Why do you believe what you believe

[souloe]

1. grand canyon
The grand canyon carved by water over millions of years... Can't say I buy your point unless you should bring up proof. Is it an assumption or is it proven with the same solid proof you require to believe in God?

2. population from two
As for two individuals you have indeed only focused on one section of what the Bible says and ignored others. Perhaps unintentional but I can tell you that you did. How long did the oldest person live? Methuselah, recorded to live pass the age of 900. Noah too lived more than 900 years and yet after the flood, we can see the lifespan man decreasing till it is approximately what we have today.

Why do you think man can live till 900? Even with our modern technology and medical advances we can hardly reach half that age. Don't you at least suspect that there was something different then than now? And the timing as well, after the flood. According to the Bible the gates of heavens opened and water came down. 40 days and 40 nights the water flooded the earth. Where do you think the water went? Where do you think it came from? Do you normally see 40 days and 40 nights of rain consecutive without stop? Do you think mere clouds can be the cause of such a rain? Yet what if the water was already there above the earth? The bible said... (NIV) Gen1

"6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day."

water seperate from water and the expance between is called sky. If there was a canopy of water above the earth then without a doubt the condition of the earth itself would be much different from it is now. In addition, the age transformation may be exactly what you are talking about in terms of gene depreciating by interbreeding. What do you think?

3. global flood
Global flood proven false? Very good that you make that statement. Now lets hear the proofs you have to support it.

4. doubt the Bible
You say that there is much uncertainty in the Bible that you can doubt it. I can't say that I see any merit in that statement. What people make of the text does not change the text itself. No one changed the text to fit what they believe to be true, not that I know of at least. What the Bible doesn't say explicitly only means that the Bible did not touch in details on that point. Perhaps because it is irrelovent in terms of the message it wants to present? Have you thought about that? Did you expect all the universe's knowledge to be written in the Bible in clear details?

Now, you claim that there are contraditions in the Bible. If lets say, there was, I would assume that the rest of the world, people more intelligent than I, would have published it and printed it on newspaper. "The Bible is a hoax! Fooled more than half the world!" Or something on that line. If you truely believe that your point is solid, i would have to question why the rest of the world - scientists, philosophers, etc. - have not openly bashed the Bible. I mean, they have made a figure of Jesus Christ using dung and called it art. Why not do something mroe direct and crash the Bible down? Unless, perhaps you know more about the Bible then them and saw it before anyone else did? That could be a possibility. What do you think?

5. The bible
The Bible has been under attack for as long as it has been about. Why do you think that it can stand against all those attacks and still remain with such importance in the hearts of many? If it was a mythical book written thousands of years ago, shouldn't there be at least some flaw - since it was written by humans - that the "modern science based world" can refute and shut it down? Why do you think it still stands today? Fluke?

6. Evolution
Of course it'd be easier for you to go on the defensive. However, I actually want to see the proofs - since you stated that there are many - for evolution. If we went the reverse, it would defeat the purpose of me asking you to bring proof in the first place. As well, if evolution is true, then isn't this a good chance for you to strengthen your believe/defense for "why you believe what you believe"?  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

Regarding the Grand Canyon.

I'm not sure how much proof you require. Textbooks upon textbooks exist detailing the processes of erosion and sedimentary geology. Specific dating processes have placed the ages of various levels within the strata of the canyon, which I think alone should prove the slow process of the carving (had it been carved all at once, the dates of the minerals would all be the same, due to their simultaneous exposure). Unfortunately, while I certainly have a background in it, I do not have a degree in geology, so I probably wouldn't be able to explain the finer details to you with my limited knowledge. However, I can point you in the direction of some very capable people that can.

http://www.usgs.gov/
http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/index.htm

Regarding the population of two.

Indeed, my arguments have been simply entertaining the idea of a founding population of two. That said, I can assure you that I do not believe this is so, along with the fabled ages of Methuselah and Noah, the flood, and various other myths in the bible. Can you prove that these people existed? That the flood occurred? Modern scientists have rejected these myths as literal not because they don't believe in a deity (many of them, like many people) are Christian, and only disregard them because they do not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Regarding the global flood.

Can you prove it to be true? I can show you evidence that it is false. The most compelling argument for the flood exists in criticism of radiocarbon and other dating methods used by modern geologists. Yet none of those who have criticized the dating method has made any impact on the scientific community, nor the community of the world itself. Like you state below, don't you think that if the flood had been proven true, it would have made waves and waves of news? And yet, the prevailing scientific belief among the world is still that the planet is billions of years old, and that a flood of that magnitude has never occurred. However (and this incorporates your fourth and fifth points), as many scientists are Christian, and the majority of nations in power, very few scientists would be willing to go to the lengths required to "disprove" the bible.

