Support NeoGAF

[Ashes]

Oh yeah, my point was a theoretical one. Like I said, its not going to apply to the vast majority of scientists because the vast majority of scientists are not going to reach a point in their work that they would be compelled to explain through God.

Or they might say: we don't understand it yet, or we may never understand.

 

[Gorgon]

Science is observable, testable, & repeatable, right? Using this definition for science, what many scientists say about the theory of evolution is scientifically wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

Can this thread just die yet?

 

[Noirulus]

The Observable Universe is a sphere approximately 93 billion light-years in diameter. We can't see anything outside of it because the light from anything further away then that hasn't had time to reach us since inflation. Its so large even though the universe is only 13.5 billion years old due to the continued expansion, i.e we see things that appear to be only 10 billion light years away but when we take into account that they have also been moving away from us for 10 billion years we can say that we "observe" something that is much further away.

Ugh, sorry don't know what is wrong with me.

The size of the universe is thought to be infinite now, i'll pull up some proof. Everything else you got correct

 

[HephalumpsAndWoozles]

This is incorrect now. This was a widely held belief up until a few years ago, it is now widely thought that the universe is infinite in size.

Did you miss the part where he said Observable?

 

[Sharp]

This is incorrect now. This was a widely held belief up until a few years ago, it is now widely thought that the universe is infinite in size.

Source, please. I was unaware of any such development or any experiments that would lead to that conclusion.

 

[Noirulus]

I just edited my post, Re read and ask away please

edit: i'm a retard, I read his post wrong.

 

[Orayn]

Science is observable, testable, & repeatable, right? Using this definition for science, what many scientists say about the theory of evolution is scientifically wrong.

We have numerous examples of evolution happening before our very eyes, even speciation. Creationist fundies either ignore these entirely, or move the goalposts whenever they're brought up. Would you like me to start posting links so you can dismiss them, or should I even bother?

 

[Sharp]

I just edited my post, Re read and ask away please

From what I'm reading, if the universe has zero or negative density, the conclusion is that it's infinite, and recent experiments confirm that its shape is very close to flat. So I guess you're right that it's the new popularly accepted theory, but as it says on the site I'm reading, there's still no evidence that it's actually completely flat--it might just have very slight curvature. On an unrelated note, I don't quite see how an infinite universe couldn't have a positive density, as there are plenty of mathematical models where that's the case, but I'm guessing we have other reasons to believe that.

 

[Noirulus]

Alright, here goes.

The observable universe is indeed really huge, about 93 billion years long, this is because while light took only 13.7 billion years to travel, it originated at a point much further than that, because the universe is expanding.

However, the universe beyond the observable universe is infinite, because the geometry of space-time is flat.


I read technomancer's post completely wrong, and for that I apologize. Everything he said is correct.

 

[Sharp]

Alright, here goes.

The observable universe is indeed really huge, about 93 billion years long, this is because while light took only 13.7 billion years to travel, it originated at a point much further than that, because the universe is expanding.

However, the universe beyond the observable universe is infinite, because the geometry of space-time is flat.


I read technomancer's post completely wrong, and for that I apologize. Everything he said is correct.

Again... we don't know whether it's completely flat, only that it is very close to flat. So I don't see why this is necessarily the case. It may be popular but there is no particularly compelling reason why the universe should have a completely flat geometry over one that is simply very close to flat, at least as far as I can tell.

 

[Noirulus]

Again... we don't know whether it's completely flat, only that it is very close to flat. So I don't see why this is necessarily the case.

You're right, there's a chance that it is slightly curved, but it's a 2% error margin and it's the best explanation we have until we either eclipse that error or find out that it is actually slightly curved.

 

[blame space]

Why we still got monkeys, though? Answer me that, smart guy.

 

[wolfmat]

Why we still got monkeys, though? Answer me that, smart guy.

We haven't outfucked them yet

Ninja: I don't even know what that could mean

 

[HephalumpsAndWoozles]

Alright, here goes.

The observable universe is indeed really huge, about 93 billion years long, this is because while light took only 13.7 billion years to travel, it originated at a point much further than that, because the universe is expanding.

However, the universe beyond the observable universe is infinite, because the geometry of space-time is flat.


I read technomancer's post completely wrong, and for that I apologize. Everything he said is correct.

