Search results

Science looks to material reality for its source of knowledge. Hence when scientists disagree they go looking for more knowledge to resolve any dispute. That is why Einstein's theory of gravity replaced Newton's theory of gravity. Religions look to their own scriptures for their source of...

I am Buddhist, not atheist; look at my avatar picture as a reminder. Buddhism has a great many gods, but they are not important and can be ignored. The universe exists, both material and immaterial components. All components are temporary, they start and end. However, there has always been at...

You claimed that free will requires creation, see post #12. Does God have free will? If He does then free will was not created, any more than God Himself was created. If God does not have free will, then a great deal of theology will have to be rewritten, since without free will God is...

We are agreed that things can exist without being created, for example God was not created. Life was not created because God is a "living God". If you agree that God has free will, then free will was not created either. Hence your earlier argument about free will requiring creation is refuted...

How can God exist if He wasn't created? If God has free will, then free will wasn't created. If God doesn't have free will, then what does that say about God? You need to think this through some more.

So do theists. They claim God/Vishnu/Allah created the universe and then cannot explain how God/Vishnu/Allah came to be. For me it is easier to define the universe as "All That Exists", so the universe includes any and all existing gods. Because nothing can exist outside the ATE universe, then...

It wasn't a flood, it was the sea. Geology shows that continents move, and that seas can advance and retreat. Tell me, were there a lot of land animals, including humans, fossilised in these sandstones, or were the fossils marine organisms? The types of fossils included in the rocks will tell...

No I am not. There was a very large local flood, which people at the time (or those who retold the story to their children) assumed was worldwide. The evidence from America and Australia shows that it was not worldwide. You still have not shown a date for your sandstone.

As I said, without a date you cannot tell if this sandstone is from Noah's flood. It could be from another flood, which happened before of after the flood in Genesis. Sandstone forms under water, that much is correct. What you need now is a date for the sandstone to show that is came from the...

So, you have no reference for the date of the sandstone. Given that you cannot date the sandstone, you cannot assert that it is evidence for the Genesis flood. Being sandstone, it is a sedimentary rock, and so is evidence for a flood somewhere on earth at an unknown date, and that flood may have...

And the date for those layers of sandstone is? You need a date if sandstone, or limestone, can be evidence for the Genesis flood. If the rock is from the wrong year, then it is not evidence for Noah's flood, but for some other flood.

Of course it is. The world has four macroscopic dimensions, and cosmologists are working on ideas with 11 or 13 dimensions, though the extra dimensions are quantum size, rather than macroscopic.

And that evidence comes from the Middle Easy only. We have no accounts of a flood covering Australia or America. Hence we might just have a very large flood in the Middle East. The evidence found in geology and biology shows that neither Australia or America were completely flooded at the time...

None. British lightbulbs use a bayonet fitting, not a screw fitting. :)

Thank you for confirming my point. Your 'snake' is not a literal snake, but a human being with unpleasant characteristics. Your 'fountain of youth' is not a literal fountain. Your 'money tree' is not a literal tree. Just as the trees and serpent in Genesis are not literal, and show that a...

You are incorrect. Answers in Genesis treat the Bible as a science textbook. According to them, all science has to agree with their literal interpretation of Genesis. Here is their Statement of Faith on the subject: No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including...

Famous men attracted stories in the past: Jesus, Herakles, King Arthur and the Buddha. Those are stories, most of which have a moral, even if the moral is "This was an important person." Another example is Suetonius' Twelve Caesars; those were real men which all had some miraculous stories...

This is a science forum, not a theology forum. The Bible is not a science textbook, as is shown by its failure to mention Neptune, pulsars and Australia. Something Ken Ham and other YECs would do well to understand. Or do you have scientific evidence of a talking serpent? Salvation is something...

I do. However that means that extra-Biblical knowledge is needed to correctly interpret what it says. For example, a modern story that begins, "Once upon a time..." is signalling that this story is fiction, not to be taken literally. Do translators know what, if anything, was the equivalent in...

My point is that your statement "the truth of the Bible" is not as clear as you appear to think. The Bible is both incomplete, no mention of Australia, and requires human interpretation. By adding human interpretation, errors are introduced, hence the number of different denominations that claim...