An Odd Debate I had with a Friend on Msn (Part 1)

LOL, this was great! Keep up the good work, ShadowFlame! :D

Awesome, nice points (on both sides), those would be awesome to keep posting.

but god had to start at some point he can not be timeless there is no such thing, every cycle has to start with something

and how do you explain the fact we have proved that the big bang happened and that evolution happened and there is no proof of anything from the bible?

I have prayed myself before and never had a answer back in any way shape or form and trust me i looked so why is it the only times god has ever spoke to anyone it has been to a man alone who has then held great power over all the people

"so why is it the only times god has ever spoke to anyone it has been to a man alone who has then held great power over all the people" - Well, I'm no Moses, are you? And just because it hasn't happened to you, doesn't mean it hasn't worked for other people. I speak on behalf of personal experience.

I'm not so sure I understand your second paragraph. Was that indicated to me or "Alien", because I don't believe the big bang happened and I do NOT believe evolution has happened (or is happening)).

"but god had to start at some point he can not be timeless there is no such thing, every cycle has to start with something" - God is timeless. As said in the article, it's called belief. I can't change your perceptive on God by saying you're wrong. It doesn't work that way, and I now it. So I have to admit I can't say much more on that subject...

i thought god loved everyone....so why doesn't it work for me?
again though why has he only spoken to certain men?
if a man said tomorrow god spoke to him alone and he had no proof of it, would you just blindly believe him? I know you have faith in god but why in these random men who then seem to gain power from it,,,,,,,

erm the second paragraph was aimed at you because i said we have proved that the big bang has happened and there is pretty strong evidence for evolution so how can you logically say you don't believe that.....it's like saying petrol isn't flammable because the bible says so

and yeah i guess we can't argue about the time thing

Well, their are ways to prove if God really did speak to that person according to the Bible: (can't remember references, but this is the general idea)

1. What is he saying? If he contradicts scripture, than most likely he didn't receive a vision from God.

2. What is he doing? You can tell by his fruits (actions and attitude). Is he nice, is he putting God over himself?

These are examples of what I can remember about false prophets.

"i thought god loved everyone....so why doesn't it work for me?" - God does love you. He has a plan for you.

"again though why has he only spoken to certain men?" - I admit I do not know the answer, but don't you think if you were as dedicated to God as Moses was, God would talk to you that way?

"we have proved that the big bang has happened and there is pretty strong evidence for evolution" - The Big Bang theory has not been proven, tNo hat's why it's called a theory. one was back then to certify it, we can't base our lives entirely on logics. And there's only evidence of evolution - not proof, even Darwin admitted that before he died.

Edit: Let me ask you the same question I asked "Alien" - How did our universe start according to what you believe?

actually the big bang theory has been proven, (redshifts, the universe is still expanding, the large particle exceleraters created to make the big bang on a small scale and plenty more evidence and then the cosmic microwave background radiation readings we have to finally prove it)
i'm sorry but if your denying that happened then your denying any logical believe in science
perhaps god or the gods set off the big bang and the big bang was how they created earth, but it did happen

but yes evolution is just a theory but the evidence is very outnumbered to the zero evidence we have of the bible's story, remeber darwin was a christian two

the universe started by the big bang not really my opinion....that's just what happened
I do believe in a high being/god/gods (i don't know what is out there but i believe in a pure force of good and creation) that created the big bang theory itself, along with the many other millions of universes out there

Ah, I think his point was that evidence is not proof. It's going back to elementary school lessons on the scientific method: science does not prove anything. Science is a process by which phenomena are observed and deductions are made based on those observations. After some observation, one can come up with an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. Then, if the evidence doesn't contradict that hypothesis, and sufficient evidence is observed, the community of people doing observations will promote that hypothesis to a theory. Theory remains a concept for how the universe works. If the theory is something that can be directly tested in experimentation, then if enough experimentation supports the theory (that is, all or nearly all), then the Theory is considered a Law. The Big Bang Theory is a broad name for several hypotheses regarding how the universe began, and a fair amount of evidence exists to support them. But they are not directly testable, so it can never graduate from a Theory to a Law. Similarly, plate tectonics, evolution, and quantum mechanics are all theories which cannot be directly and rigorously tested, though there exists ample secondary evidence that does not contradict those theories. That said, even scientific Laws are not proven. What they are is "not disproven": that is, experimentation does not produce results that clearly contradict the law.