Dark flow is thought to possibly be caused by a neighboring universe, pulling on the matter in ours. If thats the case, can our universe still be infinite? Maybe its all infinite in the omniverse.

Edit: Or it could be the G-man pulling on the strings of our universe.

 

[DarthWoo]

Here is something that might help others understand why we believe what the Bible says:

copypaste blah blah blah....

The very first section of that states that there are no contradictions, which is in fact quite false. Let us not forget that the collection of books has had around 2000 years in which to be collected and edited, and any unseemly books tossed out of canon. Despite that, different books can still tell the same story yet get events completely out of order and make huge errors. A rabid Star Wars fan could probably collect all the EU canon and edit it into one set with fewer contradictions.

 

[Noirulus]

Dark flow is thought to possibly be caused by a neighboring universe, pulling on the matter in ours. If thats the case, can our universe still be infinite? Maybe its all infinite in the omniverse.

Edit: Or it could be the G-man pulling on the strings of our universe.

I believe you're talking about Dark Energy, which is the force that is responsible for the expansion of the universe. We don't know anything about how it works or why it is happening, at the moment.

There is absolutely no proof for other universes, so I can't comment on that. I do think it would be cool if it were true, though.

 

[Subtervotion]

Why we still got monkeys, though? Answer me that, smart guy.

I know you're just fooling around but I'll answer anyway.

When what we know today as India collided with what we know as China, the Himalayas formed. This created different weather in Africa. This created a DRYER Africa. The jungles on northern and mid Africa slowly receded and the apes and monkeys that lived there had to move out of the trees. This all happened over a long time. Eventually the first ancestors of Homo Sapiens came to be.

Not all jungles dried up like the ones in Africa. Other parts of the world AND other parts of Africa still suited tree dwellers quite well. Ergo, why apes/monkeys still exist.

 

[Pixel Pete]

Ugh, sorry don't know what is wrong with me.

The size of the universe is thought to be infinite now, i'll pull up some proof. Everything else you got correct

wait, are you referring to whats outside the universe? I hope so, because I would be very interested in knowing how the universe we are in can physically be inifinite without all my atoms being infinitely distant from each other.

 

[soul creator]

Let me put it another way. Is it a bad idea to be a theist, if you are a scientist?
If I were the director of the science club, and a position opened up, and two people show up: 1 is theist, and 2 is atheist, which one would I hire, if they were equally qualified in every other virtue?

It is a bad idea to be a "theist" and a scientist depending on how we're defining "theist" here. If you're talking about the kind of theist that believes in a god for vague psychological reasons, but doesn't actually propose it as an actual being that did certain actions, then it wouldn't really matter. But if you're like 99% of theists that actually think god did specific things, it would be a hindrance in comparison to the hypothetical atheist.

the hypothetical atheist has the benefit of not shutting off at least one aspect from questioning (the origins of the universe). Then again, the hypothetical atheist could believe in a different type of fantastical thing that started the universe, though that would probably be relatively rare.

Every religious person I've ever spoken with, even those I've explicitly talked about science with, have said that it is impossible to understand the nature of God or to scientifically explain His methods. That He exists beyond the scope of human understanding.

and those types of statements always amaze me, because they're essentially saying either:

1) "I believe in the existence of God, and I have no idea what it is that I believe in the existence of."
2) "He's beyond the scope of all human understanding...now let me describe how god loves me, and made the universe, and has a plan for us, set up an afterlife, wrote this book..."

both statements seem...odd, to say the least.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

Honest question, how do we know how large the universe is? and how did scientist come to a conclusion that the universe is flat?

Edit: A while back i said that we were living in the last days and i told some of the guys that i was arguing with that 2011 is already one of the most disastrous years (Storms), many people in the thread backfired with stupidity and am happy that i wasn't wrong: http://www.heraldtribune.com/articl...2011-already-among-most-extreme-weather-years

 

[Slavik81]

wait, are you referring to whats outside the universe? I hope so, because I would be very interested in knowing how the universe we are in can physically be inifinite without all my atoms being infinitely distant from each other.

There are infinitely many numbers and positive infinity is infinitely far away from any other number, but despite any finite number is a finite distance away from any other.

That is, despite natural numbers being a scale from negative infinity to positive infinity, 7 - 5 = 2.

 

[Subtervotion]

Honest question, how do we know how large the universe is? and how did scientist come to a conclusion that the universe is flat?

For the second question, did you watch the whole video?

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

For the second question, did you watch the whole video?

Don't skip over the first.

 

[DarthWoo]

It is a bad idea to be a "theist" and a scientist depending on how we're defining "theist" here. If you're talking about the kind of theist that believes in a god for vague psychological reasons, but doesn't actually propose it as an actual being that did certain actions, then it wouldn't really matter. But if you're like 99% of theists that actually think god did specific things, it would be a hindrance in comparison to the hypothetical atheist.

the hypothetical atheist has the benefit of not shutting off at least one aspect from questioning (the origins of the universe). Then again, the hypothetical atheist could believe in a different type of fantastical thing that started the universe, though that would probably be relatively rare.



and those types of statements always amaze me, because they're essentially saying either:

1) "I believe in the existence of God, and I have no idea what it is that I believe in the existence of."
2) "He's beyond the scope of all human understanding...now let me describe how god loves me, and made the universe, and has a plan for us, set up an afterlife, wrote this book..."

both statements seem...odd, to say the least.

Kurt Wise is the perfect example of how not to be a theistic scientist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

 

[Ashes]

Let me put it another way. Is it a bad idea to be a theist, if you are a scientist?
If I were the director of the science club, and a position opened up, and two people show up: 1 is theist, and 2 is atheist, which one would I hire, if they were equally qualified in every other virtue?

It is a bad idea to be a "theist" and a scientist depending on how we're defining "theist" here. If you're talking about the kind of theist that believes in a god for vague psychological reasons, but doesn't actually propose it as an actual being that did certain actions, then it wouldn't really matter. But if you're like 99% of theists that actually think god did specific things, it would be a hindrance in comparison to the hypothetical atheist.

So you wouldn't hire Robert Winston?

The thought experiment is actually supposed to work both ways.

Choose Athiest:

Answer: So you wouldn't hire: very highly respected scientist/theist/monothiest.

Choose Theist:

Answer: So you wouldn't hire: very highly respected scientist/athiest/agnostic.

 

[blame space]

Honest question, how do we know how large the universe is? and how did scientist come to a conclusion that the universe is flat?

Edit: A while back i said that we were living in the last days and i told some of the guys that i was arguing with that 2011 is already one of the most disastrous years (Storms), many people in the thread backfired with stupidity and am happy that i wasn't wrong: http://www.heraldtribune.com/articl...2011-already-among-most-extreme-weather-years

the best edit i've seen in a long, long time.

 

[Furret]

Don't skip over the first.

This took 3 seconds to find on Google, are you really that bad at searching?

 

[wolfmat]

Honest question, how do we know how large the universe is?

We simply don't know how large the universe is.

 

[Noirulus]

wait, are you referring to whats outside the universe? I hope so, because I would be very interested in knowing how the universe we are in can physically be inifinite without all my atoms being infinitely distant from each other.

The geometry of the universe is what's infinite. There's nothing else "outside" the observable universe.

Basically, If the universe is positive in curvature, It would be spherical. Imagine an ant on the surface of the earth, in it's perspective the surface is flat, but if it traveled long enough, it would come back to it's starting point. The universe would be huge, but still finite. If the universe is negative in curvature, it would curve front and back, and left and right.. sort of like a pringles chip. The universe would be infinite with this also. The last is having zero curvature (flat), an analogy is a sheet of paper.


According to current models, the universe is infinite in size, and it's flat. However, we're not 100% sure. There's about a 2% margin of error, so the universe could be very slightly curved, or we need more accurate measurements.

As for the question about your atoms, why would they have to be infinitely distant from each other?

 

[DarthWoo]

Honest question, how do we know how large the universe is? and how did scientist come to a conclusion that the universe is flat?

Edit: A while back i said that we were living in the last days and i told some of the guys that i was arguing with that 2011 is already one of the most disastrous years (Storms), many people in the thread backfired with stupidity and am happy that i wasn't wrong: http://www.heraldtribune.com/articl...2011-already-among-most-extreme-weather-years

And yet climatology scientists had long been predicting things such as this. I suppose they should just abandon all their research and just assume it's all divine providence. After all, climate change is just a hoax isn't it?

