• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Age of the earth

The_Evelyonian

The_Evelyonian

Old-School Member
Vadergirl123 said:
Well if one doesn't believe in absolutes then no, they can't be absolutely sure of what they believe
Click to expand...

"You can't be sure what you believe. For all you know, you may really believe that the moon is made of marshmallow whip and is carried across the sky by elephants."

Please, don't make such an absurd assertion again.

Vadergirl123 said:
Neither, if the pothole was designed to fit the puddle. None of the water would overflow/ sometimes not fill the pothole perfectly. I don't see where you're going with this :confused:
Click to expand...

Life adapts to its environment, not the other way around.

Vadergirl123 said:
Design is talked about in Genesis.
Click to expand...

Okay. Where does it say chance and design are the only options.

Vadergirl123 said:
When you say 'chance?' Are you talking about things just randomly comming into existence without being desinged?
Click to expand...

Well, you brought up chance. How do you define it?

Vadergirl123 said:
Yes, I can't prove/dissprove God exists, but I have no reason to believe he doesn't and I already gave you some reasons for why I think he does.(they were how some things fit so perfectly together)
Click to expand...

So, how does "some things fit so perfectly together" equal "god did it"?

Vadergirl123 said:
Yeah I remember you explaining it. But when you say you're reasonably certain. That implies that you can't be absolutel sure, which implies that there's a chance what you believe can be wrong.
Click to expand...

So what?

Vadergirl123 said:
That's why I believe there's absolutes.
Click to expand...

Because you don't like the idea that you could be wrong?

Vadergirl123 said:
Without absolutes you can't be sure of anything because there's a chance everything you believe might not be true.
Click to expand...

Again with "you don't know absolutely" equals "you don't know at all".

I'm really tired of having to explain this. In order to "know" something, you don't need a 100% certainty of it (something you've already said you agreed with).

Vadergirl123 said:
No at times you, "don't have to be absolutely sure,"
Click to expand...

As I said with the cancer doctor, if she told you that her tests showed with 99% accuracy that you had cancer, you wouldn't just dismiss her conclusion with "Oh, so you don't know if I have it at all, do you?".

I really don't understand why we're still going around and around and around over this. It's a meaningless point. If the only reason you're holding onto "absolute certainty" is because without it there's "a chance you might be wrong" then I have to ask: so what?

"A chance you might be wrong" does not equal "a probability that you are wrong".

Look at it this way:

If there are two explanations for a given phenomenon (let's call them A & B) and if all of the available evidence points to A, then it would be reasonable to say that A is most likely correct, would it not?

Granted, there's is the possibility that explanation A could be wrong. However, the more evidence that can be shown to support A, the smaller that chance becomes. In fact, it can reach a point where A is supported so strongly by evidence, experiment, etc. that the chance of it being wrong is effectively zero. The only reason we don't say that chance of it being wrong is zero is because you always leave open the chance you could be wrong, no matter how well supported your conclusions are. To do otherwise is to cut yourself off from new discoveries. As I said, at that point you've left the realm of inquiry and entered the realm of dogma.
 
Last edited:
FlyingTeaPot

FlyingTeaPot

Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
Vadergirl123 said:
Yes everything and noIhaven't read the full thing. Why have you?
Click to expand...
I suggest you read the Bible cover to cover and THEN say you agree with everything in it. If you don't know what is written in a book, how can you say you agree with it completely?
 
V

Vadergirl123

Active Member
The_Evelyonian said:
" Life adapts to its environment, not the other way around.
Click to expand...
Why did you use a pothole example, I don't understand how that shows life adapts to its environment? Why couldn't life have been created/designed to adapt to it's environment?


The_Evelyonian said:
" Okay. Where does it say chance and design are the only options.
Click to expand...
So I was reading back over the thread and I don't think I was thinking of "chance" in the same way you were. I thought of the word chance to mean something that suddenly appears." However something could be designed and suddenly appear, which would make only one option not two, so my bad. I should've been more specific and said design and something infinite are the only two options. And again Design is in Genesis, and something infinite would be God( Revelation 1:8)


The_Evelyonian said:
" Well, you brought up chance. How do you define it?
Click to expand...
I would define it as something randomly comming into existence without being designed.


The_Evelyonian said:
" So, how does "some things fit so perfectly together" equal "god did it"?
Click to expand...
Well if something fits perfetcly it means a designer did it, and for someone to design the whole universe would be quite a monstrous task. And God says he created the world.


The_Evelyonian said:
" Again with "you don't know absolutely" equals "you don't know at all".
Click to expand...
I'm not saying you, "Don't know at all." I'm saying you can't be absolutely sure. My whole point with the absolutes was that someone can't be absolutely sure of the world being 4.5 billion years old, and one also can't point to science as "proof" because there's always the chance that it's wrong.

The_Evelyonian said:
" As I said with the cancer doctor, if she told you that her tests showed with 99% accuracy that you had cancer, you wouldn't just dismiss her conclusion with "Oh, so you don't know if I have it at all, do you?".
Click to expand...
I already said I wouldn't dismiss it, but I also wouldn't be shocked if it turned out she was wrong.

The_Evelyonian said:
" If there are two explanations for a given phenomenon (let's call them A & B) and if all of the available evidence points to A, then it would be reasonable to say that A is most likely correct, would it not?
Click to expand...
Yes it would, however if you have evidence that points to both possibly being true(such as a young earth and an old earth) then you can't reasonably say A is most likely correct.
 