You don't have to change the text to fit what people believe to be true, but recall in an earlier argument I presented that nobody speaks ancient Hebrew any more, and that the translations of words, ceremonies, and culture is highly subjective, and can change the meaning of the text based on decisions the interpreters choose to make. How long do you think any building would remain standing if it came out and claimed it had proof that the bible was false? Religious extremists would burn it within days, if not hours, and thousands would applaud their actions. The fact that people still don't believe in the bible should be proof enough that it is not absolute, for if it was, then anyone who reads it would immediately be converted. It stands today for a variety of reasons, because of fear, of people's interpretations, and of apathy, to name a few. There are still texts of the Quran and the Torah, still remaining in the hearts of many, written thousands of years ago, and they contradict the bible in their own ways. IF they were truly false (as you probably believe they are), why are they still around?

Regarding evolution.

Yes, it would certainly be easier for me to go on the defensive, that much we can agree on. As for proof, the alternative would be a more or less magical snap of cosmic fingers, popping everything into creation without so much as a word. Is this scientifically viable at all? Not especially. But here I have some common examples of evolutionary evidence.

-Fossils: Yes, fossils are a large part of evolution. However, if you reject the concepts of scientific dating, an old Earth, and other such things, fossils probably won't do much for you. Basically, fossils provide us with a timeline of changing forms and species, illustrating the evolutionary process.
-Speciation: The appearance of new species proves evolution works, and is on going today. Whether it's new strains of bacterial, viral, or other diseases, organisms adapt to their situations for survival. This has also been observed in the finches of the Galapagos, the marsupials of Australia, or the millions upon millions of unidentified speices in the Amazon rainforest. Here are some examples of observed instances of speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5
-Comparative Anatomy: As we all evolved from similar ancestors, it would only make sense for us to have similar structures. These have been found and identified. It's large, but here's an example: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5b/Evolution_pl.png Did you know that embryos of various species from across biology are all strikingly similar as well? All vertebrates even start off with gills, despite not all of use living in water, or using them.

All in all, evolution, as far as modern science is concerned, is both a theory (scientifically speaking, not meaning a guess or hypothesis) and a fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

Other references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology

If there's anything that you don't understand, don't hesitate to ask, although I'm sure you won't.  

[DragonaRider]

I'm been raised to belive in god. I beleive in God but hate church or suday school or anything like that. The holidays are great but i don't like church.  

[souloe]

whew, lotsa reading. not the best when irl is busy as is. but alas, I'll comment on what I can

1. grand canyon
I've looked at the two links for grand canyon. the first one has no info on that page and if its somewhere else, please send me that link instead. and the second has zero proof that it was carved over many years. Rather, it only states it. I hope you didn't think that was proof...

2. population of two
So now you have avoided the system altogether have you not? First you say its contradictory but when I have proved that it is not, you simply refute it all with a single swipe. Not bad in terms of technique but when pinpointed out it seems rather weak. er... hope you don't mind me saying so. I've been into this speech techniques trend for the past...don't know how long.

3. people exist
as for proving people exist. Can you prove Alexander the great existed? Yes you can. How? historical records. ie. manuscripts, texts. As long as they are credible they can be used to prove Alexander's existance at one point in time. By the same reasoning, the Bible is credible that it can be used as the proof that those people existed. Unless, of course, you can refute the Bible - which I have yet to see.

4. flood exist
Do you know how fossils come to be? Using this knowledge scientists have unanimously agreed that many fossils must have been created during a flood. They merely don't believe that it is a universal flood.

You said that the different dating methods prove the flood to be false. But if you would say that, could you also tell me how they prove the flood to be false? Call me uninformed but merely stating they prove the flood to be false doesn't really cut it.

You said that if the universal flood has been proven true then it would make the news. But did the disproving of the flood make the news? Not that I see. Which means that your statement of refuting the flood is also a mere claim not officially accepted - at least not solid enough that can be posted on the news.

5. old earth
now I'm not saying whether or not that it is, but if you say that it is and that scientists believe that it is. Would you mind bringing up proof? since that is, of course, what you asked of for proving God exists. You asked for 100% so for yourself to make any statement, please do what you yourself as asked others to do. Your own request is not too demanding is it?

6. scientists won't go to disprove the Bible
Now, you really don't realize how wrong you can be by making that statement do you? There are many scientists out there who completely refuse christianity becuase they believe there is no God. And amongst those, can you be absolutely sure that no one has tried to disprove the Bible? Christianity is one of the most attacked religion since its creation. did you knwo that at one point someone used dung to make a scupture of Jesus and called it art? Did you know Christians are persecuted around the globe? There are many countries that will torture and even kill you if you are a Christian. Take China for example. Did you know China bans Christianity? They set up their own skewed version and persecutes Christians. How many billion people? Amongst them, how many scientists? Are they all Christians? If the entire country is against Christianity, why not just prove the Bible false? simple, quick, done. The reason they dont' is not because they choose not to, but because they can't.

