OT: Alien Contact

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Ragnarok:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Guys, do you want another mandy to light it up?

Thanks!
Doesn't really help but hey.
As far as I'm concerned this topic is over. This thread can now go back to discussing aliens.

---

Well that's nice. Just abandon the discussion so you can't have your views questioned, and can go on happily living with them, even though they could be wrong. That is probably worse than that other horribly horribly wrong thing that happened earlier.

[Ragnarok]

Well that's nice. Just abandon the discussion so you can't have your views questioned, and can go on happily living with them, even though they could be wrong. That is probably worse than that other horribly horribly wrong thing that happened earlier.

I'm not abandoning the discussion. If you wish I will return later and discuss further. But I see no point in it as neither one of us are getting anywhere.
I've had my views questioned many times before and it has never stopped me from beliving them.

Almost all (if not all) of that stuff was written after the fact. It was not prediction, it was postdiction.

How can you prove it was postdiction?
Again, if you examine each book of the Bible, and really look for dates and so forth, you can come out with a date of when the book was started and completed.

No they don't. They are all flawed.

So you're saying that Babylon never did fall to the assyrian army?

No they aren't. What are some examples of these things that are supposedly happening?

2nd Timothy 3: 1-5 has some. Earthqacks, wars, famines, pestilences, nation rising against nation, etc.

Ok, now I'm really leaving, but if you wish, I will return tonight.

[minipol]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
In that case... why do you think the Bible is any evidence? Why is it (and hence Christianity) better than other religions? What makes it right, and everything else wrong?

The "evidence" in the Bible is only corroborated by the world around you because the authors of the Bible were good authors and wrote it as such.[/QB]

Hhhmm. You also referred to a book (a physics book) as and i quote: "It was in my physics book Last year, which is generally accepted as the best physics text book out there. "
So if it's ok for you to refer to a book, why can't Ragnarok do it. Just because your book is a scientific book and his the bible doesn't mean that your book is more inclined to be true.
History is full of scientific books that years later (or centuries later) proved to be utter crap.
And it's always easy to question a book:
"why do you think that physics book is any evidence? Why is it better than other physics book? What makes it right, and everything else wrong?"
Don't get me wrong i love science and i do believe that what you are saying about the speed of light is true, it just don't agree with the way you are trying to show there is no evidence that the bible is true (or wrong for that matter).
Any book can be full of crap.

And i personally don't believe that there is a good or upper being. When we die, there's nothing. The big void. The big zero.

[minipol]

i forgot: as for aliens, i do believe they are out there but i don't think we will see one very soon. I once saw a program on that string theory you guys where talking about earlier and it was amazing. 10 dimensions. go figure. to much for my brain to handle. I have trouble with 3 dimensions after a few beers.

[Fyron]

How can you prove it was postdiction?
Again, if you examine each book of the Bible, and really look for dates and so forth, you can come out with a date of when the book was started and completed.

How can you prove it is prediction? That is the claim on which you base your argument. You can not prove this, so your argument has no base.

So you're saying that Babylon never did fall to the assyrian army?

That was not an example you gave. You said that the new testament said that Jerusalem would fall to Babylon. In fact, you said this:

It was foretold that Jerusalem would be destroyed in one night by the Babylon army, those that survived would be carried off into exile for 70 years and then return to their homeland to restore their city. This in fact did happen.

There was nothing about Assyrians.

2nd Timothy 3: 1-5 has some. Earthqacks, wars, famines, pestilences, nation rising against nation, etc.

Oh, so he said that some very common disasters that had happened in the past would happen again? That is like saying the sun will rise tomorrow. Well duh. It doesn't make it impressive at all, and does not mean that anything else in the Bible is true just because of that.

[ February 26, 2003, 23:40: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Fyron]

Hhhmm. You also referred to a book (a physics book) as and i quote: "It was in my physics book Last year, which is generally accepted as the best physics text book out there. "
So if it's ok for you to refer to a book, why can't Ragnarok do it. Just because your book is a scientific book and his the bible doesn't mean that your book is more inclined to be true.
History is full of scientific books that years later (or centuries later) proved to be utter crap.
And it's always easy to question a book:
"why do you think that physics book is any evidence? Why is it better than other physics book? What makes it right, and everything else wrong?"
Don't get me wrong i love science and i do believe that what you are saying about the speed of light is true, it just don't agree with the way you are trying to show there is no evidence that the bible is true (or wrong for that matter).
Any book can be full of crap.

First off, there is a huge difference between subjective truths and objective truths. Objective truths are verifiable outside of the context of the beliefs and reactions of a single person. Subjective truths are not, and completely depend on the beliefs of the person in question.

The formulae and such in my Physics book have valid mathematical proofs that show that they are correct. Examining the proofs for error turned up nothing, so the forumulae and then the theorems and statements based on those formulae have a valid basis. So, I can conclude that they are more or less accurate, and are objective instead of subjective. The Bible lacks anything like this. It is based off of subjective opinion used as fact and evidence, which simply does not work.

The physics book could be full of crap, but at least it is not based off of crap, it is based of of logical reasoning. Frankly, the basis of the Bible is (to use your words ) crap. A book based off of flawed subjective truths can not be right. A book based off of valid objective reasoning (such as my physics book) at least has a valid basis. It is very unlikely that we are completley wrong about the basic principles on which the information in the physics book is founded. If we were, we would not have these nice computers to be used to post on this forum. The information presented in my physics book was used to design them, and the internet, so it looks to me as if it is not crap. However, the Bible does lack these objective facts that the physics book is based off of. It's basis is entirely subjective. So, it can not be taken as true, because it's claims have no logical proof. You have to take a huge leap of faith to believe the Bible. You do not have to take such a leap to believe my physics book.

quote:

---

Originally posted by minipol:
i forgot: as for aliens, i do believe they are out there but i don't think we will see one very soon. I once saw a program on that string theory you guys where talking about earlier and it was amazing. 10 dimensions. go figure. to much for my brain to handle. I have trouble with 3 dimensions after a few beers.

---

I think it is supposed to be 11, actually. Of course, it is an extreme theory, and has little chance of ever being proven satisfactorily.

[ February 26, 2003, 23:54: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[minipol]

Frankly, the basis of the Bible is (to use your words ) crap.

I didn't say that

I think it is supposed to be 11, actually. Of course, it is an extreme theory, and has little chance of ever being proven satisfactorily.

11? Wow. It looked promosing though. In that program they said that suddenly a lot of "unsolved" mysteries of science could be solved by it or at least when they recalculated stuff it now worked
I have no idea what to expect from it but it was quite complicated. Interesting though.