 

[ViperVisor]

One of the best Theism believers in history was Socrates who oddly enough was accused of Atheism.

That was 400 BC

Today anyone can look at the utter lack of anything that was revealed to humanity via religion while it was accompanied by the status quo of the times, some of those things being abhorrent and have been thrown in the garbage bin as time goes on.

 

[BocoDragon]

Assuming god did exist, why is this Being worthy of reverence/worship?

He would be just as random a phenomenon as ourselves. Even he must scratch his head and say "it's amazing that I exist".

Why is he "above" us in this whole game?

I think if he existed, he would just be a higher level of order to the universe's organization. -> molecules -> cells -> humans-> galaxies -> god

I don't think we would need to worship this being any more than our skin cells need to worship us.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

And yet climatology scientists had long been predicting things such as this. I suppose they should just abandon all their research and just assume it's all divine providence. After all, climate change is just a hoax isn't it?

A) Look, "prodding and pulling" doesn't get results. You can prod and pull all day but if you don't have an insight on what you are doing it will yield no results. Saying that the bible is "prodding and pulling at events until it matches the description" is the same old thing i here from people trying to disprove the bible. {2nd}Now the term 'WORLD POWER" "is defined as a state powerful enough to influence events throughout the world", by that definition please name other "World Powers" that influenced events in the world more than the 7 i listed. {3rd} The term "Anglo-American World power" refers to a world powered that is ruled by those of English heritage (look it up), Are american's of African heritage? Aren't they of English descent ? and since America and Britain are a joint force (In that they are best buddies, if one goes to war the other is require to be on alert for assistance) calling them the Anglo-American world power is the most appropriate form.

B) Middle east: Assyria, Babylon, and Medo-persia.
Europe: Greece and Rome
Africa: Egypt
Indians: Anglo-American.
Tell me how the list is eurocentric again? answer, it's not.

C) Again these empires were not ranked by just power. Each one of those empires ruled for a significant amount of time. Each of those empires shaped the way we live today. No other empire has impacted the world as much as these 7 has. Anyone today can say that China is an empire(and they wouldn't be wrong) but who today is recognized globally as the world power, is it china? or maybe Japan? or maybe Russia? is it not the United State?. My point is that during the reign of those aforementioned world powers other strong empires existed no doubt about it, but none of those empires had the amount of recognition or impact as the ones i mentioned did.

{2nd} The points i mentioned should do well to clear the 2nd portion of part C.


2) Am not a historian so give me some time and i will provide you with a bible chapter and verse. But one thing bothers me, my original point was that the bible held the truth that most scientist (or philosophers) didn't want to believe. I later corrected that by telling you that the general consensus (And i mean "GENERAL" 99%) in the early-Middle ages was that the earth was flat. Your statement is implying that you understand that education has gotten good enough to ferret out the superstition that the world is flat but yet you denied in an earlier statement that people (Or philosophers) ever believed in such a thing. And i will do well to tell you that people still believe the earth is flat, they are appropriately called "Flat Earthers".

3) {{1}}Did America become a World Power AFTER the world wars? or did they become a World Power before the world wars, we have been living in the last days for the last 100 years (days not to be taken literally) and can you count how many people has died in the last hundred years due to wars (should be upwards of 200 million). The last hundred years is the bloodiest hundred years in history. wars are on a decline but natural disasters are on the rise, can you count how many occurred during 2010? how many has occurred in the last 3 months? So when you ask "are we living in the last days"? my answer is YES.

{{2}} This was on my mind when i was adding the bible quotations, it shouldn't have been there.

{{3}} the sort of corruption that the world has seen today was not always here, 40 years ago people scorned at the thought of shootings in T.V shows, but today if someone is not decapitated teens will not be satisfied. Year by Year we become more tolerant of the most disgusting and inhuman things(Porn is no longer frowned upon, in fact it;s joked about. Violence in cinemas and t.V shows are getting worse each year. More curse words are added onto radio's and T.V shows each year. Divorce rates has already shattered the roof. want me to keep going?). Do you think those of Egyptian time's would have predicted the world will be "VICE"? Remember what you see as common sense today was not common sense 10 years ago, heck it wasn't common sense 5 years ago, so how can it be common sense some 5 thousand years ago?

{4} Well you are a skeptic, lol.

