Author Topic: 1st proof for God's existence  (Read 10785 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CutePuppy

  • Unleashed Pet
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
  • Darwins +8/-0
  • Beware Of Puppy
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #58 on: November 05, 2009, 05:55:17 PM »
Quote from: CutePuppy
Hold on one second here. So if I said "no man will have a lifespan of (over) 10.000 years" and that prediction lasts longer than the 4k years prediction of biblegod then I > biblegod?

Is that 10,000 years? If so, you would be correct, but that would obviously be a "trivial" statement. Some people don't even believe the whole world is 10,000 years old. Let's compare what you said, to what God said.

God
------------
Man will live to 120. The data shows a person living to 122.
(122-120)/120 = 1.7% "error"

CutePuppy
------------
Man will live to 10,000
(10,000-122)/10,000 = 98.8% "error"

Yeah... it's not even looking like a contest... Your error > biblegod

How is it an "error" if my prediction hasn't been broken (yet)? biblegod's prediction is flawed, mine is not. 'No man will have a lifespan of (over) 10k years' does not, in any way, equal 'man will live to 10k'. And whether it's "trivial" or not is subjective. I can say the "no older than 120 years" is a trivial statement. And it was, when that prediction was made.

Offline GetMeThere

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2196
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #59 on: November 05, 2009, 06:12:49 PM »
Impressive, Somari. I never thought I'd be trying to convince a grown adult that 122 <> 120. This is why we don't want Christians in public office.

Just as I worried: I gave him an excuse for more of his nonsense...

Offline Agamemnon

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4940
  • Darwins +15/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #60 on: November 05, 2009, 06:45:45 PM »
Given the level of precision, 120 is equal to 122. What is 120 to two sig. figs.? 120. What is 122 to two sig. figs.? 120.

Is 120 = 120? Yes, of course.

The problem here is that the level of precision YOU expect from god is low. That's because you're high on Jesus juice. For someone that is not high on Jesus juice, the bar is set significantly higher.

You aren't talking about this to convince yourself, being as you were already convinced WITHOUT the proof. You are talking about this to convince us skeptics. With that in mind, you are not the one who determines the level of acceptable accuracy in this case. It is whomever you are trying to convince that makes that determination.

Being as I am one of the people you are trying to convince with this proof, I can say that your idea of precision is crap. We are talking about proving the ultimate reality here-- the existence of something amazing, super-powerful and omniscient. Therefore, any reasonable person is going to demand absolute accuracy with all digits.

That's really all there is to it, Somari. Like it or not, you can't prove stuff about your god if he's sloppy.
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 #61 on: November 06, 2009, 01:08:35 AM »
Quote
Not a chance. Pi can be calculated. We can know it for sure. The maximum lifespan into the future cannot be calculated. We can know the value of pi to a million digits and not be God.
Quote
He calculated. Big whoop. Who cares? (Well, actually it was a big achievement, but it hardly requires God). If he claimed some numbers that cannot be calculated (like the lifespan of humans into the future), that would be more impressive.

Wow, just wow.  You want use to accept proof of god, but the moment it becomes verifiable, it no longer counts? 

This gets goofier and goofier...
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2118
  • Darwins +135/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #62 on: November 06, 2009, 04:48:03 PM »
Somari,

   First off, thanks for bringing up this topic. I enjoyably spent several days of research on a topic I hadn't considered, and from that, I've learned quite a bit. So with that said, I'd like to wave my little white flag. You were right. I was wrong. The verse, “his days will be a hundred and twenty years” in the bible, is absolutely referring to the shortened lifespan of man.

Deuteronomy 34:7 backs you up.[1] Yahweh ordered Moses to climb Mount Nebo (the place that would be the stage for his death): “Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone.”

Notice how the verse stresses the importance of Moses’ great physical health. Considering the men prior to him lasted nearly 8 times as long, he was a young buck. If it weren't for Yahweh placing the 120 year limit on mankind, Moses would still have been slinging his magical snake staff around for hundreds of years. And would we really be having this conversation if each and every human on earth died on their 120th birthday? Let's take a look at the problems with this interpretation, even though it is the correct one:

   •We see generation after generation surpassing that limitation after Yahweh spoke those words. (Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, Esau, etc.)
      Ten generations after Noah and onward, Yahweh still hasn’t enforced the limit.