Proof is a tempting concept, but it doesn't exist outside of mathematics. In science, as with debate and jurisprudence, decisions are ultimately based on choice, interpreting evidence.

Incidentally, that is part of an article I've been writing for some time, prompted by repeated statements all over the place (on radio, in print, and, yes, online) that such-and-such a study has "proven" something. It's embarrassing. But it distracted me ("Who are you?" "I am Tangent Man!") from what I originally wanted to say about the article:

Nice one. I was afraid, when I started, that it was going to be endless and rambling, given that it was a chat session, but it didn't turn out to be. That said, I do tend to write really long articles, so take that with a grain of salt.

It was a good warning, too, about debates going nowhere...ultimately, the two of you seemed to be arguing beliefs, and that quickly becomes a philosophy discussion that isn't going to convince anyone, rather than a debate. Alien seems to believe that all of existence is defined by man's laws - that the scientific method can explain everything, given enough experimentation - and you seem to believe that that isn't the case. Without the two of you making that disagreement explicit, you probably would be able to go round and round in circles perpetually.

I did find his T-shirt argument intriguing: that's one that I hadn't heard before: that by creating something, the creator is then governed by the logic/market forces of the creation. I'm not sure it holds water, even with the T-shirt argument (I suspect he wasn't finished explaining it), but it's an interesting idea.

"i'm sorry but if your denying that happened then your denying any logical believe in science. perhaps god or the gods set off the big bang and the big bang was how they created earth, but it did happen" - Because you merely pointed out that it did happen, I'm blandly going to say it didn't. As harold siad, science does not prove anythng. But hey, I'm glad you believe in God!! (EDIT) *with this, I don't believe saying I'm right you're wrong is going to get anyone anywhere. But I believe my evidence is far stronger than yours as God is infinite ;) *

Harold, I think you're right that Alien didn't finsih his point. I shall send him the link to this article (as he isn't a fanpooper) and he can tell me what he wants to say. << That sentence is terribly worded.

"I believe my evidence is far stronger than yours as God is infinite"

but you have NO evidence! lol besides the bible which we have stacks of evidence that many of the events never happened how do you know what god's word is?

harold i believe the radiation while does not make it a law because it can not be applied does prove that it happened it is not just theorizing this happened, if we have a measurement of it then it had to happen
that's like measuring a gas and showing it someone and them saying "i can't see it so that's not proof it's exists"


yes i do believe in god or possibly gods or maybe it's not a thing so much as a force but i do believe in something, it may be just my need to believe in something more, to explain the unexplainable and to give me comfort in thinking of a afterlife but i like to think so many people have faith because it is because he/she/it/them is there but sometime i am skeptical and if science proved tomorrow no god could exist then my believes would probably change because i won't deny facts

sorry i state things more harshly than i feel in this but i am debate mode as always please don't take it to heart

OK, just to help with debate: the existence of evidence NEVER means that any particular explanation for the evidence is fact, unless there is no other explanation (a situation which doesn't occur outside of mathematics). To say otherwise is to suggest that the ends define the means. That's even worse than asserting that science proves something. It would be like a lawyer in court saying "The corpse there means that the defendant committed the murder!" The suspect may have committed a murder or not, but all you can tell from the existence of the corpse is...that there's a corpse.

Edit: Just to be clear: no one is doubting that there's a corpse, or the existence of the gas in your example, or the existence of background radiation (from your earlier argument). They exist. But it can't be said that the existence of these things proves anything. To put what I said in another way: there is no positive proof in science. That is, you can never say to have proved that something is, in science. You can sometimes say what it is not, however, based upon experimental observation.

yes you can

we can prove humans inhale more oxygen when they inhale and change it in to carbon dioxide when they exhale because we cane measure it, we know that to be fact and proven

Yeah, but scientists actually observe that happening, they can't observe how the earth was created, b/c they weren't there.

yes but it's like carbon dating we can say how old something is because we can measure the radioactive decay

scientists weren't there from the start but they can say how old something is

scientists weren't there at the big bang but again because of radiation we are able to measure and describe what happened at the big bang

i'm not saying this proves the bible wrong but it does show the big banged happened, I am willing to accept explanation of the story of adam and eve being a metaphor

but i think this shows the bible shouldn't be taken completly literally all the time as a complete life guide.....but this is off topic to the debate just saying

Well, what if some extordinary event happened between the time of creation and now that increased the amount of radiation on the thingy-majig, and if analyzed would show not to be the date that it was originally made.