7. scientists reject
You claim that modern scientists have rejected these myths as literal because they do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Good. Bring up those scrutiny and lets see why you believe what you believe. I would love to see the supports and proofs behind that statement of yours. Regardless of your claims, without support you're doing a worse job than me at proving God exists XP

((man I'm in such weird mood today...lol))

8. text
No one speaks ancient Hebrew. Does that mean that ancient hyroglyphic readers are just a waste of time? Does it mean that those texts are bs because their translations may varie for the same reason that you brought up? People actually use those stuff for proofs of different things. By making the claim that you made you would have to refute all the stuff that they have proven.

As for people burning buildings that is claimd to be proof against the Bible. Didn't you yourself tell me that people don't believe in the bible? If the building was to be burned - and this is merely a raw no-support assumption that you are making - would the opposing parties come out and report it immediately? Same reason for translating the Bible. How many translators do you think there has been? And how many people have been looking at the Bible to check its accuracy against the manuscripts? If there was any hoax, dont' you think it'd be known well by now? We are, afterall, a speed and info driven world/society.

Quran. That's an easy one. Muslims believe that any translated Quran is not the original and therefore no longer the Quran. And anyone using that language is probably a muslim themselves. Have you seen how extreme they can be? Oh lets just say... 911? If you said something against the Quran what do you think could possible happen to you? Now, if you actually study their text you'd see that it has contradicting stuff. like... at the beginning of the book it says something to the effect treat Jews well but near the end it is no longer that but rather it is opposite. Now, I can't speak muslim and I most certainly didn't read the Quran. but from what I've heard, that's the case. I'm sure you can tell me more if you decide to go study it.

Torah. If I have not mistaken, it is a book of teachings and parables and such for the Jews. You don't usually go and prove parables wrong do you? They are used to bring out a message. Now don't get me wrong, I have not read the Torah either so i wouldn't know how accurate or how true it is.

but in essence, that is the reason why i think they are still around.

9. evolution
you state Creation as some weird non-scientific based thing. Yet with the existance of the universe I have already proven to you that the universe was willed into being. Have you neglected that proof? Or just disregarded it in general? Was my proving all for your mere amusement that you would brush away because it is not in your line of thought?

Fossils: Good. I like to see how fossils prove evolution to be true. Show me some examples of transitional fossils - fossils of the inbetween stage - since evolution supposedly happened over billions of years right? examples, lets hear it. I'm sure there would be at least 10 good ones right? Being how much time there was for the process.

Speciation: appearance of new species? unidentified? How does that prove evolution? If you don't have proof that the reason for this phenomena is evoultion, can I not also say God made new creatures? Perhaps you can give me something more solid? Microevolution happens within a specie, that I know. but i have yet to come across any solid proof of Macroevolution where species evolve into another species. Could be that its just me lacking in info of course.

Comparative Anatomy: As we have all been created by the same creator, it would only make sense for us to have similar structures. You have proven their similarity for me. Now, you have interpreted this phenomena as evolution. but you have no proof. therefore, if I give the same amount of proof - which is zero - I can also interpret it as a common creator. Artists have similar styles in their paintings do they not? So why not a creator similar style in his creation?

And did you know that the embryos thing has been proven false? Search it up, I'm sure you'd find it rather interesting.

er... did you actuall read the "evolutionary_as_theory_and_fact" thing? It provides no proof of evolution being true but merely states that it is a fact using 1 to 2 examples of microevolution. Other stuff as well they don't even give support... not the best support at all...

Now, I have taken the time and effort to type out many of my arguments to you but you have merely wiki-ed alot of stuff. I am not as free a man as I used to be. Would you mind concising the arguments and then posting them directly here? Also, if you yourself have not read through the documents then I'm wasting my time in making any comments. So please, read through it, process it and then post them in your own words. Prove to me that evolution is true. Stop wiki-ing me. I'm getting tired of reading so many documents each nth-pages long.  

[R i o k u]

You know, for someone who is supposed to be filled with faith, you sure ask for a lot of proof.

You can't prove the bible is true. Just like you can't prove the bible false. People interpret it differently, so opinions and 'facts' on what is true or not varies depending on the person.

And Souloe, the bible is not proof that people in it existed. If I wrote a book right now detailing the life of someone who doesn't exist...well, what is the difference? I think Boy Zero was saying that historically, the bible and a few other scriptures are the only 'proof' that those people existed.

This paragraph might help you a bit if you are still stuck on the Grand Canyon thing.

The rocks of the Grand Canyon reveal an ancient geologic history that is rich and complex. All three basic rock types with sedimentary, metamorphic and igneous origins are represented within its walls, terraces, mesas and buttes. A vertical mile of formations underlying its rim have been exposed by the erosional processes creating it, revealing strata and formations ranging in age from mid Phanerozoic Eon (about 250 million years old) at the rim, to mid Proterozoic Eon (about 1.75 billion years old) along deep cut portions of the inner gorge where the Colorado River runs. The still ongoing erosion carving the Grand Canyon below its rim and exposing these primordial rocks is very young in terms of geologic time and was triggered by an uplift 'pulse' within the Colorado Plateau region that began approximately 6 million years ago.

