Author Topic: 1st proof for God's existence  (Read 10759 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SomariHater

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 249
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • I don't believe in Jupiter! There is no evidence.
1st proof for God's existence
« on: October 29, 2009, 12:07:58 PM »
Consider Genesis 6:3
Quote from: Moses
Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

(Note: this declaration was not "retrospective." It only applied to people after the time it was made. This is clear from the context.)

Moses wrote these words sometime around 1450 - 1410 B.C. (i.e. approximately 3,459 years ago)[1]. This verse seems to be testable. If the Bible is true and inspired by an omniscient Being who is honest, then this verse should be true.

Well, what does the "scientific" data say?
"The oldest recognized person on record is Jeanne Calment, a French woman who lived for 122 years and 164 days. Maximum recorded life span for humans has remained about 105-122 calendar years throughout recorded history, despite steady improvements in life expectancy."[2]

So, it seems like this verse holds true (and has held true for about 3,459 years!).

[For those who will say, "Haha! The Bible is wrong, it says people will only live 120 years, but one woman lived longer": Does this mean that a person will drop dead on their 120th birthday? Of course not. This is similar to 1 Kings 7:23, when it says, "He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it." That verse implies pi = 30/10 = 3. Isn't that clearly wrong? First of all, it is an approximation. Second of all, the calculation is entirely correct (i.e. not an error). Has anyone hear of "significant figures"[3]? 30 has one and 10 has one, so the answer should only have one. What is pi to one significant digit? What do you know! It's 3!]

So, how could a "primitive" man know that maximum lifespan for humans was going to stay around 120 years? Why has this held true for thousands of years?

Now we get to our proof for God's existence.

Proof #1:

1.) The Bible contains knowledge that the authors could not have determined with human wisdom alone (i.e. knowledge of the future, as shown above).

2.) The knowledge is indeed correct, so it must have come from some other source.

3.) God is described as omniscient and honest, so the knowledge could have come from God.

4.) God providing the knowledge is the most likely explaination (more likely than "future-aware aliens" or "dumb luck").

5.) Therefore, God exists.



-You might disagree with 1, but I've shown an example of something the authors could not have known (unless you want to argue that they could have known the lifespan of people for 3,459 years into the future).

-Now I suspect point number 4 will encounter the most criticism. The other likely explainations for how the Genesis 6:3 hypothesis came about is 1.) by aliens (or humans) who know the future or 2.) by dumb luck. [If there are other explainations that you feel are more likely, please tell me.]

*Aliens are not very likely because that would require that the already unlikely evolution of sentient life occured more than once.

*Aliens who know the future are even more unlikely. The aliens would need to be able to time travel, and they would have to have had contact with the authors of the Bible.

*Dumb luck is very unlikely. First of all, why would the authors take the chance of being wrong on something so seemingly insignificant, as to undermine their whole message? Why would they even write the Bible in the first place if they knew they were just making up balogna? Secondly, how did they manage to get it right? How did they do that with every other such statement in the Bible? The odds are astronomical.

*God is likely because the authors name him as a source.



I doubt anyone will convert to theism over night with this. It's just something to think about. I believe that this should make any rational person think twice. I know, however, that close-minded individuals will instantly discard this.

My goal with this proof is to start to raise some "doubt" about the plausibility of atheism. I plan on providing 4 other proof for God's existence, so stay tuned.
 1. http://www.allaboutcreation.org/when-was-genesis-written-faq.htm
 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_lifespan#In_humans
 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures
« Last Edit: October 29, 2009, 12:49:10 PM by SomariHater »
House (from House M.D.): I assume I'm right, because I find it hard to operate under the opposite assumption.

Offline hickdive

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 950
  • Darwins +35/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2009, 12:24:44 PM »
What age was Methuselah when he died?
Stupidity, unlike intelligence, has no limits.

Offline Emergence

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 856
  • Darwins +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • do i look impressed?
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2009, 12:41:59 PM »
Well, what does the "scientific" data say?
"The oldest recognized person on record is Jeanne Calment, a French woman who lived for 122 years and 164 days. Maximum recorded life span for humans has remained about 105?122 calendar years throughout recorded history, despite steady improvements in life expectancy."

Well, duh, if the maximum recorded lifespan for humans has been 105-120 years throughout recorded history, then it stands to reason that the maximum lifespan humans had heard of during the time Genesis was written was somewhere around that 'house-number' and therefore recorded in Genesis. Things that can be directly observed do not need a godly revelation to find their way into holy books. This hold especially true if one reasonably assumes that Genesis was written down in somehow privileged social circles, where actually approaching the maximum lifespan was more probable than among lowly peasants.