   •Like you already mentioned, we have verified in our own time period a human that has surpassed the 120 age limit back in the 90’s.

Yahweh stated man’s life limitation would be 120 years[2]- “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.’” He didn’t say “his days will be about a hundred and twenty years” or “his days will be a hundred and twenty years, give or take a few”. From the verses we have, it is understood Yahweh is saying that no man shall ever surpass the 120 mark. Yahweh left no wiggle room, no matter how you try and spin it.

So how could Yahweh have made such a problematic mistake? Was he on vacation hanging out in Spiral Galaxy M83 while Ms. Calment reached the cut off limit and lived for 894 more days? Of course not. Not if Yahweh is all knowing. But surely he would have stepped in and dropped her old ass before she hit 121 knowing that this would fuel further disbelief.

Here is an idea I find more believable than that:

The men who wrote the bible were familiar with Mesopotamian text (Epic of Gilgamesh among others) and plagiarized the material.

After all, everything they needed was in their own backyard.

   The number 120 has an interesting history in ancient Mesopotamia, however, the number 120 we find isn’t an increment in years, it is in a Mesopotamian numerical unit called a saroi. One saroi is 3,600 years. You’ll find there are some unique periods in their ancient time as a result, but the most interesting number pertaining to this discussion is the value of 432,000 years; the equivalent of 120 saroi[3]. 120 saroi (432,000 years) is the gap of time between the reign of the first mythical king to the Mesopotamian deluge myth. There were exactly 10 primordial kings that reigned until the flood came, and the years combined amounts to exactly 120 saroi[4][5][6]. While one hundred and twenty saroi makes perfect sense for the Mesopotamian flood, it doesn't fit within the biblical context for Noah's flood. One hundred and twenty years, though, seems to be much more plausible for the Genesis timeline.

So, on one hand 1.) we have the Supernatural All-Knowing One True God™ Yahweh that really meant man would live around 120 years, and the other 2.) we have the possibility that the biblical authors twisted ancient Mesopotamian writings to fit their own agenda; a new creation myth.

I'm going with 2.

Edit: careless spelling mistakes.
 1. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2034&version=KJV
 2. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6&version=KJV
 3. http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/mba/mba19.htm
 4. http://cura.free.fr/11kings.html
 5. http://books.google.com/books - Order and History: The ecumenic age
 6. http://books.google.com/books - Myths of Babylonia and Assyria
« Last Edit: November 06, 2009, 05:49:14 PM by Zankuu »
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline GetMeThere

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2196
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #63 on: November 06, 2009, 05:06:13 PM »
Nice one, Zankuu!

Thanks for taking the time to research and put that together.

Offline Hermes

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9988
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • 1600 years of oppression ends; Zeus is worshiped.
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #64 on: November 06, 2009, 05:23:55 PM »
Seconded!  Good job Zankuu!
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 Positiveaob

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1059
  • Darwins +5/-0
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #65 on: November 06, 2009, 05:41:22 PM »
It's amazing how flexible god is with his "plan".  When he first created everything, man was to be immortal.  Then after the woman ate from a tree, mankind became mortal, although it was kind of nebulous about how long they would live for.  Then he decided it would be 120 years.  Now it's generally about 70-80 years with a max of 120-"ish". 

In all seriousness, how could you possibly consider such a figure "omniscient"?  Any christians have any thoughts on the matter?  Anyone?
If you desire peace of soul and happiness, then believe; if you would be a disciple of truth, then inquire. - Neitzsche

Support the Military Religious Freedom Foundation!

Offline Cynic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 741
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Agnostic atheist (Secular Humanist)
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #66 on: November 06, 2009, 09:45:12 PM »

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


* Bursts out laughing*

This is absurd. Even with our modern medicine, stable food supply and our knowledge of hygiene, it is rare for someone to live past the age of 95, let alone the age of 969.

