Does god exist?

[nopedk]

"Yes, but Christianity has more proof than any other religion."

Lmao, not really.

[Blackie6789]

I'm not really part of this debate but the whole, "eye for an eye" thing is annoying me.

It's pretty much a case of higher law vs lower law. The "eye for an eye" rule was part of the law of Moses, which had all sorts of weird rules like "You can only take a certain number of steps on Sunday.", and "You have to be a certain amount of steps away from your house before you go to the bathroom on Sunday." (which was actually contradiction since the number of steps you had be away from your house was more than the number of steps you could take on Sunday).

The Law of Moses was made because the Jewish people weren't ready for the higher law. Then, when Jesus came, he taught that you should forgive others, overriding the lower law of an eye for an eye.

OK OK....This debate reached 101 pages...

First off, the "law" for the jewish in the new testament became unnecessary after Jesus died on the cross, also, sacrificing animals. Why? Because Jesus died for their sins, they didn't need to make theirselves clean, Jesus already did that. Now you just have to ask for forgiveness.

Same thing with Sabbath. E.G. sunday.

It is unnecessary to do all the stuff that the Jews did because Jesus died for our sins, we don't need to have all these customs were we can only eat an olive on sunday or something, we can do what we wish to a certain extent.

Like your post toad

[Rammjet]

Surely if the old law was reversed and edited, it shows that your 'omniscient' god can make mistakes, and therefore shows that they must be fallible.
This means any word written in the name of this god could be out of date, mistaken or purely incorrect.

[Εclipse Midir]

Look what I found. http://forums.philosophyforums.com/t...ist-34498.html

I think I might try to go recruit some of the members from this thread... surely they'll have something to say. Pwn pwn pwn. Maybe Rammjet might find his (Theist) match.

[Red Jackdaw]

For Young Earth Creationists, is any rebuttal coming to the below post? If there is not, then I will assume that the creationist age of the Earth has been disproven, and I will move on to showing the proven scientific age of the Earth.

I guess to first establish the true age of the Earth, the 'Young Earth Creationist' age of the Earth needs to be disestablished for ease of mind.

I'll post merely one argument for now, so it can be focused on in detail:


Bottom of Lake Refines Carbon Dating Technique (From ABC news)

Each spring, tiny plants bloom in Lake Suigetsu, a small body of water in Japan. When these one cell algae die, they drift down, shrouding the lake floor with a thin, white layer of sediment.

The rest of the year, dark clay sediments settle on the bottom. The alternating layers of dark and light count the years like tree rings. That has allowed scientists to fine tune a technique called carbon 14 dating, which is used to pin down dates for artefacts tens of thousands of years old. "

Here is the line of logic which shows that C14 works:

1. We see the Lake bloom with algae every year in spring today. We would assume they have bloomed every spring in the past too, as the sediment layers are roughly the same in size.
2. We see the algae die and make a white layer on the lake bottom.
3. We have no reason whatsoever to think that the white layers are formed in any other way.
4. We see one white layer per year.

With this, we can then count the white layers to get what year the white layer was deposited. There are 100,000 of them in the lake (which presents its own problem for Young Earth Creationists apart from carbon 14)

Since the white layer is organic, we can carbon date it to see the age. Carbon dating the bottom sediments a reads roughly 100,000 years - the same result as the 'tree ring' counting technique used at the bottom of the Japanese lake. Not only does it prove carbon dating as a reliable way to estimate a dead objects age - it also proves beyond a doubt (as two entirely different investigations come out with the same result) that the Earth is not 4000 years old.

Graph to show the calibration of carbon dating readings with the age of the algae varves:



It should be noted that carbon dating isr accuate in terms of order of magnitude. This means that its reading is accurate to the correct power of 10. Ie, if the real age of an object is 1.2 x 105 (120,000) years of age, it may give a reading of 1.1 x 105 (110,000), but it will not give a reading of 1.2 x 104 years (11,000) years.

Saying that carbon dating is not precise to the dot is meaningless, as scientists know that already. Carbon dating is used to determine an accurate age in terms of order of order of magnitude. If carbon dating says something is 150,000 years old, the real figure won't be lower that a 6 figure number.

[Blackie6789]

For Young Earth Creationists, is any rebuttal coming to the below post? If there is not, then I will assume that the creationist age of the Earth has been disproven, and I will move on to showing the proven scientific age of the Earth.

Yeah, sure.

I'll do it later, by the way, carbon-14 dating isn't exactly accurate.