 

[souloe]

1. Faith
faith, proof, rather interesting stuff wouldn't you say? If I provided no basis for my believes you would probably call me non-scientific, arragant, or maybe even supersticious. Yet if we look at the thread topic it says "why do you believe what you believe". What do you think it means? Just stating the "what" and leaving out the "why"? dboyzero asked me for my proofs and in return I merely ask him for his. Do you think that is wrong or unacceptable? Isn't it the purpose of the thread to begin with?

2. Bible
Actually yes I can prove the Bible to be true. Using the same methods they use to determine if texts, such as "the Illiad" and "Oddesy" or other ancient manuscripts, are valid I can prove the Bible also to be valid and creadible - more than many other already accepted texts I would have to add.

Bible not a proof? You must not really understand the Bible or the history surrounding it if you could make that claim. The difference between you writing a story and the Bible is the timezone. Today we are in an information based society where many people can read or write. However, if we look back historically, not everyone can read or write. The individuals entrusted with the task of copying the scriptures were called scribes. And you must realize, only the most devout Jews were allowed to study in this art.

Lets look at the old testiment persay. It contains the Israelite's history and their God. Don't you think they would give a little more respect and reverence when writing it? Especially when literate people are not as common as they are today? The Israelites - even today - are "very religious" you might say. They have such reverence to their God that I highly doubt they would fabricate AnYthing. Do you know how much reverence the scribes had when writting/copying the texts? Looking historically you would find that the scribes had to do a 15minutes ceremonious washing of hands everytime they are going to write the word "God". Try copying Genesis using that method, how long do you think it would take? How long would the first chapter take? Do you think you or I would do such a thing for no reason? Furthermore if you compare the dead sea scrolls(150BC) and our next oldest manuscripts(masoretic text: 900AD) you would find striking accuracy. That's approximately a millenium with enough accuracy that no one has yet to post on newspaper that the Bible is a hoax. Normally you would expect the text to be like the telephone game and have many deviations, yet that is not the case. Due to the reason it was written, the time it was written and the reverence that was given I can assure you, this is not a book of fabricated myths.

3. using Bible as proof
If credible texts can not be used as proof, why do you believe that Alexander the Great existed? Why do you believe Napolean existed? You can't see him now can you?

4. grand canyon
I appreciate you posting what you did but... how does that prove anything? It makes statements yes but...perhaps I'm a little slow, but please, do educate me on how it is proof.  

[R i o k u]

The bible is true in the context that the texts were written by real people at the time accurately presented in the bible. But you can't really prove that the stories and myths in the bible are true. That is why you have faith, you trust in the bible like you trust in your God. If you weren't 100% sure of all the facts and speculations surrounding your religion, you wouldn't be ignorant. You would be faithful.

Would I believe Napoleon existed? Of course, he inspired a revolution for his country and changed Europe. You don't need texts to know that. The same with Alexander. At such a young age, he conquered a continent! There is no need to prove that by just using texts. They were such big events, that more then texts survive detailing their accomplishments. Moses on the other hand...all we HAVE is the bible to tell us he existed. And not everyone takes the bible as being true.

I am going to try and explain the Grand Canyon thing on my own to you. Because obviously you still aren't getting it and maybe I can simplify it for you.

So sedimentary rock is caused by the deposition of sediments and dregs from rivers being compressed over millions of years to create rock layers. You probab;y have some sort of sedimentary rock my your house if you looked. Anyways, erosion is caused my natural elements wearing down the rock (wuch as wind and water). The creation of the grand canyon was caused by the river slowly taking off layers of the sedimentary rock, eroding it . How can you prove this you ask? If you were to look at the walls of the canyon, you would see the layers of sedimentary rock cut from the main piece. We know the river did this, because the cuts in the rock follow the course of the river. Other elements probably had a part in it too. Think of sedimentary rock as a sandwich if you will. The layers work like that. Get it now?

 

[souloe]

1. Bible
Oh? If you want to talk about proving miracles then lets talk about the most important miracle in the entire message. Jesus Christ died on the cross and raised from the dead. Jesus the man is no longer in question, but Jesus the God is the one people doubt. If He was indeed raised from the dead, then obviously this is something supernatural and gives credibility to his claim as God. But did it really happen? That is one of the core of Christianity and I'm sure you know that if Jesus remained dead then our faith is also a dead faith.

However, the existance of Christianity in itself is the first proof that Jesus Christ did rise from the dead. The time gap between the event and the "religion" is much too close for anything to become fabricated or mythical. Anyone from the time - especially the Jews and the Romans that were persecuting Christians - could simply stand up and say "I was there, that did not happen" and all of Christianity would have fallen to shambles. But did that happen? no, of course.