If you actually think that there have only been 7 great powers, then you have a hell of a lot of reading to do. The mental gymnastics that you're going through to try and make this 'prophecy' fit is absurd.

The Bible says that the sun, moon and stars were lights, set in the firmament...Do you also think that is true. Do you believe the Noah's Ark story actually happened?

The natural disaster 'prophecy' is almost too ridiculous to respond to, please do some research. We get Millions of earthquakes each year, ranging in severity, there is no indication that earthquakes are getting more severe in the last 100 years as you claim.

Please read: Reveletion 17:8-10 ---- "The wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss, and it is to go off into destruction. And when they see how the wild beast was, but is not, and yet will be present, those who dwell on the earth will wonder admiringly, but their names have not been written upon the scroll of life from the founding of the world. Here is where the intelligence that has wisdom comes in: The seven heads mean seven mountains, where the woman sits on top. And there are seven kings: five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet arrived, but when he does he will remain for a short while. And the wild beast that was but is not, it is also itself an eighth [king], but springs from the seven, and it goes off into destruction".

The Seven heads of the beast stands for seven "Mountains" or seven "Kings." Both terms are used scripturally to refer to governmental powers. In the Bible, six world powers are mentioned as having an impact on the affairs of Gods people: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-persia, Greece, and Rome. Of these five had already come and gone by the time john received Revelation, whereas Rome was very much still a world power. This corresponds well with the words "Five has fallen, one is, the other has not yet arrived, but when he does he will remain for a short while".

Now for the bolded statement, it's laziness in your part to contribute absolutely NOTHING to the discussion. If you think i am going through "Mental gymnastics" to fit these prophecies into current events then prove me wrong. Sit down, do some research, then come back and prove me wrong. Now i mentioned "Natural Disasters" but you took it that i was talking about earthquakes. Are earthquakes the only natural disasters there is? and why is it that in the last 10 years we have seen record amounts of natural disaster than any other decade in recorded history?

This is the series of events that happened in that thread that made me to post the post you responded to. The Bible has been around for quite some time and the point i was trying to make back then is that some of the things the Bible proclaimed are actually coming to fruition and to my surprise 2 weeks after i stated the above it was proven by a news source. Weirdly enough someone in here shunned me for beiliving in the Bible even if somethings in it came to fruition, ironically the same group of people acknowledged that humans are limited in their knowledge and everything they say is not true. they state and i quote "Our knowledge is limited, therefore it's all wrong? Science does not deal in absolutes, therefore it's useless?" meaning that scientist can always be wrong but you should trust in them and if the bible happens to be wrong you should burn it with fire.)

BTW the bolded are the reason for my the post a few persons above.

 

[Ashes]

Assuming god did exist, why is this Being worthy of reverence/worship?

He would be just as random a phenomenon as ourselves. Even he must scratch his head and say "it's amazing that I exist".

Why is he "above" us in this whole game?

I think if he existed, he would just be a higher level of order to the universe's organization. -> molecules -> cells -> humans-> galaxies -> god

I don't think we would need to worship this being any more than our skin cells need to worship us.

Some religions hold god to be the mother of creation; in that light, is it such a horrible idea that the sons/daughters be grateful for their existence?

 

[Ashes]

Can a scientitst be a true scientist if he/she/or any other gender or a mix of genders, believe in a god of some kind or another?

Why wouldn't they be?

Cyan, my man, that is the point.

 

[Furret]

This is the series of events that happened in that thread that made me to post the post you responded to. The Bible has been around for quite some time and the point i was trying to make back then is that some of the things the Bible proclaimed are actually coming to fruition and to my surprise 2 weeks after i stated the above it was proven by a news source. Weirdly enough someone in here shunned me for beiliving in the Bible even if somethings in it came to fruition, ironically the same group of people acknowledged that humans are limited in their knowledge and everything they say is not true. they state and i quote "Our knowledge is limited, therefore it's all wrong? Science does not deal in absolutes, therefore it's useless?" meaning that scientist can always be wrong but you should trust in them and if the bible happens to be wrong you should burn it with fire.)

BTW the bolded are the reason for my the post a few persons above.

So hang on, you think God is going to destroy the world because there have been more natural disasters recently than when you were a kid?

That is a pretty compelling argument I must say.