Or what if it has a rapid way of growing in the beginning of it's state, then settles out into a very slow method of growing when it reaches a certain stage.

Sort've like coral reefs, they grow rapidly the first few years under water, but after about 5 years, they go into a very slow steady state of growing. If scientists measured this growth say a centimeter a year, and the reef is 5 meter, then this 5 year old reef could be determined to be 500 years old (hopefully math is right).
(actual measure of coral reef used as an example)

erm.......i'm not sure what you mean or what your getting at

Can't trust that the radiation was consistent, and therefore could mess up there way of measuring it.
-very summed up

well i only have a basic grasp of science but to my understanding they have checked and remeasured this many times as hey do with anything in science


do you believe there is proof to the bible? shadowflame seems to do although he has not yet stated it (i am hoping he does because i am sincerly intrigued) and i was wondering if you do

Yes, I do believe there is proof to the Bible.
Prophecies: There were many prophecies made of Jesus' life in the old testament by many prophets. Jesus fulfilled them all to the point, even ones out of his control if He was human, like his clothes be gambled for, and no bones be broken.

Not only that, but the Historical events of the Bible are true too, there actually was a guy named Jesus, Paul, Nebuchanezzar (sp)... and Israel actually did become a nation.

One of the most amazing prophecies that happened was that the Bible says that the nation of Israel will be restored in ONE day, and on one day, the UN came together, decided the Jews have been through a lot, and deserve a land of their own, so in one day, the nation of Israel was restored.

I do believe the Bible is true, and that there are proofs, this is all that I can think of right now, (not to mention I have to go eat and watch family movie), but hopefully shows you some of the proofs of the Bible.

ahhhh but we can not prove there actually was a guy named jesus to say he cause such a uproar it is strange there are no account by the many historians around at the time, but there is also other documents to say he did exist so we can't prove that either way

since the new testament was written after jesus (i am right in this, yes? please correct me if i wrong because my source (another fanpopper) didn't site their source lol) you could say some of the prophecies maybe altered, interpreted the way they wanted to interprete them ect


i do not believe you can say israel has been restored consideriing the conflict there, it is certainly not a land of "milk and honey" literally or metaphorically but since that is a issue of time, it could become one, again we can not say either way



I was thinking along the lines of solid historical proof, the example i can think of
wasn't noah arc found? while not physically able to be equipped for those amount of animals, it is of the right period and to a great size and geographically correct (again someone correct me if i am wrong, i am trying to remeber info from a documentary) so while not physically possible i think that's where the leap of faith comes in but anyways that's the sort of solid evidence i was looking for



strange you should mention the propheicies though because that video i linked on our other on going debate mentions that as evidense against the bible as i have done

anyways enjoy your tea and movie :D

Yes, all New Testament books were written after Jesus, but keep in mind, that from years 1-29 of his life, He didn't do any miracles, and it wasn't until the age of 30 did He start doing miracles, until He died at age 33. So that would mean that they only had 3 years to write everything as they happened. EDIT (which they didn't)

Also 2/4 of the gospel writers followed Jesus, and most likely they didn't have the time to write, as they traveled. (have you ever tried writing and walking at the same time). But every writer got their info from Primary sources, like Mary (Jesus' mother), followers...

Well for more Proof of the Bible, I typed in proof Bible in Google search, and the link below appeared, and although i haven't read it all yet, the first few paragraphs look good. Enjoy!?

agards-bible-timeline.com/q9_historicall_p­roo­f_b­ibl­e.h­tml

Just to go back to the science thing (and I know this is a digression, and probably flogging a dead horse): the examples you cite are not scientific proof. You may think of them as scientific proof, but they are, at most, scientific laws. Laws are not proof. Science always leaves the possibility that laws or theories are incorrect. It wouldn't be science otherwise.

The composition of the air that someone breathes in and out is not proof, it's evidence. One can't say that science proves that "humans inhale more oxygen when they inhale and change it in to carbon dioxide when they exhale". Instead, one can say that every result of such experiments has been the same, and that those data indicate that it's true.