Next we have the eyewitnesses. Many people saw Jesus after his death and at one point, over 500 witnesses saw Jesus rise to heaven. These same witnesses became one of the first of what we call "Christians". On court, why do you need eye witness? If you crash a car, why do you want to find eye witness to say it was not your fault? Because eyewitness have credibility and can be used as proof.

but were the eyewitnesses credible? Of course they were. They were persecuted extensively for this message that they believed. Would you be willing endure tortured for something you know is a lie? Be willing to go to the point of death? How about upside down crucifixion on a cross? Hung naked with nails driven into your wrist - where major artery and nervous systems are - and into your legs. If you knew it was a lie, wouldn't it be easier to just go "okay, I lied, now stop torturing me"

As said before, Jesus the man is not in question. He died and was buried, that was all written in more sources than just the Bible. But the question remains, did he raise from the dead? If he did not then his body should obvious remain in the tomb. Dead people don't just walk around in real life, at least, not that I know of. He was wrapped head to toe in linnen enough that he should be immobile even if he was alive. In addition he was guarded by a huge tombstone and roman soldiers. Now, if He was not God could he have left the tomb by Himself? I highly doubt the possibiliy. What if the disciples stole the body? that is even worse of a theory. who were the disciples? fisherman, tax collectors, how many of them do you think can outmatch trained soldiers? and of all soldiers, they were roman soldiers. If you knwo history, you'd knwo roman soldiers at the time are exceptionally well trained. Now how then, did Christianity thrive? His body should have remained in the tomb right? dead and so Christianity. But it is not and there is no body if you go to the tomb now. How do you explain that?

There is more proof to the Bible than you may have realized. Just because you have not done research to find them does not mean that they are not there. But yes, I do appreciate you asking. At least, now you know why I believe what I believe.

2. faith
faith is believing in what we can not see. I don't claim to have a master's degree on faith but if I had none to begin with, I most certainly would not have come across these proofs to back my faith. It is not because I have proof that I have faith but it is because I had faith that i received proof.

3. Napolean, Alexander
now, where did you hear all that? taught at school, written on text maybe? What other proofs other than recorded texts do you think there are to support that these two people existed? You say he conquered a continent, but if we search up the actual source, where do you think people got the idea? From text and from word of mouth. And by text I mean written records whether it was written on tablet as did the romans or on papyrus and walls like the egyptians or other methods. now of course, I could be wrong, but you would have to prove me so.

As for moses, we have equivilant amount of proof. Israel is your proof. Within their country's history you find Moses. They have both written text as well as word of mouth that Moses did exist. And texts of course, are not the only proof that Biblical events happened. Lets take Jericho for example. Joshua and the Israelites destroyed it. True? Yes, we have now archeological finds of the city remains to back that history. Just text? Maybe not.

4. grand canyon
sedimentary rock. Do fogive me here because I am not spewing from knowledge but from logic. If say, rather than using the explaination you have provided we say the grand canyon was created by the universal flood. Is that possible? enough water to cover the earth would mean enough water to cover even mt. Everest which signifies extensive pressure. Raining and distrubuting water would ensure waterflow and pull and create the layers. Erosion is caused by water you have said but is it not also possible when high speed/power/pressure water -such as the universal flood- can also deal the same effect as a river erosion over many years? If they are both plausible how do you prove it is one and not the other? You say the river did this because the cuts in the rock follow the course of the river. Can we not also say the reverse? that after the rock was cut what water remained became the river? It is actually with these questions that I wonder how you can prove that it was indeed the river over many years to erode the rocks rather than persay...the reverse as I have suggested  

[R i o k u]

Ok, I am getting to this Grand Caynon thing here. Because I really didn't want to argue with you about it, I thought it made sense the first two times I said it, and the countless times dboy said it. Why don't you try a little experiment on your own so you can see for yourself how the Grand Canyon was formed, and you can stop asking stupid questions about it.

Let us pretend you and I are at the beach somewhere. You say "One giant flood made the grand canyon." I say, "The grand canyon was formed by erosion from a river over millions of years."

You take a bucket of water and pour on one spot in the sand. The sand with be moved by the force of water in a direction like you would think of an explosion (or in all directions).


I take my bucket of water, and instead of using it at once, I pour small amounts out at a time (sort of like a waterfall). The sand moves in this - - > direction (or the direction my water is taking).

If I had a steady flow of water, you would begin to see the sand moving down with the water. If I stayed there long enough, it would get larger and deeper.

Now, the Grand Canyon was formed the second way. How do we know this?

-The flow of the river matches the gourge of the canyon
-we can see the different levels of sedimentary (or layered) rock showing us erosion carved the canyon.

Now, that is what people who understand the process would think. You, however, think there is a different way this could have been done.

-Your God somehow managed a flood that carved the likeness of the Canyon.
-The flood somehow managed to fit the dating of the rock.
-It was one of the only places in North America where a giant flood occured.

That isn't logic. That is trying to make religion fit into a simple geographical phenomenon. And the only reason you have to back up any of the above occuring, is that your God has super human powers and can (at his on descretion) bypass the laws of science. I mean no offence at all when I say this, I am not trying to offend you. But you once questioned my on my skepticism, but I question you on your form of logic. Of course no one can prove you wrong, but it isn't due to your brillance, it falls into "because God willed it."

And frankly, how can you argue your religion as being true in the first place, if Christianity is based solely on your God. Your God sent Jesus, your God foraged morals, your God created us. But...you have yet to prove that it is YOUR GOD that is indeed the right God. You don't have grounds to tell me that if I thought aliens created and populated the world and are one day comming back to us...is wrong. Because you can't prove that it might never happen, except to tell us that it doesn't fit in with your religion. And it is irritating when you use the same lame copout to be the basis of everything you are saying.

And another thing, I never said Jesus never existed. If I didn't write it down somewhere already, I'll say it now. I can say that Jesus was not the son of God, but I cannot deny him as a historical figure. There IS a difference between the two. So, please stop thinking I consider what the bible is as a bunch of made up bull s**t because I don't. There are parts I can see as containing truth, containing moral value. End of discussion.

 

[souloe]

1. grand canyon
now if you put it in that terms, the grand canyon thing does seem more interesting. I knew I was merely making an assumption and I even said that "I [was] not spewing from knowledge but from logic". Yet regardless of what I said, the hypothetical experiement you suggested on a beach doesn't seem very... functionable in terms of its purpose. The grand canyon was not mere sand. The universal flood was not caused by only rain from the sky. The earth was supposed to be good when it was created thus I'm guessing the plates of the earth could possibly not be cracked. If there is to be a universal flood to cover even the highest mountains such as mount Everest, do you think 40 days of normal rain is enough? I would personally think that there is something more, a global disaster should presumably create a much more powerful force possibly altering its entire land surface. Now if, rather than looking at one piece of the puzzle, we look at everything combined, would we get a different picture than what your piece have presented?

2. assumptions
Now of course, you have made some assumptions that contradicts the Bible itself. If the information is skewed then logic would be less probable. And so either I am clearly in the wrong or I've presented myself wrong or you have just made assumptions regardless. but again, I'm not saying the grand canyon created during the flood is true or not, but merely presenting the possibility and discussing about it, since I've already said "i'm not spewing from knowledge". That's what philosophers do don't they? Discuss things to find the truth.

3. bias
I'm not offended don't worry. But by using the bias that everything I say is backed solely by "God wills it" would create a problem in terms of communication. I have used the existance of the universe and logical deduction to prove that it is willed into existance, I have used different methods proved the Bible to be historically accurate and I have used logical deduction to prove that Jesus did raise from the dead. Now which of that is based solely on "God wills it"?

4. proof
By that the universe is willed into existance we know that there is something beyond this universe - thus proving the possibility of supernatural. By proving the credibility and accuracy of the Bible we know that the words inside can be trusted. By proving that Jesus Christ did raise from the dead we know that He is who He claims to be and the teachings that He preached were not just from some insane man. Jesus fulfilled all the mesianic prophecies detailed in the old testiment - which was written long before he was born. Now with these evidence, supports and details if He is not who He claimed to be who do you think He is?

There is one thing different about Christianity than any other religion in that Jesus Christ alone claimed to be God. That's a pretty bold statement don't you think? If he did not give sufficient back up for it why do you think people would believe Him? For a start, He performed miracles. And as mentioned before, He rose from the dead. I'd say that's pretty sufficient proof to back that claim. He gave us the proof to support the claims that He is God.

One more thing. Please don't talk as though God is some possession belonging to me. It is the reverse, that i -as horrible as i am- belong to Him.

5. alien
You speak of rather random possibility don't you. Think about it this way. If you should bring proof for aliens equivilant to the proofs I gave for God. Then I will see what proofs I can bring to refute your aliens to an equivilant extent as you refuting God. How's that sound? Not too demanding to ask for equal effort on your side as it is mine is it?

6. bias
again, when you said its annoying when I use the same copout I'm guessing you say that becuase of your bias that the only proof I have is "God wills it". Correct me if I am wrong of course.

7. Jesus the man
I didn't say that you said jesus the man never existed. I merely proved to you that Jesus the God existed. Please, don't put words into my mouth and then bash me for it.  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

Okay, now natural science is something rather dear to me, rather like how religion is dear to you, souloe. I will try and explain the phenomena of the Grand Canyon as best I can.

First, we can assume that the physical laws and properties are constant throughout history, AS IS THE NATURE OF PHYSICAL LAWS AND PROPERTIES. Yes, if we assume that there is a deity present, then these laws and properties have no bearing, as they can be bent and broken at will. However, using that logic, the 5-minute world is just as possible and credible, so we won't be dealing with that. We will be dealing with what we have empirically observed and tested, based on scientific evidence and experimentation.

Second, the best proof is that which comes straight from then source. As I don't live anywhere near Arizona or the Grand Canyon, I don't have access to the rocks which it's made of. Therefore, I turn to those WITH ACCESS to those rocks, and who better than the people who manage or study it? I have present 5 sources of different groups of people who have all come up with the same results, after accessing and studying the rocks personally. Such a consensus should provide an alarming amount of evidence for their conclusion, unless you have have some sort of empirical evidence proving otherwise? Or can show me a credible source who has elsewhere? (Don't worry about reading through everything, I've quoted the important parts)

http://www.americanparknetwork.com/parkinfo/content.asp?catid=90&contenttypeid=43

Quote:

At one time, most of the western portion of the North American continent was at or below sea level, and the ancestral Colorado River meandered over a large plain. About 70 million years aago, a 130,000-square-mile area of the southwestern United States called the Colorado Plateau was gradually squeezed up a mile high as the Pacific continental plate crashed against and went under the North American plate (close to the modern-day California shoreline), sending powerful geologic reverberations eastward that created the Rockies. The Grand Canyon began to appear. For another 5 to 6 million years, the sediment-laden Colorado and its tributaries worked to deepen and, with the aid of wind, rain, ice and gravity, widen the canyon to its present 10-mile average width.

http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm#how

Quote:

The truth is that no one knows for sure though there are some pretty good guesses. The chances are that a number of processes combined to create the views that you see in todays Grand Canyon. The most powerful force to have an impact on the Grand Canyon is erosion, primarily by water (and ice) and second by wind. Other forces that contributed to the Canyon's formation are the course of the Colorado River itself, vulcanism, continental drift and slight variations in the earths orbit which in turn causes variations in seasons and climate.

(Note how this source even cites how scientists are still a little unsure on the formation, but in no way is a supernatural cause mentioned)

http://www.rockhounds.com/grand_hikes/geology/overview.shtml

Quote:

The rocks of the Grand Canyon reveal an ancient geologic history that is rich and complex. All three basic rock types with sedimentary, metamorphic and igneous origins are represented within its walls, terraces, mesas and buttes. A vertical mile of formations underlying its rim have been exposed by the erosional processes creating it, revealing strata and formations ranging in age from mid Phanerozoic Eon (about 250 million years old) at the rim, to mid Proterozoic Eon (about 1.75 billion years old) along deep cut portions of the inner gorge where the Colorado River runs. The still ongoing erosion carving the Grand Canyon below its rim and exposing these primordial rocks is very young in terms of geologic time and was triggered by an uplift 'pulse' within the Colorado Plateau region that began approximately 6 million years ago.

(Further down, this source attempts to explain the geological timescale in terms of the divine creation, using analogous time units, rather than interpreting the creation as a literal six days)

http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/grca/

Quote:

When and how did it come to be?

* On one level the answer is simple: Grand Canyon is an erosional feature that owes its existence to the Colorado River (which is largely responsible for the depth of the canyon).
* Of equal importance are the forces of erosion that have shaped it and continue to shape it today—mainly running water from rain, snowmelt, and tributary streams which enter the canyon throughout its length.
* The climate at Grand Canyon is classified as semi-arid (the South Rim receives 15 inches (38 cm) of precipitation each year; only 8 inches (20 cm) each year reach the canyon bottom). But what rain received comes suddenly in violent storms, particularly in the late summer of each year, and the power of erosion is therefore more evident here than in places which receive more rain.

http://www.grandcanyontreks.org/geology.htm

Quote:

The Grand Canyon's greatest significance lies in the geologic record that is so beautifully preserved and exposed in its walls. What is unique about the canyon's geology is the great variety of rocks present, the clarity with which they're exposed, and the complex geologic story they tell.

There are really two separate geologic stories at Grand Canyon. The older story is the one revealed in the thick sequence of rocks exposed in the walls of the canyon. These rocks provide an amazing, but incomplete record of the Paleozoic Era of 550-250 million years ago, and scattered remnants of Precambrian rocks as old as 2 billion years. The story these rocks tell is far older than the canyon itself (which only formed five to six million years ago), a relative youngster in geologic terms.

This was the nearest I could find for explaining the Grand Canyon through the Noah-Flood story, but it's current state suggests something about its credibility. Also, they even admit that their guide and scientific basis is an "amateur geologist with a long time interest in understanding and explaining geology within the Biblical framework." I'm afraid that doesn't exactly add to his resume.
http://www.tagnet.org/anotherviewpoint/index.html

Finally, I'll do what I can to interpret Rioku's analogy. It's true that the Grand Canyon isn't mere sand, but the same principles apply. As I said, the physical laws and properties of the world must hold constant, since you can't simply turn them on and off. As far as we know (scientifically tested), tectonic plates have been around since the planet's surface cooled enough to form solid ground, constantly shifting and breaking apart and reforming due to the motion of the molten layer beneath it.

