier threads or rather the previous forums where there were atheists who would argue that the bible was far more Allegoric than literal? The bible has it ALL, on many levels.

I'd say William Lane Craig and John Lennox would say it isn't literal because their belief in a round earth is from science so they have to say that. Otherwise if it is literal and the Bible is true then they'd have to conclude that the earth is flat - which would make them a laughing stock.

Possibly yeah, if that were the case.

And on that....

... Do you think, they believe in the flat earth and they're are pretending they don't ?

"No case 'me lud'... wasting court's time".

No rational person can believe interpretations of cosmology and physical realities from the bible are truths. The literalist who believes the bible is all literal truth have to find ways to interpret scripture to match realty, or claim reality matches the bible.

Even if the bible is true... you'd be exactly in the same position. Cosmology and the current understanding of the cosmic universe just isn't enough, either way!

Theists don't usually claim, if at all, that the reason they believe in the bible is "because of physics". Trying to argue through physics (theoretical), for or against the bible is a dead-end debate. Now with the tangible things in our hands i.e., history, pyschology, archeology, geology,, biology and chemical processes, That's where the argument will be etc..

 

[bilby]

Cosmology and the current understanding of the cosmic universe just isn't enough

Well it's all we have, and pretending otherwise is infantile and pointless.

 

[steve_bank]

Just isn't enough in what way?

No one says we can uncover and know everything. Those of us on the science side are content with saying I do not know.

If all humans necked down to those on the Ark as the bible flood story says, how did all the racial and cultutal civilizations arise in so short of a time post flood? Not just that, a global flood would have destroyed the entire ecosystem.

 

[excreationist]

If all humans necked down to those on the Ark as the bible flood story says, how did all the racial and cultural civilizations arise in so short of a time post flood? Not just that, a global flood would have destroyed the entire ecosystem.

According to creationists what happened after the Tower of Babel is the explanation for the different races.

How Many Races Did God Create?

Some people think the Bible justifies their racist attitudes. Yet when we examine what the Bible says about the origin of different people groups, we find a different story.

answersingenesis.org

And they talk about genetics:

 

[bilby]

If all humans necked down to those on the Ark as the bible flood story says, how did all the racial and cultural civilizations arise in so short of a time post flood? Not just that, a global flood would have destroyed the entire ecosystem.

According to creationists what happened after the Tower of Babel is the explanation for the different races.

How Many Races Did God Create?

Some people think the Bible justifies their racist attitudes. Yet when we examine what the Bible says about the origin of different people groups, we find a different story.

answersingenesis.org

And they talk about genetics:

That's not talk, it's a cartoon that portrays something that is absolutely contradicted by even a cursory glance at reality.

It's got less relationship with actual genetics than a South Pacific Cargo Cult mockup has with a modern international airport.

This is like what a five year old would come up with if he was trying to copy his thirteen year old cousin's genetics homework. It says nothing whatsoever about genetics, except "The originator of the graphic doesn't know shit about genetics".

It's a massive insult to everyone since Mendel who has ever given a moment of thought to how inheritance of traits might work.

 

[excreationist]

And they talk about genetics:

That's not talk, it's a cartoon that portrays something that is absolutely contradicted by even a cursory glance at reality.

It's got less relationship with actual genetics than a South Pacific Cargo Cult mockup has with a modern international airport.

This is like what a five year old would come up with if he was trying to copy his thirteen year old cousin's genetics homework. It says nothing whatsoever about genetics, except "The originator of the graphic doesn't know shit about genetics".

It's a massive insult to everyone since Mendel who has ever given a moment of thought to how inheritance of traits might work.

What about this:

Are different human skin colours explained by Adam and Eve having a mix of dominant and recessive genes?

The original question was: How can you explain all the different skin colours if the whole human race is descended from one couple? I heard a creation speaker claim it is because Adam and Eve…

askjohnmackay.com

Parents Genes: AaBb and AaBb
Possible Re-combinations in next Generation:

I think that's how alleles or whatever can work. It also distinguishes between dominant and recessive genes or something like that.

Can a couple have a baby that is significantly darker or lighter than either individual?

www.thetech.org

“Can a couple have a baby that is significantly darker or lighter than either individual?”
The short answer is, yes!

Similar to the creationist chart - though it is saying that they wouldn't have the full range from very light to very dark - just significantly lighter and darker.

Also:
"Here, even though the child has the same number of black and red cards as either parent, the child is much, much lighter than either parent because of those two queens of hearts."

Though according to creationists this double queen of hearts wouldn't be in the first generation and the point is that all of the skin colours could have descended from Adam and Eve - though creationists were saying that you could have very light and very dark in a single generation.