BTW, if you're reading the King James Bible it was written in the 17th century (translated would be far too mild a term).

 

[Noirulus]

This is the series of events that happened in that thread that made me to post the post you responded to. The Bible has been around for quite some time and the point i was trying to make back then is that some of the things the Bible proclaimed are actually coming to fruition and to my surprise 2 weeks after i stated the above it was proven by a news source. Weirdly enough someone in here shunned me for beiliving in the Bible even if somethings in it came to fruition, ironically the same group of people acknowledged that humans are limited in their knowledge and everything they say is not true. they state and i quote "Our knowledge is limited, therefore it's all wrong? Science does not deal in absolutes, therefore it's useless?" meaning that scientist can always be wrong but you should trust in them and if the bible happens to be wrong you should burn it with fire.)

BTW the bolded are the reason for my the post a few persons above.

WOW, You take everything out of context and use it as the foundation of your argument.

And then you don't reply to the posts that clearly defeat your argument, because you don't have any answer.

I don't know why you bothered to create this thread if you choose to debate in such a narrow-minded fashion.

 

[Subtervotion]

Don't skip over the first.

Interesting that you tell me not to skip over the first, but you didn't even answer my question....

We know how large the universe is with the use of telescopes and the understanding of light years. Someone more qualified can probably explain it better than i can.

 

[DefectiveReject]

If we can observe 13.7bn years, unless we're dead centre of the universe, then obviously the universe is vastly older than we think.

If we're off centre slightly could you observe 13.7bn oneway, but less so if you turned 180degrees say 13.3bn lol.
I'm guessing it's 13.7bn years in all directions.
Therefore if we're in the lower right quadrant of the universe then the universe could be 10's of billions of years old.

Lol

I'm tired and overworked

 

[NullPointer]

We know a lot about deep space because of how much information that can be gleaned from examining the light we receive. We can also detect shifts in light based upon whether a light source is moving towards us or away from us (red shifts and blue shifts). This led us to realize the universe is expanding in all directions. Working backwards scientists have posited many models for the early universe that would lead to the results we currently observe. Some of these models are predictive and testable. I believe the current accepted model of the Big Bang required a certain level of background radiation that when we sought it out, we found.

That's about as simple as I understand it.

Of course, this is only the best model we currently have.

I'd recommend looking into some basic astronomy and cosmology concepts. They'll stagger your mind, impart one hell of a sense of awe, and really break down just how much knowledge can be teased out of something as ethereal as light.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

So hang on, you think God is going to destroy the world because there have been more natural disasters recently than when you were a kid?

That is a pretty compelling argument I must say.

BTW, if you're reading the King James Bible it was written in the 17th century (translated would be far too mild a term).

The world is not going to be destroyed rather it's going to be made anew 9Like the way you restore something old into a wonderful masterpiece). Reveletion 21: 1-5 is were my quote was coming from (But since most of you consider the Bible a fairy tale why even bother)

Bible passages that mention the signs of the last days(If you are interested):
Matt. 24:7
Luke 21:10 and 11
Matt. 24:11, 12
Luke 21:25, 26
Matt. 24:9
Matt. 24:14

WOW, You take everything out of context and use it as the foundation of your argument.

And then you don't reply to the posts that clearly defeat your argument, because you don't have any answer.

I don't know why you bothered to create this thread if you choose to debate in such a narrow-minded fashion.

Wait, what? was i replying to you. What did i take out of context?

If we can observe 13.7bn years, unless we're dead centre of the universe, then obviously the universe is vastly older than we think.

If we're off centre slightly could you observe 13.7bn oneway, but less so if you turned 180degrees say 13.3bn lol.
I'm guessing it's 13.7bn years in all directions.
Therefore if we're in the lower right quadrant of the universe then the universe could be 10's of billions of years old.

Lol

I'm tired and overworked

So basically WE DON'T KNOW, right?

 

[CornBurrito]

Interesting that you tell me not to skip over the first, but you didn't even answer my question....

It is the standard fundie attack formation:

1. Ask questions that you think nobody can answer
2. Refuse to click any links or actually read, forcing people to give summarized views that may not totally encompass the actual theory.
3. Continue asking questions, asking more and more difficult ones so that nobody can accurately summarize them.
4. When asked a question, answer with a question.
5. If someone asks you a question just say they didn't answer your question "I ASKED FIRST!"

