God v Atheism

[Calabrio]

God v. Atheism: My Debate with Daniel Dennett
By Dinesh D'Souza
Monday, December 3, 2007


On Friday, November 30, I debated philosopher Daniel Dennett at Tufts University on the topic, "Is God a Man-Made Invention?" This was my third debate against a leading atheist, following my debate with Michael Shermer at Oregon State University and my debate with Christopher Hitchens at the Ethical Culture Society in New York. The auditorium at Tufts filled up so quickly prior to the Dennett debate that the organizers had to have a second overflow room where viewers could watch the fireworks on a big-screen TV.

Do you want to watch the debate? Go to Youtube.com and search for the “Dennett D’Souza debate.” My earlier debates with Shermer and Hitchens are also online. You can find the Hitchens debate at dineshdsouza.com or isi.org.

Dennett surprised me a little by showing up with a power-point presentation. I hadn't agreed to this in advance, but I didn't object. I thought to myself, "I'm not sure what advantage slides are going to give him in a format like this one." Dennett spoke first for 25 minutes, and sure enough, he made full use of those slides. He had quotations from me up there, and he challenged me to defend them. I was impressed by Dennett's preparation, and also by his avulcular "grandpa" style, an effect enhanced by his white Santa beard. Atheism is a grim philosophy, but Dennett more than anyone else makes it seem harmless and even charming.

Normally I would use my opening statement entirely to make the case for God's existence. But I didn't want Dennett's allegations to go unrebutted for too long. So I devoted the first five minutes to puncturing some factual and historical holes in Dennett's argument. Then I proceeded to make my case. Of course I conceded that religion is a man-made invention, but I argued that modern science has over the past century produced remarkable discoveries that affirm and support the argument for God's existence. In doing so I recognized that I was challenging Dennett not only on his home campus, Tufts university, but also on his home turf, which is a philosophical atheism rooted in science.

We each had two five-minute rebuttals which produced lively exchanges about the Big Bang and about whether the universe is fine-tuned for life. When I challenged Dennett’s interpretation of evolution, he charged me with simplifying and “caricaturing” his views. Some degree of simplification is unavoidable in debate, because there simply isn’t enough time to address arguments with all their nuances. This criticism, however, applies to both sides. I countered Dennett by saying that I wasn’t the only one to question his use and abuse of Darwin.

I made my point by citing the late Stephen Jay Gould's review-essay on Dennett in the June 12, 1997 New York Review of Books. Unlike Dennett, who is a philosopher, Gould was one of the world's leading authorities on evolution. One can feel safe in saying that he knew a lot more about the biological evidence for Darwinism than Dennett. And Gould was an unbeliever, like Dennett.

So I noted how significant it was that Gould dubbed Dennett a "Darwinian fundamentalist." He suggested that just as religious fundamentalists read Scripture in a literal and pig-headed way, and unimaginatively apply biblical passages to everything, so Dennett tries to apply Darwinism to virtually every human social, cultural and religious practice, with disastrous and even comical results. Gould termed Dennett's work on evolution "a caricature of a caricature."

Finally there was a lengthy question-and-answer session. Given that the audience was mostly made up of Tufts students sympathetic to Dennett's atheism, a majority of the questions was directed at me. Most memorable for me was the philosophically-minded savant who pooh-poohed the possibility of God's existence on the basis of what he called the Principle of Parsimony. He argued that either propositions are true by definition, or they are true by empirical verification. If a proposition cannot satisfy either criteria, then it is meaningless. Since God does not exist by definition, the young man insisted, and since we cannot verify His presence empirically, clearly God has been refuted by the Principle of Parsimony.

I asked our undergraduate savant to apply his twofold test to the Principle of Parsimony itself. Is it true by definition? No. Well, can it be verified empirically? Again, no. Therefore by the student's own criteria the Principle of Parismony is worthless and can be cast aside. The student had no comeback to this and neither did Dennett.

So who won the debate? That's for you to decide. But I’d like to know your assessment. Go ahead and post it here, and also email me at dineshjdsouza@aol.com.

part one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw7J15TeDG4

part two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7MGyayvAa8

part three
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgK6M3WRFcc

part four
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzUUnjcTkQg

part five
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnGGOKDGLYw

part six
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcunc_hQ8U8

part seven
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SryFVhNfvow

part eight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8puuM-C9XIY

part nine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0Ts_kPn5Tg

part ten
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMEu_pGCCU0

part eleven
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqpumHZGx7c

part twelve
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rae3EUR-W4s

part thirteen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADLjLcS2kJs

part fourteen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KgVtKKgoks

part fifteen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM5mv-g2kUU

 

[hrmwrm]

there is no winner in these debates. to me, it looks for a try at conversion to 1 way or the other. non believers will see dennet as ahead, believers will see d'souza as better, and only the undecided would be the ones swayed by either arguement. i just think it's amusing that as science finds answers that the god ideal has to keep remaking itself in order to try and be believable for those who know better. there are no arguements that could sway a TRUE believer or non-believer.

 

[Rodewaryer]

It's Theism vs Atheism. Theists love to tag and sensationalize the term Atheist and take advantage of that trigger word since we are largely outcasts in a country which is so overtly Christian it's scary.

I have no pedestal to clamber upon as I'm not into debate nor any good at it. I understand things, I get it, ALL. Doesn't mean I can map the human genome or write a symphony or accurately define memes but I still 'get it'. I need no supernatural explanation. I revel in the depths of the universe, I'm fascinated with Geologic evidence of the plethora of events that have scarred this planet as well as the incredible variety of forms of life that survived because they were 'the fittest' or didn't because they weren't. On the flip side, I don't feel the need to defend a thing/point of view to the point of the violence that is so blatant and condoned in your bible and has continued to be at the root of the vast majority of conflict throughout human history.

 

[Calabrio]

there is no winner in these debates.

No, you rarely get a "winner" in a debate like this. But in a good debate, you do have an interesting opportunities to hear the arguments presented in an interesting way. One where challenges are immediately confronted. If nothing else, both sides present things that are worth thinking about. Hearing the premises and arguments challenged and responded to by intelligent and articulate people may not change any minds, but it does lead to a deeper understand of both positions.

I find it very interesting.

and only the undecided would be the ones swayed by either arguement.

That's how most things work.

 

[MAC1]

i just think it's amusing that as science finds answers that the god ideal has to keep remaking itself in order to try and be believable for those who know better.

What scientific answers are you referring to?

How has the so-called "god ideal" remade itself in light of scientific "answers"?

 

[fossten]

It's Theism vs Atheism. Theists love to tag and sensationalize the term Atheist and take advantage of that trigger word since we are largely outcasts in a country which is so overtly Christian it's scary.

I have no pedestal to clamber upon as I'm not into debate nor any good at it. I understand things, I get it, ALL. Doesn't mean I can map the human genome or write a symphony or accurately define memes but I still 'get it'. I need no supernatural explanation. I revel in the depths of the universe, I'm fascinated with Geologic evidence of the plethora of events that have scarred this planet as well as the incredible variety of forms of life that survived because they were 'the fittest' or didn't because they weren't. On the flip side, I don't feel the need to defend a thing/point of view to the point of the violence that is so blatant and condoned in your bible and has continued to be at the root of the vast majority of conflict throughout human history.

I don't remember the last time an atheist was treated like an outcast in this country. Michael Newdow is a well-known atheist ACTIVIST who has generated a lot of press for his activism in trying to remove "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Christopher Hitchens is a celebrated atheist who is well known for his insulting, pejorative style when he discusses religion. Atheists have come a long way in achieving protected minority status in many ways in this country. This is a good example of the majority being ruled by the minority. I hear more coverage on the news of atheists protesting and marching than I do Christians. For a nation that is, as you put it, "so overtly Christian," atheists are treated with far more respect than you give credit.

Your knowledge of Christianity as depicted in the Bible is lacking. If you read the New Testament, you will find in the words of Jesus and the writings of the Apostles that violence and vengeance are discouraged. Do you realize that "turn the other cheek" comes from the Bible? You hammer the Bible as a book that condones violence, yet where are the examples of Christian violence against atheists in this country? Why do you say it is "scary?" Are you not misplacing your fear onto Christians? I can truthfully say that I have NEVER persecuted anyone for their religion OR their atheism, but I can also say that I have BEEN persecuted, and by an atheist. So does my anecdotal evidence disprove your assertion, especially since you haven't submitted any evidence of your claim? Maybe, maybe not. My opinion is that when you say it's "scary," what you really ought to be saying is, "If Christians are right, THAT'S scary."

You are entitled to your opinion about Christians, but one thing you cannot deny, Christians worldwide are FAR more peaceable than (for example) Muslims, per capita. So why are you afraid of Christians instead of Muslims? For every example you could muster showing a Christian hurting someone in the name of Christianity, I could show you ten examples where Christians are imprisoned, maimed, and murdered by governments and communities worldwide.

