What if...

[Willum]

Currently, I am doing what was suggested by some on these forums.
I am researching information both for, and against creationism, and trust me - I am doing so objectively.
While I am still researching, I want to put this out, to hear the different views on it.

During my research I discovered that lately, just over the last decade or so, a lot of informations has been surfacing about religious conspiracies.
In fact it has now become common place for people to mis-represent history itself on Wikipedia and other mediums.
I find this interesting.

Why now, is this happening?
Could it be that evidence as it always does, is now surfacing to show religion is manufactured and fossils are real?

For example
Remember the St John hoax - the one that was said Saint John's bones were in two different churches?
It has recently been found out that it wasn't a hoax after all, but that the two skeletons were from when St John was an old man, and the other was from when he was a young man.

That is quite interesting.

The skeletons aren't the only things that were/are claimed to be fake.
There are the drawings, and pictures as well.
Right now, I am going through a very long document considered a case against some of the Bibles picture illustrations.
But have you ever come across this one?
Quote:

Pictures from the past powerfully shape current views of the world. In books, television programs, and websites, new images appear alongside others that have survived from decades ago. Among the most famous are Noah stuffing two animals of every kind into an Ark 50 sizes too small, and Jesus petting tyrannosaurs.
[Noah]

[Jesus]

All of this lends to a possibility.
Consdering the fact that stories can be faked, we must accept the fact that whatever rich literate who wrote the Bible in Greek, and other religions could have lied.

My question here, isn't whether he did lie or not, but rather; Does this not place religionists in the same position as the scientists they claim are believing in theories?

Consider:
Scientists accept the facts, as what is repeatably demonstrated.
Here are just a few facts about the Science.
It is an iterative process, where the truth if it contradicts theory, trumps the theory.
It has unestimated annual sales of 100 trillions copies.
It has been a major influence on literature and history, except during the Dark Ages (nuff said).

Archaeological findings of science before the Bible was far more advanced than Christendom after the Dark Ages, and had already lain down the the Theory of Evolution!

The evidence is there however, that the modern science was information religionists willfully destroyed because it conflicted religious doctrine.

Religionists call the theories fables - as if by being a theory, that makes it much less respectable than the religious model that only has one non-verifiable source as its reference.
Maybe one of the reasons that they have not seen God, or seen him write any book - is because it is impossible.

However, is this not the case with those who accept the model of Judeo-Christianity, where all they have to go by, is what religionists claim to be evidence?

By the way...
No one, to this day have seen them recreate the miracles.
Any data they give you on miracles, is usually what already existed (at least what I have come across so far).
As regards other claims, all we have are pictures, and claimed rainbows over Arks and dinosaurs, which could have been edited.

So Judeo-Christians are really believing what men claim - without any substantial proof of their claim.
How is this different to believing in science?

And what if the folks who penned the Bible, who did not leave their names or citations, and others lied?


I'm just interested in you different opinions and thoughts, on the above.

[RonE]

Willum, you forgot to invite the theists. This is starting to look like a posting on the A-Room channel.

[JoeyKnothead]

Willum, you forgot to invite the theists. This is starting to look like a posting on the A-Room channel.

I spilt my coffee.

I find it somewhat reassuring that theists'd avoid this issue, what with the history of the 'intelligent design' crowd.

[Willum]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead]

This one was really designed for 'The Student.'
It seems he and other non-A-room folks can not withstand their own reasoning.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 13 by Willum]

Is no religionists able to defend their creator on my poor neglected OP? I am starting to be sad.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 14 by Willum]

I suppose the answer is as simple as if I asked: What if they lied about 1 + 1 = 4.

You see the picture of "1 + 1 = 4," it is indisputable.
Yet upon investigation we find that it is not true.

So, if they are lying about the Creationist model of the creation of life, it collapses under investigation.
Unlike the counter part, what if 1 + 1 2, which can be discussed endlessly, just as "What if they lied about evolutionary theory"has done.

Take one ball of clay and another ball of clay, add them together you get one ball of clay.
Take two rats, and twenty one days later you have seven rats.

Can no one defend their Lord in the face of this simple logic?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 14 by Willum]

I suppose the answer is as simple as if I asked: What if they lied about 1 + 1 = 4.

You see the picture of "1 + 1 = 4," it is indisputable.
Yet upon investigation we find that it is not true.

It's true for very large values of 1. If we assume that some bad programming has been done and someone decided to do:

x = 1.99999999999;
y = 1.99999999999;
z = x + y;

printf ("%d + %d = %d", trunc(x), trunc(y), ceil(z));

You will get "1 + 1 = 4". Is your computer lying?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 16 by benchwarmer]

No, but don't you think you are being dishonest to your computer?

Would you be so dishonest about God?
Or can we prove something y invoking a non-obligation to morality?

You are under no obligation to tell your computer the truth.
You can honestly report its results.

Does thins make 1 + 1 = 4?
I am not longer sure anymore.

Nothing technically or morally wrong has been purported.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 17 by Willum]



[center]

1 = 2 for very large values of 1[/center]

No, but don't you think you are being dishonest to your computer?

Not at all...

When does a 1 become a 2?

Well, it really depends on how we define it... how we round things off.
If we are rounding off to the first decimal, then 1.6 becomes two.

That might be perfect for SOME applications, but not for others.
When we are measuring very small objects, for example, 1 does not become 2 for a long long time. 1.99999999999999999999999999999 might not be two for certain applications.

But it may be close enough for most.

So, a 1 can actually be a 2, depending how we need to use the numbers.

That gives us the weird result 4 from 1+1, if we are talking about 1.999999 if we were rounding off numbers at the fifth decimal place, for example.

Anything that starts with a 1 is said to be "one point something..." and that something might be a lot....



1 = 2 for some big values of 1


That's not lying.. that's just how math works... it's weird at times.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 18 by Blastcat]

So, then we could disprove the creationist model by say using 1 + 1 = 5, instead of four?

Do units matter? Or accuracy?
Would meters be different than kilometers or ergs?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 16 by benchwarmer]

No, but don't you think you are being dishonest to your computer?

How am I being dishonest to my computer? I asked it to print out the result of the truncation function on 1.99999999999 twice and the result of the ceiling function on 3.9999999998.

I've 'interpreted' the values of x, y, and z to my own liking. Sound familiar?

Would you be so dishonest about God?

Dishonest no, but we see personal interpretation all day long on these forums.

Or can we prove something y invoking a non-obligation to morality?

Sorry, I don't understand that question. Since morality is subjective it would be hard to have any obligation to it unless it is your own morality.

You are under no obligation to tell your computer the truth.
You can honestly report its results.

Does thins make 1 + 1 = 4?
I am not longer sure anymore.

Well, I'm glad I messed with your noggin

Nothing technically or morally wrong has been purported.

I don't think so either