It is furthermore not very surprising that the maximal lifespan didn't vary much within approximately 3000 - 4000 years, which represents a relatively short timespan in geological time.      
Change alone is eternal, perpetual, immortal.
Arthur Schopenhauer

Offline SomariHater

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 249
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • I don't believe in Jupiter! There is no evidence.
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2009, 12:48:19 PM »
What age was Methuselah when he died?

Thank you for bringing that up. I've added a note in the first post to address that.

Quote from: SomariHater
(Note: this declaration was not "retrospective." It only applied to people after the time it was made. This is clear from the context.)

Methuselah died at age 969 (Genesis 5:27). Methuselah, however, lived before the time of this declaration.


Quote from: Emergence
Well, duh, if the maximum recorded lifespan for humans has been 105-120 years throughout recorded history, then it stands to reason that the maximum lifespan humans had heard of during the time Genesis was written was somewhere around that 'house-number' and therefore recorded in Genesis.

You think they knew the statistics would remain unchanged over the whole earth and for people into the future for thousands of years? If you have no problem believing that (for one thing, you are admitting that the "primitive" authors of the Bible were pretty smart), than this proof is not for you. Stay tuned for the others.

Could you answer these questions in my original post?
Quote from: SomariHater
So, how could a "primitive" man know that maximum lifespan for humans was going to stay around 120 years? Why has this held true for thousands of years?
« Last Edit: October 29, 2009, 12:51:45 PM by SomariHater »
House (from House M.D.): I assume I'm right, because I find it hard to operate under the opposite assumption.

Offline Agamemnon

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4940
  • Darwins +15/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2009, 01:00:46 PM »
I wonder if that 120 year number has remained consistent throughout every single translation of the bible?
« Last Edit: October 29, 2009, 01:22:28 PM by Agamemnon »
So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.  --Bertrand Russell

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2791
  • Darwins +80/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2009, 01:17:39 PM »
Quote
*Dumb luck is very unlikely. First of all, why would the authors take the chance of being wrong on something so seemingly insignificant, as to undermine their whole message?


And yet, "dumb luck" is far more likely than "magic man done it".


Quote
Why would they even write the Bible in the first place if they knew they were just making up balogna?

So how does this applies to the thousands of other religions out there, all of which, I presume, you consider false?
Even pushing that aside, I can think of many reasons.  The writers were crazy, the writers were scam aritists, they wanted control, etc, etc...



Quote
Secondly, how did they manage to get it right? How did they do that with every other such statement in the Bible? The odds are astronomical.

Demostrate these factual statements.  Will bats as birds and rabbits chewing cuds be part of them?
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline Emergence

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 856
  • Darwins +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • do i look impressed?
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2009, 01:46:50 PM »
You think they knew the statistics would remain unchanged over the whole earth and for people into the future for thousands of years?

The maximum is no matter of statistics. It simply is the maximum. That is why it was recorded throughout history. Or simpler: To each Generation of history recording cultures there was at least one individual known who had seen approximately 120 years. No statistics needed, just a calender and written accounts. Something the "primitives" were able to do very well as we know from - well - their written accounts.

Quote
So, how could a "primitive" man know that maximum lifespan for humans was going to stay around 120 years? Why has this held true for thousands of years?

Simple answer: They didn't know that. Genesis 6 doesn't make future predictions, it deals with past occurrences.

Change alone is eternal, perpetual, immortal.
Arthur Schopenhauer

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2791
  • Darwins +80/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2009, 02:14:07 PM »
SomariHater,

Your arguement seems to rest on the idea that bible "got the gist of it".  Is that really the best you think an omniscient being can do?  Wouldn't you expect an omniscient being to give far more precise and impresive figures?  If the bible had said, "No man shall ever live longer than 125 years, 3 months, 12 days, 8 hours and 32 seconds", and it could be demostrated that no one in recorded history has lived longer than that, then your arguement would be a tad more impressive.  As it is, your point can easily be refuted with "dumb luck/people made observation".
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline Agamemnon

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4940
  • Darwins +15/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2009, 03:12:20 PM »
Your arguement seems to rest on the idea that bible "got the gist of it".  Is that really the best you think an omniscient being can do?  Wouldn't you expect an omniscient being to give far more precise and impresive figures?