Before our modern medicine and stable food supply:
  • A drought would cause a famine
  • A scratch could turn into an infectious wound resulting in death due to poor hygiene standards
  • Food poisoning was common due to poor hygiene often killing people
  • Pandemics would wipe out entire towns
  • Cures were often worse than the disease at worse and at best mildly harmful

I find impossible to believe that someone would reach the age of 100 under these conditions let alone 969
Quote
At least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political idols.
Aldous Huxley

Offline Agamemnon

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4940
  • Darwins +15/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #67 on: November 06, 2009, 11:24:54 PM »
Bravo, Zankuu, that was very well done.
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 #68 on: November 07, 2009, 01:27:13 AM »
*Reads Zankuu's post*

Wow, I'm impressed.  I didn't think of that, or that several characters in the bible are listed as living well past the 120 years "limit".

Just to list some of them:

Noah: 950 years(350 after the flood)[1]
Sarah: 127 years[2]
Abraham: 175 years[3]
Isaac: 180 years[4]
Jacob: 147 years[5]
Aaron: 123 years[6]
Job: 140 years[7]

Yep, god does a great job enforcing his limit, eh?
 1. Genesis 9:28-29
 2. Genesis 23:1
 3. Genesis 25:7
 4. Genesis 35:28
 5. Genesis 47:28
 6. Numbers 33:39
 7. Job 42:16
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

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 #69 on: November 07, 2009, 09:45:09 AM »

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


* Bursts out laughing*

Yes, ignorant remarks invoke jocular reactions and overt mockery. I agree. But, let's be careful not to scare off Somari, he's really important to the forum.

Somari, I apologize on behalf of WWGHA for Cynic's attitude. We don't need that sort of thing here.

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 jsmacks

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 94
  • Darwins +1/-0
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #70 on: November 07, 2009, 04:54:44 PM »
Well at certain times before abundant food and good health care human life expectancy was much lower than it is today.  People weren't living to be 120 years old.

And you just said for yourself the oldest person lived for 122 years which is older than 120 by 2 years.  I would be more shocked if I saw like an upper limit with basically lots of people dying at 119 years and 11 months and 29 days and 23 hours and 59 seconds and so

Offline ksm

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1592
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #71 on: November 08, 2009, 07:35:28 AM »
God
------------
Man will live to 120. The data shows a person living to 122.
(122-120)/120 = 1.7% "error"

You are obviously not an engineer. Do know just how significant a 1.7% error is?

What if 1.7% of all aircraft flights ended in crashes? What do you think would would happen to manned flight?

What about a 1.7% error in measuring human body temperature? Ask a doctor about that one.

When designing and building simple electrical data acquisition systems you strive for an error of less than 0.001%, otherwise your equipment would be pretty shoddy.

Offline Agamemnon

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4940
  • Darwins +15/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #72 on: November 08, 2009, 02:55:48 PM »
Are you a golfer, KSM? If so, you'll see that God is playing with a high handicap.
So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.  --Bertrand Russell

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 #73 on: November 08, 2009, 03:14:53 PM »
I heard a plague is spreading, infected people die within two days!!!!

Good news, only 1.7% of the population will get the plague. Phewww! That was close. No big deal now.
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 Count Iblis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1557
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #74 on: November 08, 2009, 06:41:19 PM »
Abraham supposedly lived until 175. So even if 120 was just an approximation, it would still be wrong (assuming the Bible was right about Abraham).
Religion is an act of sedition against reason.--P.Z. Myers

To find out more about the Evil Atheist Conspiracy visit http://www.atheistthinktank.net/

you know, hell is going to be so jammed full of lying Christians that I fear I will never get in.  --velkyn

Offline Count Iblis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1557
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #75 on: November 08, 2009, 07:02:33 PM »
120 < 122.  The bible fails.

It's actually worse than this. A Biblical year has 360 days instead of 365.25. So the max age of man isn't 120 years, but 118 years 100 days and 12 hours.
Religion is an act of sedition against reason.--P.Z. Myers

To find out more about the Evil Atheist Conspiracy visit http://www.atheistthinktank.net/

you know, hell is going to be so jammed full of lying Christians that I fear I will never get in.  --velkyn

Offline Agamemnon

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4940
  • Darwins +15/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #76 on: November 09, 2009, 12:30:27 AM »
120 < 122.  The bible fails.

It's actually worse than this. A Biblical year has 360 days instead of 365.25. So the max age of man isn't 120 years, but 118 years 100 days and 12 hours.

Just can't count on anything in the bible, can you? Not even a stinkin' unit of measure.
So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.  --Bertrand Russell

Offline Cynic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 741
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Agnostic atheist (Secular Humanist)
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #77 on: November 09, 2009, 01:13:06 AM »

* Bursts out laughing*



[/quote]

I apologise for my behavior, I was out of line.
Quote
At least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political idols.
Aldous Huxley

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 #78 on: November 14, 2009, 01:52:02 AM »
Quote from: CutePuppy
How is it an "error" if my prediction hasn't been broken (yet)? biblegod's prediction is flawed, mine is not. 'No man will have a lifespan of (over) 10k years' does not, in any way, equal 'man will live to 10k'. And whether it's "trivial" or not is subjective. I can say the "no older than 120 years" is a trivial statement. And it was, when that prediction was made.

I could make a better prediction myself. I could say, "No man will live past one thousand years." 1k is less trivial than 10k because it is much closer to the real "limit." I don't really think that's subjective. If I can do a better job, I don't really think it's ground to worship you, CutePuppy. Sorry.

Quote from: Agamemnon
The problem here is that the level of precision YOU expect from god is low. That's because you're high on Jesus juice. For someone that is not high on Jesus juice, the bar is set significantly higher.

I understand that God is omniscient, so he could be "infinitely precise" (whatever that even would mean, there is a physical limit to how precise you can be). However, it is a leap to say that he has to be infinitely precise.

Quote from: Agamemnon
You aren't talking about this to convince yourself, being as you were already convinced WITHOUT the proof.

I was convinced WITHOUT proof, eh? How do you know this?

Isn't convincing skeptics kind of an oxymoron?

Quote from: Zankuu
Somari,

   First off, thanks for bringing up this topic. I enjoyably spent several days of research on a topic I hadn't considered, and from that, I've learned quite a bit. So with that said, I'd like to wave my little white flag. You were right. I was wrong. The verse, “his days will be a hundred and twenty years” in the bible, is absolutely referring to the shortened lifespan of man.

You don't need to raise the white flag, we are not at war.

Quote from: Zankuu
If it weren't for Yahweh placing the 120 year limit on mankind, Moses would still have been slinging his magical snake staff around for hundreds of years.

I don't think Moses living 120 years really has anything to do with Genesis  6:3. Moses was leading the Israelites to the "promised land." Along the way, Moses disobeys God, and "the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them." (Numbers 20:12). When Moses was 120, he said, "I am now a hundred and twenty years old and I am no longer able to lead you. The LORD has said to me, 'You shall not cross the Jordan.'" (Deuteronomy 31:2). That's when Joshua takes over and leads the Israelites into the promised land. I think the time of Moses's death has more to do with the Israelites reaching the promised land than the decree back in Genesis 6:3.

Quote from: Zankuu
We see generation after generation surpassing that limitation after Yahweh spoke those words. (Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, Esau, etc.)
      Ten generations after Noah and onward, Yahweh still hasn’t enforced the limit.

It seems like right after God makes the declaration, the lifespan of humans starts to decline dramatically. I don't know why God chose to take ten generations. Perhaps if it was some sort of genetic thing, it makes sense. I don't know.

Quote from: Zankuu
Yahweh stated man’s life limitation would be 120 years[2]- “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.’” He didn’t say “his days will be about a hundred and twenty years” or “his days will be a hundred and twenty years, give or take a few”. From the verses we have, it is understood Yahweh is saying that no man shall ever surpass the 120 mark. Yahweh left no wiggle room, no matter how you try and spin it.

It also doesn't say, man's days will be exactly 120 years. Common speech numbers have a lot more flexibility than mathmatical calculations.

Quote from: Zankuu
The men who wrote the bible were familiar with Mesopotamian text (Epic of Gilgamesh among others) and plagiarized the material.

I don't know what to do with that. It is speculation at best. How would you ever know? An alternative explaination is that the Mesopotamian texts were based on legends that were actually based in reality, and the Bible more accurately portrayed history.