[Morte]

Yeah, sure.

I'll do it later, by the way, carbon-14 dating isn't exactly accurate.

It is actually more inaccurate then accurate

[Rammjet]

Yeah, sure.

I'll do it later, by the way, carbon-14 dating isn't exactly accurate.

Carbon dating is fairly accurate, shown by red jackdaw's post. Luckily geologits use even more accurate measures like Uranium dating to date the earth's age, working with astronomers, archeaologists and biologists to get the best picture.

[Red Jackdaw]

Yeah, sure.

I'll do it later, by the way, carbon-14 dating isn't exactly accurate.

It is actually more inaccurate then accurate

I refer you back to my post, where it states the following:

It should be noted that carbon dating is accurate in terms of order of magnitude. This means that its reading is accurate to the correct power of 10. Ie, if the real age of an object is 1.2 x 105 (120,000) years of age, it may give a reading of 1.1 x 105 (110,000), but it will not give a reading of 1.2 x 104 years (11,000) years.

Saying that carbon dating is not precise to the dot is meaningless, as scientists know that already. Carbon dating is used to determine an accurate age in terms of order of order of magnitude. If carbon dating says something is 150,000 years old, the real figure won't be lower that a 6 figure number.

In addition, I've just proven to you that carbon dating is accurate (in terms of order of magnitude), because a totally unrelated method of dating (varve counting) also comes out with the same result. They are both accurate methods of dating, which match each other's result. If both were inaccurate, they would not then come out with the same result.

[SeeTheRainbow]

I'm not sure.

[[1amayzingman]]

I think I might try to go recruit some of the members from this thread... surely they'll have something to say. Pwn pwn pwn. Maybe Rammjet might find his (Theist) match.

That baby sure is smart for drinking 90% alcohol.

[Toad]

Surely if the old law was reversed and edited, it shows that your 'omniscient' god can make mistakes, and therefore shows that they must be fallible.
This means any word written in the name of this god could be out of date, mistaken or purely incorrect.

The law wasn't changed. The higher law was always there, it's just that people weren't ready for it. :/

[Rammjet]

The law wasn't changed. The higher law was always there, it's just that people weren't ready for it. :/

An all powerful god could surely persuade their own creations.

Telling people to take bloody revenge on eachother because they're 'not ready to be nice' isn't exactly a moral high ground.

In any case, the fact that a previous law was usurped is a change. An alteration in significance, yes that's a change.

[[1amayzingman]]

An all powerful god could surely persuade their own creations.

Telling people to take bloody revenge on eachother because they're 'not ready to be nice' isn't exactly a moral high ground.

In any case, the fact that a previous law was usurped is a change. An alteration in significance, yes that's a change.

Could.

Kinda defeats the whole purpose of putting us down here in the first place, though.

[Rammjet]

Could.

Kinda defeats the whole purpose of putting us down here in the first place, though.

Unless 'God' is a "kid with a magnifying glass burning an ant hill" ~ bruce all mighty.

It's always a strange assumption that any God(s) that could exist should be benevolent creatures, rather than sadists.

[fastfoodcac1]

PROOF HE EXISTS:
http://www.titane.ca/igod/main.html
yeah... say something
sorry for interrupting seriousness, just adding a bit of faile humour :]

[Rammjet]

According to iGod the true ruler of the universe is a spider called 'IKEA' who rules the internet and may or may not love me.

I'm told to 'ask paola' if the Ikea spider really loves me.

[Blackie6789]

Carbon dating is fairly accurate, shown by red jackdaw's post. Luckily geologits use even more accurate measures like Uranium dating to date the earth's age, working with astronomers, archeaologists and biologists to get the best picture.

Yes, I didn't say it was totally inaccurate, I said it was fairly inaccurate. By the way, gratz on 10,000 thanks.

[Rammjet]

Yes, I didn't say it was totally inaccurate, I said it was fairly inaccurate. By the way, gratz on 10,000 thanks.

Ty

The accuracy of carbon dating is good enough for the job it does- because it's readings are mirrored by other radioisotopic dating, tree rings and biological processes.

So far all inclusive purposes, C-14 is a nifty way to discover the age of a 32 thousand year old wooden sculpture.

[anyone]

I think I might try to go recruit some of the members from this thread... surely they'll have something to say. Pwn pwn pwn. Maybe Rammjet might find his (Theist) match.

There's more to that site than just that thread and its discussion. Is it worth the effort bringing them to Rammjet when Rammjet could simply go there?