Indeed. When you are proving that God exists you don't have to be exact. You only have to be in the ballpark. And, of course, the ballpark can be adjusted. Throw in a little confirmation bias and the next thing you know you have "proof."

I am curious as to why this omniscient being would even bother being accurate with something so thoroughly trivial and obscure, while getting all kinds of more important facts blatantly wrong?
So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.  --Bertrand Russell

Offline Graybeard

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 8426
  • Darwins +882/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #9 on: October 29, 2009, 03:26:59 PM »
Consider Genesis 6:3
Quote from: Moses
Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

(Note: this declaration was not "retrospective." It only applied to people after the time it was made. This is clear from the context.)

Moses wrote these words sometime around 1450 - 1410 B.C. (i.e. approximately 3,459 years ago)[1]. This verse seems to be testable. If the Bible is true and inspired by an omniscient Being who is honest, then this verse should be true.

Well, what does the "scientific" data say?
"The oldest recognized person on record is Jeanne Calment, a French woman who lived for 122 years and 164 days. Maximum recorded life span for humans has remained about 105-122 calendar years throughout recorded history, despite steady improvements in life expectancy."[2]

So, it seems like this verse holds true (and has held true for about 3,459 years!).
 1. http://www.allaboutcreation.org/when-was-genesis-written-faq.htm
 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_lifespan#In_humans

Have I missed something here? God says that man will be limited to 120 years of life, you say this is testable and some French woman defies him and lives to 122 years. You then claim that a lack of understanding of pi justifies the error.

Therefore God exists?

Come back with better proof.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline JTFC

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 364
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Beware socialist weasel suicide bombers
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #10 on: October 29, 2009, 03:39:23 PM »
This is similar to 1 Kings 7:23, when it says, "He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it." That verse implies pi = 30/10 = 3. Isn't that clearly wrong? First of all, it is an approximation. Second of all, the calculation is entirely correct (i.e. not an error). Has anyone hear of "significant figures"[1]? 30 has one and 10 has one, so the answer should only have one. What is pi to one significant digit? What do you know! It's 3!]
 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures

I don't see anything in that verse stating that these measurements were approximate.  Could you please point that out for me, as I'd like to see that.  The significant figure is a nice dodge, though, I'll give you that.  The point remains, though, that if it had been written 31 instead of 30, you would not have to jump through these logic hoops like you have to now.  Is there some reason that god cannot be more precise than one significant figure?  An all-powerful, all-knowing god should have been able to describe this structure far more precisely than this, especially knowing that there would be those who would challenge the knowledge contained in the Bible.
"...if you are not like everybody else, then you are abnormal, if you are abnormal , then you are sick. These three categories, not being like everybody else, not being normal and being sick are in fact very different but have been reduced to the same thing."  Michel Foucault

Offline Ananukia

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1663
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • I wear no mask.
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #11 on: October 29, 2009, 03:45:18 PM »
120 < 122
        Songs that the Hyades shall sing,
    Where flap the tatters of the King,
    Must die unheard in

        Dim Carcosa.

Offline Hermes

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9988
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • 1600 years of oppression ends; Zeus is worshiped.
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #12 on: October 29, 2009, 03:50:32 PM »
SomariHater, your argument is the same as the one that because people haven't flown, gone over 30 miles per hour on a train, gone to the moon, made really tall buildings, transplanted organs and limbs, or cured specific diseases including eradicating many plagues -- that no human will be capable of making life from scratch, colonizing other planets, or living for a couple hundred years.

As soon as any of those goals are met, the goal posts will simply be moved or the game will change and scoffing about 'that old game' will happen.  It's a cheap tactic.  Cut it out.
Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice.  --Sir James George Frazer

Offline Tealeaf

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #13 on: October 29, 2009, 04:09:43 PM »
Uh yeah....this is pretty lame. It says 120 and he just listed the woman as 122.... That's a pretty great percentage of innacuracy..for the almighty creator that knows everything.

Also, what a batshit insane thing to go and divinely reveal on god's part. Why live at all if he's already got your death slated? So he's just going to knock your ass down when you get to the age he said you aren't allowed to pass?

I've got a heavy whiff of bullshit already from this thread.... It came in the form of someone putting a 9 (or any number greater than 1) at the front of a 3-digit number expressing human age. I can not believe adults in today's world would try to argue that people EVER lived for hundreds of year, let alone almost a thousand! I don't think there is any form of life at all on this planet that lives for 900 years. Not even trees. If there is, we haven't found it. But one things for sure, it's not us.