Put another way, it seems like you want to say that consistently repeatable experimental results (the data or facts) equal proof (correct me if I misunderstood). It may be proof enough for you and me - I certainly believe that I exhale more nitrogen than I inhale - but science does not call it a proof, because proofs don't exist in science. It's a bit like saying "In psychology there's a concept of a group of minds functioning as one. In Spanish it's called a gestalt". People do call such a thing a gestalt, but you can't say that Spanish calls it that: it's a German word. In much the same way, it can't be correctly said that science proves anything. Science and proof are mutually conceptually exclusive. A correct way to say what I think you're getting at is "The vast amount of scientific data support X" or "The collected scientific experimental data have convinced me that X".

I'm really not trying to pick on you in particular. It's just a bit of sloppy argumentation that I'll admit drives me crazy. Otherwise, I think your argument is sound, but making a statement like "science proves it" throws the credibility of the rest of the arguments into question when they shouldn't be. It's as if, in the middle of a set of well-formed arguments, the debater would say "Albert Einstein was best known as a painter." Maybe Einstein painted quite well - honestly I have no idea - but the statement is clearly not true, in such a way that it makes one wonder "If the debater makes such a basic error, how good is the rest of it?" It's not fair to you. Much like judging George W. Bush on his mispronunciation of "nuclear" is not fair to him, but everybody still does it. "Nukular" he says, and his audience thinks "Wow, should we really trust this guy to handle energy policy?"

I liked this article and i agree with Alien. Because everything we have ever know has a beginning middle and end we can't understand something that doesn't. Existence, time.....i like the theory that everything is infinite.

God is hard for people to grasp, even christians, because we live under the natural laws of this Earth. But God doesn't fit into those laws, God is not confined by time He created time. Debs, God does love everyone, however there are rules, not for the fun of it either. God speaks to some people because they've worked through their faith into a place that is close to him. That's why we have laws against sin and everything b/c God's aim is to have a personal relationship with us all, and that's impossible without leading a life of belief and without sin. everyone sins, that's why jesus paid our way into redemption, to help us to move closer to God, form a close relationship and understand the favor and amazing love that is in the kingdom of God. God created mankind because he wanted a creation that was capable of love on the basis of freewill. you can choose to accept God or not, He's still going to love you, it's your love or unacceptance of him that will decide your fate. As far as the big bang theory goes, whethe ror not it happened i don't know, but if it did it didn't happen the way scientists believe. if so, then why are all the planets made up of completely different elements? even the moon, which supposedly came from the earth after a violent collision has NO ALIKE elements as the earth. obviously the universe took an intelligence and a will to create.

as far as prrof for the Bible goes, let me know specifically what you think is incorrect. just for one example a good book is Israel in Egypt by James Hoffmeier which supports, by means of historical texts and archeological authenticity, the exodus.

harold you could then say you can prove nothing not even maths because nothing has real meaning, if shadowflame can make a claim to a monopoly of truth then i am taking a claim to stretching the meaning of proof, i find it a bit moot

jjad, god loves me but he's going to send me to hell and wants me to worship him with blind faith?ahem sorry off topic

you can say god can create rules ect ect
but there must be a start to him creating them rules......possibly not a end if he is eternal but there must be a start

Woah Great debate. I think your 'Alien' friend is incredibly smart, and now coolguy and debs are debating =D

right, the start was the creation. these rules were laid out then at the very foundation of mankind. God created mankind in his likeness, as a creature capable of love and worship, that is our purpose. These rules are made to protect us and guide us into becoming closer to God so that we can get as close as possible to him, to recieve all that God has to give us. Disbelief and sin send you to Hell, since we all sin, it's pretty much a given that somewhere in your life it's going to happen, Jesus died for redemption so that sin wouldn't have victory i nthe end. God loves this world so much that he put forth the effort to save us all, even though he already gave us the guidelines to stay out of trouble to begin with. I think there's a common misconception here when it comes to God, we keep trying to put the restraints of science on God. Gos created these things he is not subject to them. God doesn't have to come from somewhere, ' somewhere' is a concept he created. As far as blind faith goes, you have to start somewhere. but i honestly believe, and know, that if your heart is true and you seek out God He will be there, and even though our minds never seem to fully understand everything, when you encounter God there is no doubt, He's there.