Quote from: Positiveaob
It's amazing how flexible god is with his "plan".  When he first created everything, man was to be immortal.  Then after the woman ate from a tree, mankind became mortal, although it was kind of nebulous about how long they would live for.  Then he decided it would be 120 years.  Now it's generally about 70-80 years with a max of 120-"ish". 

In all seriousness, how could you possibly consider such a figure "omniscient"?  Any christians have any thoughts on the matter?  Anyone?

What does omniscience have to do with your plan? If God knows someone will do something, he isn't allowed to "change his plan" when they actually do it? (Wouldn't it have been his plan to "change" it all along, anyway?????)

Quote from: Cynic
* Bursts out laughing*

This is absurd. Even with our modern medicine, stable food supply and our knowledge of hygiene, it is rare for someone to live past the age of 95, let alone the age of 969.

Exactly! Given the declaration in Genesis 6:3, it is absurd to think of people living to 900+ today!

Quote from: Aaron123
I didn't think of that, or that several characters in the bible are listed as living well past the 120 years "limit".

Just to list some of them:

Noah: 950 years(350 after the flood)[1]
Sarah: 127 years[2]
Abraham: 175 years[3]
Isaac: 180 years[4]
Jacob: 147 years[5]
Aaron: 123 years[6]
Job: 140 years[7]

Yep, god does a great job enforcing his limit, eh?

Wow, now I'm impressed. This is actually a good reply that is on topic and provides counter-evidence to my point! (I'm not sarcastic. I'm serious).

A couple of possible replies:

1.) Noah was born before the declaration, so maybe it didn't apply to him.
2.) Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Jacob were all decendents (and forefathers, besides Sarah of course) of "God's chosen people." It is not unreasonable to think God treated them specially.
3.) Job maybe lived sometime before the maximum lifespan of people leveled out to 120 years.
4.) Aaron is within significant figures

Just some thoughts.

Quote from: AmbassadorPony
Yes, ignorant remarks invoke jocular reactions and overt mockery. I agree. But, let's be careful not to scare off Somari, he's really important to the forum.

Somari, I apologize on behalf of WWGHA for Cynic's attitude. We don't need that sort of thing here.

That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me, Ambassador Pony.

Quote from: ksm
You are obviously not an engineer. Do know just how significant a 1.7% error is?

What if 1.7% of all aircraft flights ended in crashes? What do you think would would happen to manned flight?

What about a 1.7% error in measuring human body temperature? Ask a doctor about that one.

When designing and building simple electrical data acquisition systems you strive for an error of less than 0.001%, otherwise your equipment would be pretty shoddy.

Actually, I am an engineer. Obviously, different applications need a different level of precision. The ones you listed require much more precision than two significant digits. Does the maximum lifespan of humans require more? I don't think so, but I guess that's up to each individual.

Quote from: Count Iblis
It's actually worse than this. A Biblical year has 360 days instead of 365.25. So the max age of man isn't 120 years, but 118 years 100 days and 12 hours.

Do you have a source for this? I was under the impression it was more like 364 days.

House (from House M.D.): I assume I'm right, because I find it hard to operate under the opposite assumption.

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 #79 on: November 14, 2009, 09:19:34 AM »
I understand that God is omniscient, so he could be "infinitely precise" (whatever that even would mean, there is a physical limit to how precise you can be). However, it is a leap to say that he has to be infinitely precise.

I don't think it would be too much to ask for God to be a little more accurate and not off by well over seven hundred days.  The physical limit of how precise God can be isn't rounding to the nearest 10 if he is fully omniscient.

I was convinced WITHOUT proof, eh? How do you know this?

Isn't convincing skeptics kind of an oxymoron?

Convincing skeptics is easy if the evidence is strong. Just take a look at evolution.  Most skeptics accept it, and that theory is WHACKED OUT when you first hear about it.  It's crazy to think it's true... until you show the evidence in support of it.  Then it all comes together in such a way that it is impossible to refute, and incredibly beautiful after you really understand it. 

It seems like right after God makes the declaration, the lifespan of humans starts to decline dramatically. I don't know why God chose to take ten generations. Perhaps if it was some sort of genetic thing, it makes sense. I don't know.

You're reaching a bit now, aren't you?  But I like it a lot when you say this...

"I don't know." 

Honesty is a good thing.  You get points for that.

It also doesn't say, man's days will be exactly 120 years. Common speech numbers have a lot more flexibility than mathmatical calculations.

So if God is vague here, then should we assume he could be vague everywhere? When he says "Thou shalt not kill" could he really mean "You shouldn't kill unless its really important"?  Or when he says "Thou shalt not commit adultery" could he really mean "Don't cheat on your wife unless the other woman is super hot".  Why allow vagueness in one spot when he seems to be pretty clear cut in others?

I don't know what to do with that. It is speculation at best. How would you ever know? An alternative explaination is that the Mesopotamian texts were based on legends that were actually based in reality, and the Bible more accurately portrayed history.

So THAT is speculation, but the bible isn't?  You give a free pass to the theory that an omniscient invisible sky man came down and rounded the age of humans to the nearest 10, but Zankuu's post gets to be speculation? 

Unbelievable.  Just unbelievable. 

Exactly! Given the declaration in Genesis 6:3, it is absurd to think of people living to 900+ today!

No, given the knowledge we now have about humans and the human body, it is absurd to think people EVER lived to 900 years old.  Ever.  You think humans could have lived 10 times as long back then, but that is ludicrous.  Honestly, that's nuts.  It's just incorrect. It goes against all reason, logic and evidence to believe that has any truth to it.

Wow, now I'm impressed. This is actually a good reply that is on topic and provides counter-evidence to my point! (I'm not sarcastic. I'm serious).

A couple of possible replies:

1.) Noah was born before the declaration, so maybe it didn't apply to him.
2.) Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Jacob were all decendents (and forefathers, besides Sarah of course) of "God's chosen people." It is not unreasonable to think God treated them specially.
3.) Job maybe lived sometime before the maximum lifespan of people leveled out to 120 years.
4.) Aaron is within significant figures

Just some thoughts.

..... just let it go.  This is not a good proof at all.  You are now making wild speculations that have no basis in fact.  Maybe this, and maybe that, doesn't cut it.  It's just more reasonable to think the bible was flat out wrong than to think all of these speculations were true.  Come on.  These were ignorant goat herders that lived thousands of years ago.  It's just way, way more likely that they had no clue what they were doing and made some guesses that turned out to be pretty close, but still wrong. 

Actually, I am an engineer. Obviously, different applications need a different level of precision. The ones you listed require much more precision than two significant digits. Does the maximum lifespan of humans require more? I don't think so, but I guess that's up to each individual.

When you are talking about an invisible, ever present, omniscient being, who gives no evidence of his existence, the stakes are higher, and thus the evidence required has to meet a higher standard.  If you are expecting us to believe that his 120 year limit is evidence of his existence, then there is no question that 120 years is not close enough.  It is close enough for you, because you already believe it, and you are desperately searching for something to show all of us how you can't be wrong.  But it's not close enough to convince anyone who doesn't already believe.  This holds true for everything about your belief system.  While you probably accept things like improbable events, personal experiences, and unlikely coincidences as evidence for God, that is just not enough to convince someone on the outside.  Just look at this entire proof as evidence.  You accept this type of thing as evidence but only because you already BELIEVE it's true.  Yet it doesn't even give pause to anyone who doesn't already believe in God.  Now, look at all the reasons you think God is real and put them in that light to see if they stand up to scrutiny.  If it was real, you should EASILY be able to show even a skeptic that it's real.  Just like evolution...  at first it seems pretty loony; but the more you know about the details and the evidence, the more you are forced to concede that it's true. 

Belief in the Christian God and lack of belief in the Christian God are mutually exclusive stances.  In this case, there are people on both sides making a case for what they think.  As atheists, we have nothing to lose by conceding that we could be wrong and some sort of God exists out there.  I happily concede that it's possible.  In order for any learning to take place, then I think you also have to accept that there is good chance that OUR stance is the valid one.  Well, we are telling you God is completely fake.  We are making reasoned, detailed arguments against you that make LOTS of sense, and I think you know it.  While I doubt very highly that your "faith wall" is cracking, know that the first step in looking for the truth of all of this is to accept that you might not be right.  The minute you accept that you could be wrong, and begin assessing the belief system with the goal of learning IF you are correct, it will all fall apart.  It's just not real.  None of it.  We aren't blocking it out, or hating God, or trying to be dick's about it.  It's just not real.  Sorry, but it's not. 
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

Offline Dragnet

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1208
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • iustus res "We just want the facts"
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #80 on: November 14, 2009, 09:52:32 AM »
What about 969 moons. That is/was the way many cultures measured time, that and seasons.
969 moons could be around 80 years give or take...
I am responsible with my actions NOW so I don't HAVE to be responsible for them later.

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2791
  • Darwins +80/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #81 on: November 14, 2009, 10:44:35 AM »
Is it just me, or is god starting to sound a little lazy here?

Quote
I understand that God is omniscient, so he could be "infinitely precise" (whatever that even would mean, there is a physical limit to how precise you can be). However, it is a leap to say that he has to be infinitely precise.

Quote
It also doesn't say, man's days will be exactly 120 years. Common speech numbers have a lot more flexibility than mathmatical calculations.


Quote
*any talk of "significant digits"*
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline Count Iblis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1557
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #82 on: November 14, 2009, 02:08:26 PM »
Quote from: Count Iblis
It's actually worse than this. A Biblical year has 360 days instead of 365.25. So the max age of man isn't 120 years, but 118 years 100 days and 12 hours.

Do you have a source for this? I was under the impression it was more like 364 days.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/kjesenpr.htm

Quote
The Jewish (and Babylonian) calendars used a 360-day year [Genesis 7:24; 8:3, 4; Revelation 11:2; 12:6; 13:3, 4; etc.]; 69 weeks of 360-day years totals 173,880 days.
Religion is an act of sedition against reason.--P.Z. Myers

To find out more about the Evil Atheist Conspiracy visit http://www.atheistthinktank.net/

you know, hell is going to be so jammed full of lying Christians that I fear I will never get in.  --velkyn

Offline Agga

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4290
  • Darwins +27/-42
  • The Forum is made of its members.
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #83 on: November 14, 2009, 03:57:14 PM »
Hi, Somari.

I've read through the entire thread.  What a read.


I can't really add anything to what others have already said to you but I'd like to ask one other related question;

So... from what I can gather it isn't the wages of sin that brought down our lifespans after all, but in fact God actually did it to us himself?

That's kind of cruel isn't it?  What was the point of that?
I've left WWGHA now, so do everyone else a favour and don't bother replying to my old posts and necromancing my threads.

Offline ksm

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1592
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #84 on: November 15, 2009, 01:43:56 AM »
Quote from: ksm
You are obviously not an engineer. Do know just how significant a 1.7% error is?

What if 1.7% of all aircraft flights ended in crashes? What do you think would would happen to manned flight?

What about a 1.7% error in measuring human body temperature? Ask a doctor about that one.

When designing and building simple electrical data acquisition systems you strive for an error of less than 0.001%, otherwise your equipment would be pretty shoddy.

Actually, I am an engineer. Obviously, different applications need a different level of precision. The ones you listed require much more precision than two significant digits. Does the maximum lifespan of humans require more? I don't think so, but I guess that's up to each individual.

When the opinion is coming from the supposed omniscient creator of everything I would expect precision to the right of decimal place of several significant digits.

Or at least something accurate.

As you have already demonstrated unintentionally by yourself the claim of 120 years fails, as there is someone who reached 122, and the 360 day year skews the results further!

Offline towag

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #85 on: November 17, 2009, 11:44:43 AM »
Going on the ages claimed in Genesis, ever considered that if you divide all the claimed ages of these so called early ancestors by 12 you get a more rational age...... what if a "year" was actually a lunar month? Just a thought.....
The difficulty is in keeping an open mind....

Offline towag

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #86 on: November 17, 2009, 11:52:10 AM »
What about 969 moons. That is/was the way many cultures measured time, that and seasons.
969 moons could be around 80 years give or take...
Missed that one but you obviously tweaked the same thought! ;)
The difficulty is in keeping an open mind....