Furthermore, read the writings of the founding fathers. The colonists came here because they wanted a place where they could worship free of British mandate. Much of American law is based on Biblical principles, such as free will and punishment and compensation. America was, like it or not, a nation founded on Christian principles by Christians. You can argue Theism or Deism if you want, but you cannot find many (any?) writings by the fathers about how America is good because America is atheist.

Look, please don't read any tone into my post. I'm not telling you to convert, okay? I'm only offering an opinion and questioning your assertions. Your post verges on Christian-bashing and it begs for someone to correct the record.

 

[shagdrum]

Fossten, You went right where I was gonna go; Newdow.
Great minds do think alike, it seems.

Here are a few other cases where theists were made into outcasts...

Lee v. Weisman (1992)
non-denominational prayer at school graduations banned

*Scalia wrote a brilliant dissent here that you would be doing yourself a disservice not to read

Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)
sanctioned organized Bible reading in public schools in the United States declared unconstitutional

Engel v. Vitale (1962)
prayer in public schools, even if it is denominationally neutral and non-mandatory, declared unconstitutional

 

[hrmwrm]

come on mac1, should i start with the earth is not the center of the universe and work up? to now that evolution is not a hinderance to faith? to now id which throws out the idea of genesis? do you believe the universe and earth are only 6000 years old?

and i found it interesting too calabrio. both sides have good arguements. i always have sought to gain knowledge of the other side. some things are tough to argue about, but there are quite a few laughable ones. i was surprised to hear d'souza say he doesn't like the idea of id. but when he explained why, i can see it. he wants a god start, after all, if you believe aliens were the seed of life on earth, that doesn't explain them or the beginning of the universe.

 

[fossten]

come on mac1, should i start with the earth is not the center of the universe and work up? to now that evolution is not a hinderance to faith? to now id which throws out the idea of genesis? do you believe the universe and earth are only 6000 years old?

and i found it interesting too calabrio. both sides have good arguements. i always have sought to gain knowledge of the other side. some things are tough to argue about, but there are quite a few laughable ones. i was surprised to hear d'souza say he doesn't like the idea of id. but when he explained why, i can see it. he wants a god start, after all, if you believe aliens were the seed of life on earth, that doesn't explain them or the beginning of the universe.

Hrmwrm, your tone in this post is mocking. I believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old, what of it? I have more evidence that supports my belief than you do that the universe has been around for billions of years. What is interesting to me is that you are adopting a Hitchens-ian tactic, attempting to ridicule someone else's beliefs in the hope that they will back off from it. That unfortunately confirms what I pointed out in my last post in this thread. The canard that atheists somehow are a persecuted, maligned class of people in this country is a myth. I have never seen more vitriol in debating God vs. Evolution (or Atheism) than I have from them.

 

[shagdrum]

come on mac1, should i start with the earth is not the center of the universe and work up? to now that evolution is not a hinderance to faith? to now id which throws out the idea of genesis? do you believe the universe and earth are only 6000 years old?

Come on, hrmwrm
You know better then this...

Earth isn't the center of the universe:

If any ideal was remade here, it was in science, and general perception of reality, not religion​

Evolution never has been a hinderance to faith. The posibility that the faith may be accurate however, in any way, is a threat to darwinian evolution and athiests...

In fact if anything has changed over time to accept reality it is science. It is how theories are formed, accepted, and later disproven and replaced newer more accurate theories.

ID discredits Genesis? Belief that the earth is 6000 years old?

On these two you are assuming that that christians view the bible literally. I come from a very religious family (my father was a pastor). In fact I am the black sheep of the family in the sense that I am not a practicing christian; you can call it a crisis of faith if you want. I believe God exists (something had to cause the big bang), I just don't trust him. That said, I have yet to encounter a christian that views the bible literally. The bible teaches through analogy. "God said let there be light", can you say "big bang"? In fact my uncle would be arguing just as passionately as you in the defense of the idea of evolution. He is a Lutheran who is very active in his church and community; a very devout christian.​

My high school natural science teacher/martial arts instructor pointed out something to me about evolution and creation once. If you take the seven days of creation in the bible and give each day a certian relative figure (I don't remember the figure; maybe something like 5, 10, 20, 100 million years, let's just say "x") then everything in evolution and creation line up as to when creatures, land masses, ect. came into being. according to this idea, effectively creation is an analogy for the general course of evolution. Again, he explained this to me in High school, which was quite a while ago. I don't remember the specifics of this argument, don't hold me to the figure's I suggested for the seven days of creation, the number could be (and probably is) something completely different from what I suggested. Just throwing it out their as food for thought, and to demonstrate that ID nor evolution neccessarily discredit Genesis. It all depends on how literal you take the bible.​

if you believe aliens were the seed of life on earth, that doesn't explain them or the beginning of the universe.