And let's consider ancient times again.... Here in the modern world, with all our advances and living conditions, the highest expected age is somewhere in the 80's. Most people on the planet won't even make it to that currently. Are people seriously trying to advocate that 2000 years ago in desert tribes....there were people regularly living over 100; let alone over 50????

Hey I've got a proof from the bible that god exists! It even takes place here and now!

1. The bible takes place on earth.

2. Earth exists.

3. The bible talks about god acting on the earth.

4. Therefore, god exists.

Like seriously....the OP might as well argue the sun spins around the earth. It's just as primitive as the belief in people living 9 centuries....

Offline naemhni

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4377
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #14 on: October 29, 2009, 04:15:42 PM »
I don't think there is any form of life at all on this planet that lives for 900 years. Not even trees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pine
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Ananukia

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1663
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • I wear no mask.
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #15 on: October 29, 2009, 05:24:39 PM »
tEAFLEAF THERE ARE SPONGES THAT LIVE LONGER.
        Songs that the Hyades shall sing,
    Where flap the tatters of the King,
    Must die unheard in

        Dim Carcosa.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14267
  • Darwins +571/-55
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #16 on: October 29, 2009, 05:26:03 PM »
um... please stop posting in caps
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Religions need books because they don't have gods.

Offline changeling

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 663
  • Darwins +15/-0
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #17 on: October 29, 2009, 05:26:42 PM »
The oldest verified redwood tree is at least 2,200 years of age, but foresters believe that some may be much older.

http://sempervirens.org/sequoiasemp.htm

edit, added link
« Last Edit: October 29, 2009, 05:28:56 PM by changeling »
The level of dumb they have to sell, is only made remotely possible by the level of flocking their sheep are willing to do in the name of rewards for no thought. quote: Kin Hell

"Faith is the enemy of evidence, for when we know the truth, no faith is required." Graybeard

Offline JesusYourLord

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #18 on: October 29, 2009, 08:11:14 PM »
The average lifespan is growing every year (at least in the Western world, and for some strange reason especially in countries with a high level of atheism).

Just wait until we ban cigarettes, cure cancer and disover how to replace organs through stemcell research!
We will break the 122 year record soon enough, and maybe someone will even reach 130 or 140!

As for the proof of God, the Bible being right once in a while doesn't really impress me. As the old proverb says:
"Even a stopped clock is right twice in a day".

If an all knowing God had revealed some holy scriptures to us, they would have been so astoundingly profound and wise there would have been no denying a God. That is not the kind of book I see when I read the Bible. My absolute favourite verse is Numbers 18:17.
Quote
But the firstling of a cow, or the
firstling of a sheep, or the firstling
of a goat, thou shalt not redeem;
they are holy: thou shalt sprinkle
their blood upon the altar, and shalt
burn their fat for an offering made
by fire, for a sweet savour unto the
LORD.
A God that is pleased with the savour of burned goat?
Does this seem like the preferences of an allmighty, allknowing God, or does this seem strangely reminiscent of Bronze age customs of sacrificing livestock to appease the gods?
I'm an atheist!

God was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The Flying Spaghetti Monster was created by Chuck Norris.

Offline Tealeaf

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #19 on: October 30, 2009, 03:56:20 AM »
Alright, I stand corrected on the trees. I had a hunch they would be of the oldest of things to live though ;)

Too bad those really old ones didn't have cameras installed in them to give us a real picture of ~2000 years ago....

Offline Grimm

  • Professional Windmill Tilter
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 826
  • Darwins +61/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Apparently, the Dragon to be Slain
    • The Hexadecimal Number of the Beast
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #20 on: October 30, 2009, 06:35:23 AM »
You know, the "Pi in the Bible" thing would be more compelling if, say, circles in the real world couldn't be physically measured.  But they can.  You can take a string and measure around and across and ... well. 

Why is it so amazing that a fellow measured his well and got something close to Pi?  It's not proof of the divine, it's proof he did a pretty good job measuring.   He didn't even have to do math.  You can do it yourself.  It's not a prophecy, it's not a divine revelation... it's a story about a guy measuring a circle.

Woo.

No offense, but just look at my excitement.  My hair's standing up on my arms.

Observation of physical phenomena (and Pi isn't a physical 'phenomena', it's just a constant of Geometry) is just observation of physical phenomena.  Saying 'hey, the bible says men live to 120' isn't particularly divine, nor is the 30/10 nonsense.  On the one hand, the Faithful want to read in all sorts of prophecy and the rest, while on the other, the disbeliever tries to point to nits to show how amazingly awful God is, or something.

It's certainly not proof of anything, that's for darned sure.  Oh, and Somari - what would be more impressive would be is that if you could show what Moses said really was some sort of divine reduction in lifespan, instead of an observation.  Personally, I think methuselah's a really good story about an old guy that was exaggerated, as old oral traditions are wont to exaggerate, into something mythic.

But this nitty nonsense over a guy measuring a roughly circular well isn't proof of anything, on either side, as best I can tell.
"But to us, there is but one god, plus or minus one."  - 1 Corinthians 8:6+/-2

-- Randall, XKCD http://xkcd.com/900/

Offline JTFC

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 364
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Beware socialist weasel suicide bombers
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #21 on: October 31, 2009, 08:00:34 PM »
But this nitty nonsense over a guy measuring a roughly circular well isn't proof of anything, on either side, as best I can tell.

Except it's not really measuring, it's counting.  Build a circular well that measures 10 bricks across, and you will need 31 1/2 bricks to go around it.  This isn't just some arbitrary mathematical measurement, but something that well builders had to have a solid knowledge of, in order to construct wells that did not leak or collapse.  It also would come into play when it came time to bill the person for that well, as 31 1/2 bricks cost more than 30 would.  In that case, the common result would be to round up, to 32.  There is no instance where 30 would ever come into play.
"...if you are not like everybody else, then you are abnormal, if you are abnormal , then you are sick. These three categories, not being like everybody else, not being normal and being sick are in fact very different but have been reduced to the same thing."  Michel Foucault

Offline Crocoduck

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1680
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Nothing Fails Like Prayer.
    • my youtube channel
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #22 on: October 31, 2009, 09:30:31 PM »
actually this argument is flawed...

it doesnt take into account that,
- Xenu is in captivity and still alive after at least 77million years
- there are volcanoes
- there are hydrogen bombs
- Tom Cruise is an idiot

- therefore Xenu exists.
atheism is not a religion... it is a personal relationship with reality.
V00d00Sixxx Youtube Channel

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2118
  • Darwins +135/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #23 on: November 01, 2009, 10:49:02 AM »

From what I understand, the 120 in Genesis 6:3 has nothing to do with the life span of man. What it was referring to was the years man had left before biblegod sent the floodwaters to earth.

What do you make of Psalm 90:10?

"The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away."
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline SomariHater

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 249
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • I don't believe in Jupiter! There is no evidence.
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #24 on: November 02, 2009, 03:49:37 PM »

From what I understand, the 120 in Genesis 6:3 has nothing to do with the life span of man. What it was referring to was the years man had left before biblegod sent the floodwaters to earth.

What do you make of Psalm 90:10?

"The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away."


A lot of people believe that, but a close look at Genesis 6:3 reveals it is actually talking about lifespans. Anyway, the flood took place less than 100 years after God said that, so that makes no sense[1].

Psalm 90:10 seems to be a remarkably accurate description of average lifespan. It's not the same kind of declaration in Genesis where people used to live 900+ years and then God shortened people's maximum lifespans.



It seems like the most common rejection of this proof is that people think (sorry if you feel I ignored your specific objection):

1.) A primitive man could have guessed 120 years (and have that guess hold true for thousands of years)

2.) God could have been more precise.


In regards to 1, would any of you be comfortable making that prediction today? Namely, that for the next 4,000 years, the maximum lifespan for humans will be roughly 120 years? Of course not. You would have to factor in technology and advances in medicine. I doubt any of you would confidently say that.

If you think it would have been any different for Moses, you are mistaken. He probably had less data to work with. How did he know that people in far away lands didn't live to 150? How did he guess that the maximum lifespan would hover around 120 years for the next 4,000 years, despite changes in technology?


In regards to 2, of course God could have been more precise. He could have listed how long all the billions of people would live to the nanosecond.

Apparently I'm the only one that finds the verse remarkably accurate given the details of where it came from and who wrote it (especially if you believe that a man more than 4,000 years ago could say something and be that close without having any divine help!).
 1. http://www.direct.ca/trinity/120years.html
House (from House M.D.): I assume I'm right, because I find it hard to operate under the opposite assumption.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6861
  • Darwins +72/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #25 on: November 02, 2009, 04:05:30 PM »
Bwahahahahahaha!!!!

Good thread!
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline Agamemnon

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4940
  • Darwins +15/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #26 on: November 02, 2009, 05:09:41 PM »
Apparently I'm the only one that finds the verse remarkably accurate given the details of where it came from and who wrote it (especially if you believe that a man more than 4,000 years ago could say something and be that close without having any divine help!).