 

[DefectiveReject]

The world is not going to be destroyed rather it's going to be made anew 9Like the way you restore something old into a wonderful masterpiece). Reveletion 21: 1-5 is were my quote was coming from (But since most of you consider the Bible a fairy tale why even bother)

Bible passages that mention the signs of the last days(If you are interested):
Matt. 24:7
Luke 21:10 and 11
Matt. 24:11, 12
Luke 21:25, 26
Matt. 24:9
Matt. 24:14



Wait, what? was i replying to you. What did i take out of context?



So basically WE DON'T KNOW, right?

I bet you all the LOLs in the world, that the world will not be anewed.

The only anewing will be done by a great big fucking asteroid or volcanic eruption...... I guess that's gods work......right?

Also I really don't understand what gave the bible it's weight, over any other book of fables of it's time?

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

It is the standard fundie attack formation:

1. Ask questions that you think nobody can answer
2. Refuse to click any links or actually read, forcing people to give summarized views that may not totally encompass the actual theory.
3. Continue asking questions, asking more and more difficult ones so that nobody can accurately summarize them.
4. When asked a question, answer with a question.
5. If someone asks you a question just say they didn't answer your question "I ASKED FIRST!"

2. So you are saying that you are not able to fully explain the thing in which you use as a defense against my beliefs? that makes you even less reliable in an argument.

3. So you can't answer a question about what you believe in but i bust my ass in answering question's in what i believe in. Go ahead ask me a question that is based on what I believe in because since this thread began i have not asked you one single question that had it's roots from the bible. You are basically asking me questions on the things that i am trying to gain FULL knowledge of while evading to ask me of the things that i already have FULL knowledge of. If i asked you right now to quote where Jesus stated that the good news should be preached you most likely will not be able to come up with the verse

 

[NullPointer]

2. So you are saying that you are not able to fully explain the thing in which you use as a defense against my beliefs? that makes you even less reliable in an argument.

Can you personally summarize the bible for me in one post? Thanks. No links please.

I'm very interested in knowing more about your religion, but I can't honestly be bothered to look into any of it myself, so your help is appreciated.

And if the post gets too long, please bold the important bits. I'm a busy guy. Thanks again.

 

[Atramental]

Can you personally summarize the bible for me in one post? Thanks. No links please.

I'm very interested in knowing more about your religion, but I can't honestly be bothered to look into any of it myself, so your help is appreciated.

And if the post gets too long, please bold the important bits. I'm a busy guy. Thanks again.

Also don't forget, you have a life outside of NeoGAF.

Edit: I gotta say this is one man against a million, it's fun but note that i can't reply to all of you because i have a life outside of Gaf.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

Can you personally summarize the bible for me in one post? Thanks. No links please.

I'm very interested in knowing more about your religion, but I can't honestly be bothered to look into any of it myself, so your help is appreciated.

And if the post gets too long, please bold the important bits. I'm a busy guy. Thanks again.

The Big Bang is like a chapter (or even a verse) in the science world, how many other theories are there?. If you strongly believe in it then you should be able to tell me what that theory entails, it seems like many people in this thread are afraid that they might say the wrong thing and it will basically mess up their whole argument. Telling me to summarize the Bible is the same as me telling you to summarize every theory and experiment ever conducted in the name of science. In this case am asking you to tell me what a single theory entails, that would be equivalent of you telling me to summarize a chapter in the Bible that i always use against you.

 

[DeathIsTheEnd]

GTP_Daverytimes what about these:

"Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh."

"Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not."

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."

"Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee."

"Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame."

I would argue they all show that the idea of the second coming and end of times approaching is wrong.

 

[NullPointer]

The Big Bang is like a chapter (or even a verse) in the science world, how many other theories are there?. If you strongly believe in it then you should be able to tell me what that theory entails, it seems like many people in this thread are afraid that they might say the wrong thing and it will basically mess up their whole argument. Telling me to summarize the Bible is the same as me telling you to summarize every theory and experiment ever conducted in the name of science. In this case am asking you to tell me what a single theory entails, that would be equivalent of you telling me to summarize a chapter in the Bible that i always use against you.

Does this mean I won't get my summary?

Guess I'll just sit here quietly, not being saved.