btw i have a bad habit of hitting the 's' key instead of the 'd' key, and one got away from me in proofreading, oops sorry.

you stay everything you say as thought it is fact.....and yet you have no evidense of this....none at all, to me that's just bewildering, yet i realise the concept of faith is to not have hard evidense but surly you need something to go on as you so rightly said you have to start somewhere...

god did not create the concept of time
everything has to have a begining a startof a process that is a law,, you can say god can bend laws but god had to start from somewhere, you can say it's a hard concept to get our heads around but that because there is no getting around it

how do you even know that god created all that anyways, where in the bible does it say that? I am honestly asking because my knowledge of the bible is sketchy at best but I have never heard god or jesus saying he created science or the conept of science, how do you know there is a god above the god you worship? so does god or jesus actually say everything you have said above or are these just conceptions by man to explain what they can not?

I don't see what god and the theory of the big bang can't co-exist together, I know this doesn't fit in to your christian faith and you clearly are very devout so i just hope you look in to theory and the evidense....or proof (sorry harold i still see it as that) of the theory, I know many religious people who have believe in god and the big bang, that god created it

I never said I didn't believe in 'the big bang,' but i said that if that is how it happened that it was an act of God and clearly suggests that it was part of an intelligent plan by God, (see above post where i talk about the elements and what not that make up the planets)God is above science, God created time and everytihng that we know of and still more..." In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." in the beginning pertains to time as we know it, time started when God created it. it started when there was something to keep time for. Also, this verse tells us that God created the universe, "heavens" this word pertains to the universe and not the place. I know there is no god other than my God, only things/idols/etc. that people worship and treat as gods. But my God is the one true God, the only God "Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else" "Deuteronomy 4:39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else." as far as faith goes, it's a choice, God gave us free will and although He loves you and always will He would never make you love Him back.

but surly you can't believe the big bange theory if your christian, as you believe the earth was created by god in 7 days, no?

"god created time" you can't create time, there would have been time before, nothing can possibly have actions with out, so god starting to create is a moment in time, how god himself was created is a moment in time.........I wonder what god did before earth......sorry off topic

"Also, this verse tells us that God created the universe, "heavens" this word pertains to the universe and not the place" but how do you know this? maybe they did just mean heaven the place....also who said that? since it is not in first person, i presume it is again man saying that god created everything there ever was....not god him/her/itself
was my point

Oh, come now! Science and maths are not at all the same thing. Science is the observation of phenomena and the creation of hypotheses to explain the observations. Mathematics are a conceptual human creation, much like logic and language. So these things can be said to be true because they are defined as true within themselves, and are not reliant on any external reality:

* 2 + 2 = 4
* A = B, thus if B = C then A = C
* "dog: canid ; especially : a highly variable domestic mammal (Canis familiaris) closely related to the gray wolf b: a male dog ; also : a male usually carnivorous mammal"

But maybe I should ask you directly: are you really trying to argue that there is proof in science? Or are you saying that established theories based on observed phenomena should be treated as fact until contradictory evidence appears? All I've been trying to say is that those are two very different things.

Maybe we should take this up in a different place? When I first posted, I thought I was simply pointing out what might even have been a typo, no big deal, since "everybody knows there's no proof in science" (my thinking). But it's going around and around, on the side of this other discussion. Should we start a separate thread, something like "Does science include proof?" Let me know.

obviously we're not going to agree on the whole time issue. I don't know how God created the earth I just believe he did, big bang or not. but like I said its not that i don't believe the big bang impossible, just that it was done by God and in a planned out way, and if God's word says 7 days then it was seven days, not saying you have to believe that just that I do. I also believe the Bible when it says that it's God's word as given to the people who wrote it down. as far as the heavens goes, its a common enough word used pertaining to the stuff that is beyond the earth, in its original language "The word used for 'heaven' is the Hebrew word 'shamayim' which is defined by Strong's Concordance as being 'from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve)" In other words, this is talking about the empty space in the universe, which, according to science, came to exist when the universe began to exist." this was found at http://www.kingdavid8.com/CreatedUniverrse­.ht­ml, altohugh i haven't had enough time to read all of this it actually may answer alot of your questions. it looks really good.

This is a totally great article. I really like it