Can we just chalk it up to your confirmation bias and move on, then?
So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.  --Bertrand Russell

Offline DI

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #27 on: November 02, 2009, 08:30:08 PM »
http://www.googleguide.com/category/query-input/

Quote
Google Guide is an online interactive tutorial and reference for experienced users, novices, and everyone in between. I developed Google Guide because I wanted more information about Google's capabilties, features, and services than I found on Google's website. --Nancy Blachman

we should really sticky this website on this forum. using the power of google, i managed to find how to learn in mere seconds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

http://www.devpsy.org/teaching/method/confirmation_bias.html
"As I have previously stated, the middle east has been extensively excavated, and there is no evidence of the Exodus.  No Exodus, no chosen people.  No chosen people, no messiah.  No messiah, no resurrection.  No resurrection, no god."

-Odin

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2196
  • Darwins +288/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #28 on: November 02, 2009, 10:21:25 PM »

In regards to 1, would any of you be comfortable making that prediction today? Namely, that for the next 4,000 years, the maximum lifespan for humans will be roughly 120 years? Of course not. You would have to factor in technology and advances in medicine. I doubt any of you would confidently say that.


Hell no.  I wouldn't be comfortable making that prediction today.  Because over the next few decades, that number will continue to go up.  You know it.  I know it.  Everyone knows it.  The fact is, when that goes up, God will be even MORE wrong than he is now with only a 2 year difference.  120 years will be way, way off in another few decades and even into the next century.  The thing is, back then when that prediction was made, they didn't know about modern medicine at all.  And if today, we didn't have modern medicine, then yeah I would certainly feel free to guess 120 as the max age.  Sure. 


In regards to 2, of course God could have been more precise. He could have listed how long all the billions of people would live to the nanosecond.


You sure do wish he had, don't you.   You know it would make a better case for you.  As it is though, this is nothing to stand on. 

Look, really.  There is nothing in the bible.... nothing at all.... that could have been written by someone who saw the future and accurately predicted it.  If it was from God, then God could accurately predict anything he wanted to.  He could have made the bible completely error free, and impossible to refute.  The absolute fact is, this is not the case.  The bible is full of errors.  The leprosy cure, the way prayer is described, the entire genesis account, the great flood. The list is endless.  If it was from God, then everyone would KNOW it was from God.  There would be no arguing it.  It would just be right in every single account.  No argument at all.  But that ISN'T TRUE.  Just because you picked out one part that someone might have guessed with semi-accuracy, doesn't override the rather large supply of things that are 100% false, or downright unprovable.  And in the future, 120 will collapse and you know it.  Our average life span is climbing every decade, and with it, the end ranges are climbing also. 

Here are a few things that would be "accurate" predictions. If any of the following predictions (or something as accurate as them) were in the bible, it would be pretty hard to ignore as evidence.  And remember, God could have done this.  He knew these things were going to happen.  Right? 

On December 7, 1941, a pacific empire will send armies with metal wings to destroy their enemies.  Boats of iron will falter and sink.  Thousands will die. 

On September 11, 2001, Allah's warriors will strike a blow to their enemies with the collapse of 2 towers of greed, using winged vessels of destruction. 

Somari, we ask for accuracy.  An educated guess that is sorta-accurate doesn't count as evidence of the divine.  What we are asking is not an unreasonable request.  If you want to claim a prediction is accurate and could only have been made with divine assistance, then it better be accurate, and it better be rock solid.  Your claim that God exists and that God gave information is extraordinary.  In order to believe it, you need the evidence to be extraordinary, not ho-hum.  It should make us say... "Hell yeah, that's rock solid.  I can't argue with that."  This is not even close. 

What if I were to claim that my god spoke to me and told me before the world series started that the Phillies were going to win it.  You would question my honesty because you already know that I had a pretty good chance of being right (50/50) even if my god didn't tell me.  You would not simply accept that I got a message from my god if the Phillies won, would you?  Now, if I said the Phillies will win in 6 games, and I named the winning pitcher of the final game, the losing pitcher, the final score, how many men were struck out, left on base, and the exact time the last game ended and they were ALL accurate, then you might be more willing to accept that it was a message from God.  Can you see how that works?  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  This is what we require of the bible.  It is not unreasonable.  If you can provide it, then it would be worth looking at.  The unfortunate thing is.... none of that can be found within the bible.  None of it. 

Sorry. God is not real.  It's all fake. 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT