Author Topic: 1st proof for God's existence  (Read 10761 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.
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #87 on: November 18, 2009, 03:15:26 PM »
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/kjesenpr.htm

Quote from: Count Iblis's link
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.

I've look up all those verses and they have nothing to do with how long the biblical year was.

Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure they were using something like the modern day Hebrew Calender. That means:

Quote from: Wikipedia
The Hebrew calendar's mean year is 365.2468 days long (exactly 365 days 5 hours 55 minutes and 25+25/57 seconds - ie. the molad/monthly interval × 235 months per 19-year cycle ÷ 19 years per cycle)[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar]

It's hard to imagine any calender being more than 5 whole days off every year. I thought that didn't make sense.

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?

Reading Genesis, we see that the people at the time were labeled as "corrupt." God is willing to put up with a lot, but the people at the time were so corrupt, God's "heart was filled with pain" (Genesis 6:6). So perhaps, this could be thought of as retribution for sin. At the very least, people couldn't sin as much because they had less time to do so.

I just thought of this, but another idea is that perhaps God wanted to slow overpopulation. Genesis 6:1 tells us that men were increasing in number on the earth. With people living 900+ years and with people still having children well into their 100s (and probably later), the population would expand much more drastically than today. I think some people have said that it was silly that they could establish a city so early in mankind's history (like Genesis 4:17), but maybe it's not.

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.

If there were infinite parallel universe, I could imagine the following...

1.) The Bible says the oldest person will live to 122 years.

Atheist response: God could have been more accurate, therefore I don't believe he exists.

2.) The Bible says the oldest person will live to 122 years and 164 days.

Atheist response: You think an omniscient God would have to round to days? He must not exist.

3.) The Bible says the oldest person will live to 122 years, 163 days, 12 hours, 43 minutes, 20 seconds, and 384 milliseconds.

Atheist response: There's probably someone who wasn't recorded that lived longer, therefore God doesn't exist.


Two significant digits is enough precision for the application. The exact age is not really that important. It has nothing to do with laziness.

I can't emphasize enough that this statement is accurate to its level of precision.

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.....

People have said that, but it really makes no sense in context. For example, Genesis 5:16 - "When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared."

After adjusting the scale (65/12), we get Mahalalel becoming a father at age 5 (which is quite impressive!).


I'll leave you with an analogous situation so those who will be convinced, will be convinced and those who won't, won't. Then I'll shift focus to my next proof.

Consider this senario:

You've recently bought a very big balloon. You've inflated it, and it's tied down in your front yard. You measure its diameter, and you decide that you want to see what diameter your friend would guess.

You bring your friend over to your house blindfolded (to symbolize how we cannot see the future). Now he's seen other balloons of various sizes, but he has no way of knowing how big your particular balloon is.

You ask him, "How big is that balloon in my front yard?"

He calmly and authoratatively says, "120 inches in diameter."

The measurement you took was 122.4 inches. You are shocked (don't tell me you wouldn't be) at how your friend "guessed" the answer accurately to two significant digits.

Do you think he just had "dumb luck" or do you think that somehow he knew?

This happened in the summer. When winter comes, you notice your balloon is slightly smaller than before (pretend no air leaks out of it). This is because the air is cooler. You measure the diameter of the balloon and it comes out to be 118.5 inches. Amazingly, your friend's guess is still accurate to two significant digits.

Is "dumb luck" becoming more likely or less likely?

Now, say you measure the diameter of the balloon each summer and winter for the next, say, 3,459 years. The balloon's diameter always happens to round to 120 when taken to two significant digits, despite changes in average temperatures and such over thousands of years.

Would you honestly still think your friend's guess was "dumb luck"?


I know this metaphor isn't perfect, but just try to understand my point. This argument would convince some people. If it doesn't, that's fine. I hope later proofs will convince you.
House (from House M.D.): I assume I'm right, because I find it hard to operate under the opposite assumption.

Offline Graybeard

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 8426
  • Darwins +882/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #88 on: November 18, 2009, 03:29:30 PM »

If there were infinite parallel universe, I could imagine the following...

1.) The Bible says the oldest person will live to 122 years.

Atheist response: God could have been more accurate, therefore I don't believe he exists.

2.) The Bible says the oldest person will live to 122 years and 164 days.

Atheist response: You think an omniscient God would have to round to days? He must not exist.

3.) The Bible says the oldest person will live to 122 years, 163 days, 12 hours, 43 minutes, 20 seconds, and 384 milliseconds.

Atheist response: There's probably someone who wasn't recorded that lived longer, therefore God doesn't exist.


Two significant digits is enough precision for the application. The exact age is not really that important. It has nothing to do with laziness.

I can't emphasize enough that this statement is accurate to its level of precision.

So your whole reason for believing in God is that he can round numbers off to 2 significant figures? FFS, what are you going to say when someone reaches 126 years?

 &) I suppose it's better than, "He lives in heaven and kills whomsoever he wants..."

SomariHater,

There's a thread on this forum that postulates that godbotherers are less intelligent than atheists, you are doing nothing at all to dispel this.

« Last Edit: November 18, 2009, 03:33:01 PM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

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 #89 on: November 18, 2009, 03:33:15 PM »
So your whole reason for believing in God is that he can round numbers off to 2 significant figures? FFS, what are you going to say when someone reaches 126 years?

This is only the first proof. I don't believe anyone will ever reach 126 years, so that's a scientific reason to believe in God (assuming 120 years is never surpassed)!
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 #90 on: November 18, 2009, 03:35:56 PM »
I see that Somari is still shifting the goalposts lower so his god can score. Still trying to convince us that his version of "accuracy" works to convince him, so it should also convince us.
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 #91 on: November 18, 2009, 03:40:39 PM »
So your whole reason for believing in God is that he can round numbers off to 2 significant figures? FFS, what are you going to say when someone reaches 126 years?

Quote
This is only the first proof.

It is not even a proof!

Quote
I don't believe anyone will ever reach 126 years, so that's a scientific reason to believe in God (assuming 120 years is never surpassed)!

Look, let me give you a pro-tip; when you say, "I don't believe anyone will ever reach 126 years," you leave yourself "hostage to fate". That means that if anyone does live to 126, you are shown to be wrong - big time - and no one let's you forget it. People use your quote as a reason to show Christians are idiots and everyone laughs.

I was listening to a good quality TV program the other night, the Danes are proposing a retirement age based upon life expectancy. (don't bother with the details, they're not important.) The Danish figures show that Danish babies born today stand a 30% chance of living to 100 - some are really going to live to 130 years.

I will be dead by then, and, perhaps so will you, nevertheless the words "I don't believe anyone will ever reach 126 years," will echo down the centuries...

SomariHater,

Just give up believing in god and see what difference it makes to your life.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2009, 03:44:52 PM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline ksm

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1592
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #92 on: November 18, 2009, 05:50:32 PM »
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.

If there were infinite parallel universe, I could imagine the following...

1.) The Bible says the oldest person will live to 122 years.

Atheist response: God could have been more accurate, therefore I don't believe he exists.

2.) The Bible says the oldest person will live to 122 years and 164 days.

Atheist response: You think an omniscient God would have to round to days? He must not exist.

3.) The Bible says the oldest person will live to 122 years, 163 days, 12 hours, 43 minutes, 20 seconds, and 384 milliseconds.

Atheist response: There's probably someone who wasn't recorded that lived longer, therefore God doesn't exist.


Two significant digits is enough precision for the application. The exact age is not really that important. It has nothing to do with laziness.

I can't emphasize enough that this statement is accurate to its level of precision.

There is no statement of precision made in the bible in relation to this statement, it does not say 120 years +/- x%. It is an absolute, and it is demonstrably incorrect.

Information provided from an omniscient creator god should be incapable of being shown to be incorrect.

You have to remember that this claim is not a problem for me, or for atheists in general. This claim of 120 years is the problem for you and those who believe as you do, it is your text and it fails the test of reality. It is you who have dug the hole, and we are merely standing at the top looking down with am amused expression.

Offline JTFC

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 364
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Beware socialist weasel suicide bombers
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #93 on: November 19, 2009, 12:21:27 AM »
So your whole reason for believing in God is that he can round numbers off to 2 significant figures? FFS, what are you going to say when someone reaches 126 years?

This is only the first proof. I don't believe anyone will ever reach 126 years, so that's a scientific reason to believe in God (assuming 120 years is never surpassed)!

Maria Olivia da Silva, still alive, currently at 129 years of age.  Will turn 130 in February 2010.[1]
Tuti Yusupova, also still alive, coming in at 128 years of age.[2]
José del Rosario Serrano Arencas, still living at 127 years of age.[3]

Those three are beyond your belief that no one will reach 126 years, and through rounding make the two significant figure number of 130 for their ages.
 1. http://www.worldrecordsacademy.org/human/oldest_woman_world_record_set_by_Maria_Olivia_da_Silva_90175.htm
 2. http://centralasiaonline.com/en/articles/090206_year_nws/
 3. http://www.famaweb.com/un_colombiano_de_127_anos_puede_ser_el_hombre_mas_viejo_del_mundo-5232.html
"...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 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 #94 on: November 19, 2009, 03:29:49 PM »
So your whole reason for believing in God is that he can round numbers off to 2 significant figures? FFS, what are you going to say when someone reaches 126 years?

This is only the first proof. I don't believe anyone will ever reach 126 years, so that's a scientific reason to believe in God (assuming 120 years is never surpassed)!

Maria Olivia da Silva, still alive, currently at 129 years of age.  Will turn 130 in February 2010.[1]
Tuti Yusupova, also still alive, coming in at 128 years of age.[2]
José del Rosario Serrano Arencas, still living at 127 years of age.[3]

Those three are beyond your belief that no one will reach 126 years, and through rounding make the two significant figure number of 130 for their ages.
 1. http://www.worldrecordsacademy.org/human/oldest_woman_world_record_set_by_Maria_Olivia_da_Silva_90175.htm
 2. http://centralasiaonline.com/en/articles/090206_year_nws/
 3. http://www.famaweb.com/un_colombiano_de_127_anos_puede_ser_el_hombre_mas_viejo_del_mundo-5232.html

Wikipedia article:

Maria Olívia da Silva (allegedly born 28 February 1880)...

I stopped reading...

That's all I needed to read. I thought this forum was all about scientific rigor, not old wives tales.
House (from House M.D.): I assume I'm right, because I find it hard to operate under the opposite assumption.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2118
  • Darwins +135/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #95 on: November 19, 2009, 03:51:26 PM »
Wikipedia article:

Maria Olívia da Silva (allegedly born 28 February 1880)...

I stopped reading...

That's all I needed to read. I thought this forum was all about scientific rigor, not old wives tales.

Somari, its funny you think the idea of a woman living to 128 is an old wives tale but biblical accounts of ages nearly hitting the 1000 year mark isn't.

Until the passport is verified and she gets examined, I'll also remain skeptical of the  128yo claim. I guess we'll just play the waiting game.

Quote
The main proof of the Uzbek woman's age is her passport. But because Yusupova has not undergone a gerontological examination, however, she has not yet been entered into the Guinness Book of Records.

Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15100
  • Darwins +1136/-38
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #96 on: November 19, 2009, 05:01:57 PM »
That's all I needed to read. I thought this forum was all about scientific rigor, not old wives tales.

normally I enjoy irony from theists.  this one, not so much.  It was like getting hit in the temple with a golf ball.
What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline JTFC

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 364
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Beware socialist weasel suicide bombers
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #97 on: November 19, 2009, 08:26:31 PM »
Wikipedia article:

Maria Olívia da Silva (allegedly born 28 February 1880)...

I stopped reading...

That's all I needed to read. I thought this forum was all about scientific rigor, not old wives tales.

Ahh, so if it's not in Wikipedia, it's not true?  Nice way to limit your research.  To inform you (as apparently you are too lazy to do it yourself), it is "alleged" simply because her birth information has not been submitted to Guinness World Records.  The evidence has been supplied to RankBrasil, which is a regional competitor to Guinness World Records, and they verified her age.  Likewise, Tuti Yusupova also has official documents (in this case, an original birth certificate), but you will likely dismiss this one as well because it too has not been sent in to Guinness World Records.

I purposely left Moloko Temo off of my list because in that case it was unverifiable due to no official records being kept from the supposed 1874 birth year (Temo and her family stated that her age was 134 in 2009).  The other three, though, have been verified, even if not through Guinness World Records.
"...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 One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14272
  • Darwins +571/-55
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #98 on: November 20, 2009, 01:59:06 AM »
So your whole reason for believing in God is that he can round numbers off to 2 significant figures? FFS, what are you going to say when someone reaches 126 years?

This is only the first proof. I don't believe anyone will ever reach 126 years, so that's a scientific reason to believe in God (assuming 120 years is never surpassed)!

google "immortality pill"
scientists have been able to permanently reverse the effects of aging on a few skin cells of rats. we'll speak again in about 30 years, give or take (if religion doesnt slow this down like they do every major scientific discovery) and we'll see if nobody will reach 126 or even more
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 kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1839
  • Darwins +854/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: 1st proof for God's existence
« Reply #99 on: November 27, 2009, 03:55:32 AM »
Looking at the context of Genesis 3, it makes more sense to me to interpret it as meaning there would be 120 years until the Flood.  Skipping in and out of passages talking about the Nephilim ("Giants") and assertions of the wickedness of humanity, instructions for the Ark, and a mini-genealogy for Noah, the author reiterates that humankind will soon be destroyed by the Flood (6:7, 6:13, 6:17).  There are no other references to a shortening of human lifespan in Genesis 6.

That human lifespans are portrayed becoming shorter as the Biblical narrative moves away from the legendary primordial era toward the more recent historical times its audience could relate to does not require a special divine decree or prophecy.  That things should gradually wind down from mythic grandeur to normality is a trope of the genre.  In the ancient world-view, the freshly-created primordial world was closer to the initial burst of divine creative energy, thus it is more perfect and grand.  It is the Age of Wonder.  As time goes on, those initial creative energies fade, the giants/"mighty men of renown," mythic creatures and magical places (e.g. Eden) all gradually fade away.

We see this played out in the Egyptian myths.  An age of direct rule by the gods is followed by an age of legendary long-lived rulers known as the Shepsu-Hor, or "Followers of Horus," and these give way to the dynastic era of ordinary human kings--the dawn of real recorded history.  Likewise for the Sumerians, as has already been mentioned.  Tolkien even re-invokes this trope in the Lord of the Rings saga as each succeeding Age is weaker and less grand and mythic than the one that preceded it.  At the end of the Third Age, the Elves finally sail to the West, leaving the new Fourth Age to be an age of Men, as the world comes to resemble the normality inhabited by the authors of the myths Tolkien used as his inspiration.

Even if Genesis 6:3 is meant to represent a predicted upper bound on human lifespan, it's not much of a prophecy.  At the time it was written, there was no concept of advancing human technology.  The fourth chapter of Genesis attributes the creation of the arts of civilization to primordial figures, the descendants of Cain.  Thus, technology is a part of the primordial creation epic, not something that is continually advancing and getting better.  Yahweh himself is portrayed employing contemporary human technology: swords, chariots, etc., but with magical powers.  Thus, Iron Age technology is an eternal verity with its origins in the Beginning.

No Biblical writer had any reason to suspect that humans might advance technologically and enhance life expectancy.  Given that at the time, the oldest real people the author knew about would be exceptionally healthy nobility (Ramses II lived into his 80's), none of whom would be near 120, it would actually be a safe bet. 

Since no hard 120-year limit is reached  in the narrative (centuries-long lifespans continue for generations after the "decree") or upheld later in Genesis (e.g. Abraham), the most parsimonious interpretation is that a hard 120-year (or thereabouts) age limit for humans is not what the author is talking about.  If it's a reference to the duration of time left before the Flood, then it fits with the other three references in the chapter to the destruction of the antediluvian world.

Context, right?
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina