StarGateWars Forums

LiQuiD wrote:

n3M351s wrote:Because you've proven the Earth is billions of years old right?

no. because millions of scientists have proven this. im flattered you could think i could prove the age of the earth single handed. i dont mind a bit of worship so feel free to continue heaping praise upon my feats

LiQuiD wrote:trying to tell the bible club the correct age of the earth is like trying to teach bill gates a contact sport. tis not going to happen nor will work at all.

as i said. point won. the reasonable posters have proven beyond any doubt that the earth is older than the bible would suggest. if you want to pick out random bs points about undefined time and how long adam and eve (who were created by Gods magic finger) were in eden go for it. frankly they are weak points if ever i saw any.

LiQuiD wrote:

n3M351s wrote:Point out some historically inaccurate examples for us please LiQuiD... No? I didn't think so

i do believe thriller has already done so and had his valid points ignored or countered with insubstantial/convenient/silly responses.

n3M351s wrote:No? I didn't think so

LiQuiD wrote:no history book is truely accurate. it takes several to get a clearer picture of any events as well as other sources. yet people still claim the bible is accurate and proof enough alone to contradict every other source of information. if you were to look at this afresh without your huge bias you would see the truth. until that day ill be happy knowing im correct, and that you are the helpless pawns of a religion that aims to control every aspect of life. bonjour!

n3M351s wrote:

LiQuiD wrote:

n3M351s wrote:Because you've proven the Earth is billions of years old right?

no. because millions of scientists have proven this. im flattered you could think i could prove the age of the earth single handed. i dont mind a bit of worship so feel free to continue heaping praise upon my feats

First up, scientists have not proven the age of the Earth. They have theories and estimates and after all this time they still cannot even agree on a single figure. There is really no way scientists can prove the age of the Earth. They tell everyone this rock is millions of years old and that rock is billions of years old, but how do they know what a million/billion year old rock looks like? They can make up their assumptions and theories but in the end they still are just making up figures.

My post was obviously sarcasm but I suppose someone like you would not be able to see that. Wallow in all your ignorance for all I care lol.

LiQuiD wrote:trying to tell the bible club the correct age of the earth is like trying to teach bill gates a contact sport. tis not going to happen nor will work at all.

as i said. point won. the reasonable posters have proven beyond any doubt that the earth is older than the bible would suggest. if you want to pick out random bs points about undefined time and how long adam and eve (who were created by Gods magic finger) were in eden go for it. frankly they are weak points if ever i saw any.

We already, in our belief, know the correct age of the Earth, you can believe all you want I really don't care. I don't see how this point could be won, I doubt you even know the age of the Earth according to your beloved scientists without looking it up. The supposed reasonable posters have shown their opinions and beliefs on this matter, that doesn't make it true and neither is every word that comes out of a scientists mouth.

LiQuiD wrote:

n3M351s wrote:Point out some historically inaccurate examples for us please LiQuiD... No? I didn't think so

i do believe thriller has already done so and had his valid points ignored or countered with insubstantial/convenient/silly responses.

I rest my case lol.

n3M351s wrote:No? I didn't think so

Thriller posted some point, Sandman address them, the one he missed I filled in. If you want to call our answers "insubstantial/convenient/silly responses" I suggest you research Thrillers points also and you will find that your last statement was inaccurate. If you haven't bothered to research these topics yourself its better that you don't post at all instead of posting meaningless replies.

LiQuiD wrote:no history book is truely accurate. it takes several to get a clearer picture of any events as well as other sources. yet people still claim the bible is accurate and proof enough alone to contradict every other source of information. if you were to look at this afresh without your huge bias you would see the truth. until that day ill be happy knowing im correct, and that you are the helpless pawns of a religion that aims to control every aspect of life. bonjour!

I think you will find that many history books are accurate. It's true that it's good to get information from several sources to for a comparison and to verify events, numbers etc. The Bible does not conflict with history, in fact history affirms the Bible. There may be some contradictions as Thriller pointed out, but the answers received were valid responses. Your view of what Religion is quite funny really. Enjoy believing you're always right, no one else is going too. Comme parler à un mur de briques.

Thriller wrote:Some examples of biblical statements contradicting known history:

Daniel 5:1-2 says Belshazzar was king of the Chaldean Empire (Babylon), and son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. In reality, Nebuchadnezzar's son and successor was Amel-Marduk. He was assassinated by his Brother-in-law Nergal-Ashur-Usur, who took the throne. His reign was followed by his son Labashi-Marduk, who was opposed by a faction that overthrew him and placed Nabu-naido on the throne. Belshazzar (who's name was actually Bel-shar-utsur) was the son of Nabu-naido. He was NEVER king, but crown prince, and was no relation at all to Nebuchadnezzar.
This site gives a very clear response to this point. I don't see how that could be any clearer.

Hosea 5:13 tells us the Assyrian King at that time was named Jareb. There was never an Assyrian king by that name, and the name of the king who did rule at that time was Tiglath-Pileser the third.
See here and section 8 here. This seems like a valid answer to me.

Daniel 5:30-31 says that Darius the Median took over the Babylon empire, but it was Cyrus of Persia who overthrew the Babylonian Empire. While there is a Darius, the first in history, there is no mention of a Darius of Median anywhere.
This site gives a very good response which is fully consistent with historical facts.

Esther 1:9 tells us Vashti was queen of Persia at the time the story occures, but the queen at this time was actually Amestris, and there never was a queen of Persia named Vashti. Vashti was the name of an Elamite goddess. Most probably that is the origin of the name in this story.
I have researched this and found no definitive answers. My speculation; Polygamy or that Vashti was Queen until Ahasuerus replaced her with Esther, so maybe it was simply not recorded. An interesting fact about the Book of Esther is that it is one of only two Books of the Bible that do not directly mention God.

Wiki wrote:The meaning of the name Vashti is uncertain. As a modern Persian name it is understood to mean "beauty" or "goodness". It may have originated from the reconstructed Old Persian *vaištī, related to the superlative adjective vahišta- "best, excellent" found in the Avesta, with the feminine termination -ī; hence "excellent woman, best of women".

Jeremiah 29:10 Tells us the Babylonian Exile will last 70 years. 2nd Chronicles 36:21 tells us that this came about. However, the elapsed time from the destruction of the temple (beginning of the exile) in
586 B.C., to the return of the Israelites to their promised land after Cyrus overthrew the Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C. was 48 years, and not 70.
See here.

Agapooka wrote:I hope that everyone realises that regardless of whether or not a book is historically accurate (which is impossible to prove, as proof implies 100% certainty and there is always the theoretical possibility of historians and archeologists being liars or even that all history books are censored and "revised"), that it is irrelevant to it being proper spiritual guidance material or not? Otherwise, maybe I should look into history books for spiritual guidance? Maybe one of them is flawless and inspired of the God of History (blessed be His name).

Although I don't think too many people have noticed this, because the Christians are all arguing about something that will not further their cause, even if they are right, and the ones arguing against them are keeping them there to stop them from arguing anything worthwhile. It's gigglish.

LiQuiD wrote:lol jus clicked one of the links nemesis provided. the biblical encyclopaedia! noted for being unbiased im sure

was that link meant to be a joke? thats like providing links to a racist website to prove the nazis were good. obviously the site is in hugely in favour of one viewpoint and therefore cannot be seen as accurate or fair.

what a fail

LiQuiD wrote:what a fail

Thriller wrote:According to what you wrote the only way to prove something is be omniscient; only way to account for every theoretical instance. Essentially, yes. To prove events, one must be completely objective and capable of observing every aspect thereof. But if you were omniscient you wouldn't have to proof anything because you would always be right. Yep. Proof does not imply perfection, You mean, "evidence" doesn't imply perfection. Proof does. Proof is defined as evidence that makes it impossible to logically come to any other conclusion than that to which it evidences. Proof is a kind of evidence, or the sum of certain conclusive pieces thereof. Not all evidence is proof, though. instead it relies upon the best possible application of human understanding. For practical purposes, we've had to rely on evidence and assumptions instead of proof. You have no proof that matter is real. Your ability to perceive and measure it does not inherently make it exist. Your assumption that you can interact with it only simplifies things. Because everyone can perceive it with certain consistent features does not prove matter either. Theoretically, it could also be evidence to a universal mind. As long as other possibilities exist, there is technically no proof of one. Of course, the above theoretical possibility would imply that matter does exist, but in the mind.

Why would historical inaccuracy be irrelevant to the bibles spiritual guidance?
The bible says that god is perfect so therefore should not his testament be as well? Indeed, there would be many questions in need of asking if it could be proven that the bible is historically inaccurate; however, even if it were proven that it is perfectly historically accurate, that wouldn't be an ounce of evidence that the bible is valid as a source of spiritual guidance. In that sense, it is somewhat irrelevant. Also, if the bible were indeed supernaturally inspired, but that supernatural entity was not perfect, yet believed that it is, you would have yet another possibility. I hate to see people argue a point and evidence to a claim and then claim that because they have evidence of another claim, that it proves only one thing: their own point of view. Biased much.
Answering this question should be critical in a person's spiritual maturity if they are going to live their lives according to the doctrine of a faith. Proving the past is impossible for a non-omniscient being, yet it is a requirement for all, including science. It's a large paradox, which has the convenience of being applied selectively.

The core of all spiritual teaching and scripture is centered around the way to have a fulfilling existence. You can learn also learn a great deal of how to accomplish that premise from a critical evaluation of history. So the two are not mutually exclusive. What's the point of a fulfilling existence, again?

Critical analysis of the core manuscripts of your faith is very worthwhile. I agree, if one's faith is placed in manuscripts and/or writing, it is indeed that one's responsibility to be very familiar with those written words and to question it all.

Agapooka wrote:

Thriller wrote:According to what you wrote the only way to prove something is be omniscient; only way to account for every theoretical instance. Essentially, yes. To prove events, one must be completely objective and capable of observing every aspect thereof. But if you were omniscient you wouldn't have to proof anything because you would always be right. Yep. Proof does not imply perfection, You mean, "evidence" doesn't imply perfection. Proof does. Proof is defined as evidence that makes it impossible to logically come to any other conclusion than that to which it evidences. Proof is a kind of evidence, or the sum of certain conclusive pieces thereof. Not all evidence is proof, though. instead it relies upon the best possible application of human understanding. For practical purposes, we've had to rely on evidence and assumptions instead of proof. You have no proof that matter is real. Your ability to perceive and measure it does not inherently make it exist. Your assumption that you can interact with it only simplifies things. Because everyone can perceive it with certain consistent features does not prove matter either. Theoretically, it could also be evidence to a universal mind. As long as other possibilities exist, there is technically no proof of one. Of course, the above theoretical possibility would imply that matter does exist, but in the mind.

Why would historical inaccuracy be irrelevant to the bibles spiritual guidance?
The bible says that god is perfect so therefore should not his testament be as well? Indeed, there would be many questions in need of asking if it could be proven that the bible is historically inaccurate; however, even if it were proven that it is perfectly historically accurate, that wouldn't be an ounce of evidence that the bible is valid as a source of spiritual guidance. In that sense, it is somewhat irrelevant. Also, if the bible were indeed supernaturally inspired, but that supernatural entity was not perfect, yet believed that it is, you would have yet another possibility. I hate to see people argue a point and evidence to a claim and then claim that because they have evidence of another claim, that it proves only one thing: their own point of view. Biased much.
Answering this question should be critical in a person's spiritual maturity if they are going to live their lives according to the doctrine of a faith. Proving the past is impossible for a non-omniscient being, yet it is a requirement for all, including science. It's a large paradox, which has the convenience of being applied selectively.

The core of all spiritual teaching and scripture is centered around the way to have a fulfilling existence. You can learn also learn a great deal of how to accomplish that premise from a critical evaluation of history. So the two are not mutually exclusive. What's the point of a fulfilling existence, again?

Critical analysis of the core manuscripts of your faith is very worthwhile. I agree, if one's faith is placed in manuscripts and/or writing, it is indeed that one's responsibility to be very familiar with those written words and to question it all.

On another note, I'd like to mention two more things that are somewhat unrelated to one another.

1. Science is a method of analysing data and arriving at a conclusion, nothing else. Science is limited in its capabilities, in that it is not capable of analysing everything through its particular method. I am only saying this because many have a false perception of science, especially Christians. (I am referring to an either-or fallacy made earlier where someone said that if there is an apparent inconsistency between science and the bible, it is either bad theology or bad science.)

2. An interesting method of refining one's perception of reality is to argue, with seriousness, a point that their subjective self does not regard as true. It would be amusing, yet somewhat unlikely due to humans' biased nature, to commonly see atheists attempt to prove God and theists attempt to disprove God, for example. This concept, however, can apply to anything. The point of this exercise would be to eliminate or minimise the prejudices which otherwise do not allow one to sincerely seek the truth, but rather, when one debates, it is very commonly an attempt to feel better about one's beliefs, or simply to feel superiour. How irrational!

What's the point of a fulfilling existence, again?

n3M351s wrote:

LiQuiD wrote:lol jus clicked one of the links nemesis provided. the biblical encyclopaedia! noted for being unbiased im sure

was that link meant to be a joke? thats like providing links to a racist website to prove the nazis were good. obviously the site is in hugely in favour of one viewpoint and therefore cannot be seen as accurate or fair.

what a fail

@ Everyone
Umm, yeah - what he said speaks for itself lol. Looks like a tad of desperation.

@ LiQuiD
You probably don't understand so let me spell it out for you.

Facts are facts regardless of what site their on; the same information can be found and verified on many other sites. If you want to act like a dolt be my guest.

Your post is meaningless, now how did you put it again...

LiQuiD wrote:what a fail

Pooka your arguments rest on only flawed understanding on quantum mechanics.

Agapooka wrote:So Thriller, essentially what you're saying is that I'm right, but only if we think outside the box of our limited knowledge?

yes, but it still possible to prove something within our scope of understanding. You attempted to invalidate my argument based upon hypothetical circumstances much like sandman and nemesis. (Faith not Reason) I can't disprove faith

By the way, I'll take the following as a compliment, since I've never studied quantum mechanics or any sciences after highschool, other than linguistics. Mmm, linguistics.

Pooka your arguments rest on only flawed understanding on quantum mechanics.

As for my question about the point of leading a fulfilling life, it reflects nothing on my beliefs. I just wanted to know if you had an answer and apparently you don't. You see, different people have different reasons to think this is the case.

Thriller wrote:yes, but it still possible to prove something within our scope of understanding. You attempted to invalidate my argument based upon hypothetical circumstances much like sandman and nemesis. (Faith not Reason) I can't disprove faith

I didn't say fulfilling life, because many religions treat life as a stepping stone.

n3M351s wrote:Facts are facts regardless of what site their on; the same information can be found and verified on many other sites. If you want to act like a dolt be my guest.

Agapooka wrote:

Thriller wrote:yes, but it still possible to prove something within our scope of understanding. You attempted to invalidate my argument based upon hypothetical circumstances much like sandman and nemesis. (Faith not Reason) I can't disprove faith

I didn't say fulfilling life, because many religions treat life as a stepping stone.

I was merely stating that it is a logical fallacy not to consider every possibility. This is not what Sandman and Nemesis are doing. They are making logical fallacies, themselves. You see, I am speaking from a theoretical perspective, whereas you are not.

I'll edit and continue my response later, for I must got to work. Cheers.