Now that I re-read my post I will admit my delivery was a bit too disrespectful. I put religion and science in the same regard as far as proving our existence but it definitely appears I favored religion in my post. With that said, I see no overwhelming amount of evidence on a scientific standpoint that can be the least bit persuasive in determining our existence. Edit: The 'get off your high horse' comment was not a stab at the science community as a whole. Rather, it was a jab at believers of science who degrade religious individuals for their belief.
if by existance you mean where the universe came from i agree. we have good amount of evidence for a big bang at the start of our universe but absolutely nothing for where that bang came from. since we have no idea i'm not going to pick from the many different ideas out there and just stick with i don't know.
That's literally a logical fallacy, fyi. Choosing nothing over something. If this were a structured debate you basically would've lost on that statement alone.
what's there to choose when there is nothing to choose from because there's no information? the only choice i can make is lets find out but for now we don't know so we can't say. edit: i'll put it this way, it's not that i'm choosing its nothing, its that i'm refusing to choose anything because i have absolutely no verifiable information to base my decision on.
"When all other options are eliminated, what remains is the answer. No matter how improbable." Very famous quote, I'm sure you've heard it. Most reasoning is centered around this concept.
heard of it, but i don't think anything has been eliminated when it comes to where our universe actually came from. what we have at the moment is hundreds of different hypotheseies all potentially as valid as each other.
Nothing within the laws of the universe could've created the universe. That only leaves you with things outside the laws of time. Most philosophers recognize this and attempt to explain the big bang by another cause that's "timeless" but most of these are either completely ridiculous by their own right or self admittedly wrong. I believe Stephen haekings most recent book explains the causation through some self named particle, but it ultimately falls under the same issue; which he recognizes in the final chapter. Which makes the book kinda pointless lol
That's what they all do, they keep going back to matter created mind by saying stuff like maybe it was just bunch of math floating around? Or a multiverse stretching in and out of existance? It's all the same thing and at some point there needs to be an unmoved mover, a first cause to set it all in motion.
Religion points to a being outside the laws of the universe towards it's inception, so yeah. It's logically sound for theists to circle back to a God. Atheists don't have that luxury.
It is not historically accurate. Based off historic events possibly; but the interpretations, rewrites, and omitting and adding of information due to those who hold sway over what is "history" have muddled the truth. Too much truth has been lost because of those who want to retain their power over the people. The stories told in the bible happened within a small area. These were not world wide events. The stories were eventually passed around the world but at those times most all things were word of mouth and details and truths change. The bible became a giant game of telephone and through which the actual meaning and happenings were lost.
This may be true given normal circustances. I'm convinced at this point in time that it this book is the divine revalation of god. If this is to be true you can expect it's word to be protected over time. Now the reason i do believe it is divine is unrelated to the historical accuracy, although it does reafirm by belief. The prophetic accounts in this book you have to realise are remarkable.
Remember 'bible' means library, it is a collection of books that have been written throughout history. The book of isaiah, also predicted the comming of christ. The book is on display at a museum im israel. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/126461 The bible does not prove the bible, all of the evidence proves the bible.
It is pretty interesting. I find that your attached file to provide more proof we were at one point influenced by intelligent beings as oppose to a deity. It also would be believable that these advanced lifeforms would be looked at as "Godlike" by our feeble minded human ancestors.
Interesting perspective on that. I don't think that such a feeble minded and admitedly primitive culture could produce litterature to such high quality that to this day stands firm against critisism. We have the same evidence, it's all about finding which direction it points. The fact that we all have a predisposed bias before reviewing the evidence is a hinderance And realy i don't think the evidence gets much clearer than prophecy fullfillment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_scrolls
Well like I said before the writings have been changed and altered to fit the current power at the time. With numerous rewrites and ulterior motives things are bound to change throughout time. The Dead Sea Scrolls themselves weren't found until modern times and translated with an already "bought out" perception of life. Also much of the text of them are written in a language that died out 300+ years of their discovery. Not arguing against anyone's religious belief but I find the big problem with modern and earlier religions is they do not take in the big picture of existence and can only comprehend what they have been presented. This is similar to the way humans see faces in trees, clouds, etc.
You think hebrew is a dead language? You can get a direct translation yourself. You making some fairly outragous claims here my friend. These are origional untouched historical documants. http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/isaiah.htm English translation http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah#42:16
Never said Hebrew was a dead language but the scrolls do contain more than one language. Some of which are dead.
Was hoping for original untouched document images in that link and not loose translations posted to a website.
it would be remarkable if the image was actually true and not trying to represent myths as facts, other religious belief as science and misrepresent what the bible actually says. edit: if you want science use science sources, if you want religion use religious sources please.