Now, the ground itself is layered due to new sediments being layered on top of it, then new sediments being layered on top of that. Sometimes, it all sticks together well enough to form sedimentary rock, sometimes it doesn't. This process isn't arbitrary, but it's a bit more detailed than I'd like to get into right now. Please pardon my poor illustrations, I'm actually a pretty decent artist, I simply don't have the time to do a more impressive visual aid. All of these pictures are to be interpreted as cross-sections of the ground, looking right into the river, if it's there.

This is generally what normal ground looks like, as observed in probably millions of excavations, canyons, gorges, and other instances all around the world.


Now, if a flood occurred, water enough to cover the planet, as it were, it would lack any substantial pressure in one line to form canyons. Even if it substantially swelled the Colorado river, it would eventually overflow the banks, and be unable to carve out a singular pathway. This is because water is a liquid, and will spread out uniformly over any surface that it covers. You would need a massive water jet to carve out the Grand Canyon's stone in that short of a time period, which defies common meteorological sense.


However, a river's constant flow, over an extended period of time (millions upon millions of years) will slowly wear away the layers of the ground until it has reached the point it is at today. Erosion at the canyon floor is ongoing, and the Grand Canyon will someday be even deeper than it is now.




We can test this by checking the empirical dates of the rocks at the top and bottom of the canyon. The rocks near the top were exposed first, so their surfaces are older than the surfaces of those closer to the river. However, once you go past that initial layer of surface rock, the rocks near the bottom of the canyon are even older, having been deposited first. I don't see how that would explained by a global flood, but do go ahead if you think otherwise.

If there's anything that I don't make sense on, please call me on it. I'll see if I can get to the other stuff as well, and soon.  

[GemEncrustedEarth]

Why do I believe? Part of the why is not my story to tell. But let's start from the beginning. I had no clue for a long time why I went to church. I knew I was Catholic and worked to understand the differences between different Christian faiths. But I didn't understand why I had to go to church until about two years back.

In sixth grade, I had to get a ton of bloodwork done. The building where the bloodwork was done shared a waiting room for kids with cancer. Something told me back then to help them. I wasn't quite sure what that feeling was at the time. About two and a half years later, I cut off 10 inches of my hair for Locks of Love. I still wasn't quite sure what that feeling was.

Junior year a ton of stuff happened (two years ago in about two weeks). Part like I've said before is not my story to tell. Just what I heard afterward was pretty amazing. I also had a fight with someone I knew. It was a pretty big fight and that Sunday I was at church. My brother was sitting next to me and there was someone in front of me but that was it for people around me. I was kneeling and praying for something (don't remember what) and it felt like a weight had been lifted off my shoulders. I would have seen my brother move and I was firmly aware of no one behind me. It was a pretty amazing feeling.


I also believe that I've seen my guardian angel. And that my guardian angel is a guy about my age. In eighth grade, I royally zoned out twice and I've never done it before or after that. The first time, I saw a guy standing in a meadow. The second time, I saw a world. I believe that our guardian angels always watch over us.  

[Psycho_Kat]

Mm mm, I see religion debate going on in the backdrop...But i'll just post my 'Why' and be on my way.

I don't know if there really was an exact 'Why', which probably makes me a worse case of blind, following sheep, doing as told. I was raised in a church, grew up church going. And even now, though I go less and lack enthusiasm, I still believe, and probably always will, just due to it always being there.

I mean, I don't throw on nunnery robes and preach the words of the great I Am, mostly I just sit and don't talk much, then run circles around my Mom or random 'you should be more conservative' old ladies. [Yeah..jeans, Converse, t-shirt..i'm just going wild.], cause the Bible can easily..contradict itself, sadly.

But, yeah, there ya' go.

 

[CainZeros]

I don't believe in God simply because I have been given no real reason too. If someone can show me proof beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists, I may change my mind. I looked at the link on the first page, and saw nothing at all supporting the existence of this all-powerful creator.  

[souloe]

5 sources? so 5 is an alarming amount?...I'll keep that in mind. Ah, but yes, I do thank you for posting the important parts rather than having me read everything.

1. grand canyon proofs
I do apologize but I failed to see Any proof. I see alot of statements and apparent conscences but I don't see any proof. Now again, it could be me just slow but if I have mistaken, please correct me.

2. grand canyon
actually, like I said before, I merely brought it up due to its possibility. If you count only the rain then yes, I would agree with you that mere rain could not have carved the grand canyon. But assuming that natural disaster did occur, wouldn't you think there is a little more than just 40 days of rain? Hence a possibility. But again, I didn't say I had proof nor was a spewing from knowledge. But stemming from that there is something we could observe. What you presented as "proofs" are mainly statements either from what you believe to be true or what others believe to be true. I take it that you think those are sufficient proofs. However, if I was to do the same as you, I would quote my pastor and use that to say God exist. Obviously you wouldn't believe God just because I quoted my pastor. You would require hard evidence or logical deduction. For the same reason I do hope you will return the same.