V

Vadergirl123

Active Member
Me Myself said:
She didn´t know that defying God was wrong, and God knew that she didnñt know. Neither did she know that it was good following him, because she didn´t knew right and wrong.
Click to expand...
She knew she shouldn't do it. She even told Satan(Genesis 3:2-3) And it says in Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the tree was ....pleasant to the eyes...a tree to be desired to make one wise...she took of the fuit and did eat." Eve was being greedy not ignorant. She wanted to be "as gods"(vs 5)
Also if God hadn't wanted her to "know" not to eat of thetree he wouldn't have told her not to eat it.
 
FlyingTeaPot

FlyingTeaPot

Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
Vadergirl123 said:
Eve wasn't ignorant. She knew eating from the tree was wrong. God's instructions weren't complicated. She just got greedy. No I don't think it's fair for all women to be punished becuase of her. I also don't think it's fair that Jesus chose to die for everyone.
Click to expand...
Your comparison is utterly without merit.
What I think is fair doesn't matter, since it's Gods choice.
Click to expand...
Whoa whoa! So God can do anything he damn well pleases. Why does he/she need you to worship him/her then? Also, if you give up your sense of right and wrong in favor of a higher authority, then I don't believe you have any morals or sense of ethics at all.

And it's good thing it's not up to me. Because I wouldn't let my son die a tortorous death for a bunch of people especially if some of them didn't even believe I existed or hated me, or chose to worship something else besides me, and if I knew that even after I died some of them would still refuse to believe in me.
Click to expand...

Ah but then you are not god. How do you know Jesus really felt any pain at all? he was god after all. What if he was just acting?
 
Last edited:
Me Myself

Me Myself

Back to my username
Vadergirl123 said:
She knew she shouldn't do it. She even told Satan(Genesis 3:2-3) And it says in Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the tree was ....pleasant to the eyes...a tree to be desired to make one wise...she took of the fuit and did eat." Eve was being greedy not ignorant. She wanted to be "as gods"(vs 5)
Click to expand...

If she wasn´t ignorant then the bible is wrong when it says she only found out about right and wrong after eating the fruit. Each time you argue that she know she was doing wrong you go against the written story.
 
FlyingTeaPot

FlyingTeaPot

Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
Vadergirl123 said:
I do know what's written in it. I just haven't read every single word in it yet, but I have read most of it.
Click to expand...
Okay. But you stated previously that you agree with EVERYTHING in the Bible, yet you say you don't think it is fair that all women must suffer because of the actions of one woman. Which is it? Do you agree with it completely or not? If not, what is causing you to cherry-pick the parts that you do agree with?

BTW, The bible condones slavery, stoning your kids to death and all other manner of horrific things. Do you agree with all of these completely as well?
 
Me Myself

Me Myself

Back to my username
Bible also fond of Genocide and talking donkeys. And a saint who curses children so 42 of them die by being mauled by two bears because they dared call him "baldy"
 
Heathen Hammer

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
Vadergirl123 said:
She knew it was something God didn't want her to do. If she hadn't believed that she woudl've eaten the fruit without Satan convincing her to.
Click to expand...
But the idea God didn't want her to do it was over-ruled when the serpent [not Satan] suggested she do eat it. Essentially we are dealing with a child's mind, here. Eve might have had some adult form but she had no education, no culture, and no-one else to learn from. And she was kept deliberately ignorant of the concepts of Good and Evil.

Therefore, no, she had no idea what disobedience was, and the decision was made in ignorance.
 
V

Vadergirl123

Active Member
FlyingTeaPot said:
Your comparison is utterly without merit.
Click to expand...
I was trying to show that God has a different view of "what's fair" than I do. And my opinion of what's fair shouldn't matter.
FlyingTeaPot said:
Whoa whoa! So God can do anything he pleases.
Click to expand...
Yep
FlyingTeaPot said:
Why does he/she need you to worship him/her then?
Click to expand...
He doesn't need me to worship him.
FlyingTeaPot said:
Also, if you give up your sense of right and wrong in favor of a higher authority, then I don't believe you have any morals or sense of ethics at all.
Click to expand...
Apart from God not really no I wouldn't have a sense of what's right or wrong. I'd just do whatever I wanted, and there'd be nothing wrong with me doing that.


FlyingTeaPot said:
Ah but then you are not god. How do you know Jesus really felt any pain at all? he was god after all. What if he was just acting?
Click to expand...
No I'm not God(thank goodness) he was 100% man and 100% God so yes he felt pain. Also if he wasn't going to feel any pain. Why woudl he have prayed to his father to take the, "cup from him." (Mark 14:36)I mean if it was going to be painless then that would've been unnecessary.
 
V

Vadergirl123

Active Member
Me Myself said:
If she wasn´t ignorant then the bible is wrong when it says she only found out about right and wrong after eating the fruit. Each time you argue that she know she was doing wrong you go against the written story.
Click to expand...
Where does the bible say that they, "found out was right and wrong after eating the fruit?" Also what do you mean when you say, "Ignorant"
 
V

Vadergirl123

Active Member
FlyingTeaPot said:
Okay. But you stated previously that you agree with EVERYTHING in the Bible, yet you say you don't think it is fair that all women must suffer because of the actions of one woman. Which is it? Do you agree with it completely or not? If not, what is causing you to cherry-pick the parts that you do agree with?

BTW, The bible condones slavery, stoning your kids to death and all other manner of horrific things. Do you agree with all of these completely as well?
Click to expand...
I agree with it completely, and I agree with what God did....The bible doesn't condone slavery. I already posted something about that. Neither does it condone stoning kids.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top