True, ID doesn't explain the beginning of the universe, but neither does evolution. Evolution theory is different from the big bang. They may fit together, put they are different theorys that attempt to answer different parts of a bigger picture.

 

[hrmwrm]

sorry, didn't mean to be condescending. it's only through literal interpretation that you would end up in such a short time frame. as stated in the other thread, lining up years to account for genesis within earth's time frame still doesn't account for the time frame of the universe. 4.5 billion to 14 billion years. better than triple.so the first day was at least 10 billion. and the rest divided fall in between. were you in private or public school shagdrum? that's a hard to believe ideal by any stretch. and the firmament dividing the waters doesn't stand when it's well known that the world was one continent at one time. it still is a story that is man made. and it is only 1 story. hinduism is even older than the old testament story. explain genesis to an ideal that even came before it and is older than that story. better learn some history and get out of the bible.

 

[shagdrum]

sorry, didn't mean to be condescending. it's only through literal interpretation that you would end up in such a short time frame. as stated in the other thread, lining up years to account for genesis within earth's time frame still doesn't account for the time frame of the universe. 4.5 billion to 14 billion years. better than triple.so the first day was at least 10 billion. and the rest divided fall in between. were you in private or public school shagdrum? that's a hard to believe ideal by any stretch. and the firmament dividing the waters doesn't stand when it's well known that the world was one continent at one time. it still is a story that is man made. and it is only 1 story. hinduism is even older than the old testament story. explain genesis to an ideal that even came before it and is older than that story. better learn some history and get out of the bible.

I think you are somewhat missing the point here. I was pointing out that you were depending on a specific, literal account of Genesis in your earlier argument. If my alternative arguement is at least as credible in your mind (if not more so) to a literal interpretation of the creation story, then My point stands.

Fossten pointed out that the idea I presented is call the "gap-creation theory". News to me. You can find out about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism


****************************************************************************************************

Correction, the Gap theory, as spelled out in that link still claims that the earth as we know it was created in a 24 hour seven day period. That wasn't what I was saying. Sorry, just skimed the link originally.​

****************************************************************************************************


Another point to consider as to the interpretation that I presented; "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was formless and void, and darkness was upon the face of the Deep, and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." (Or alternatively, "In the beginning of God's creation the heavens and the earth were formless and void, and darkness was upon the face of the Deep, and a wind from God moved upon the face of the waters.") This is all before the whole seven days thing.

So you could say that the whole "let there be light" thing may not be an analogy for the big bang as it was for the coalesance and emergance of the sun. In this interpretation, the seven days of creation are concerned soley with the formation of our solar system.


another idea to consider...
Here is a link to the original scripture:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 1:1—2:3;&version=9;

Notice that the whole "let there be light" thing occured before things start getting divided into days. This suggests that the 7 day thing exclusively deals with the creation of life on earth.

 

[hrmwrm]

i wasn't basing on a literal interpretation either. i was just being a bit abrupt to make my point. the bible was not the first text. stories in it have been found elsewhere. the story of gilgamesh recounts noah from a time and culture before the jewish clan compiled it down. my point is that there have been many stories before this one and many stories after. what makes you believe that this one is the true story? it is an intelligently compiled story for it's day and the main story does outdate written language that we are aware of. the overall story of creation is there, but there are huge holes in the time frame. and a whole genesis of life on land is missing from the story. it was a plausible story until the dawn of archaeology. now we know a little better.

 

[shagdrum]

i wasn't basing on a literal interpretation either. i was just being a bit abrupt to make my point. the bible was not the first text. stories in it have been found elsewhere. the story of gilgamesh recounts noah from a time and culture before the jewish clan compiled it down. my point is that there have been many stories before this one and many stories after. what makes you believe that this one is the true story? it is an intelligently compiled story for it's day and the main story does outdate written language that we are aware of. the overall story of creation is there, but there are huge holes in the time frame. and a whole genesis of life on land is missing from the story. it was a plausible story until the dawn of archaeology. now we know a little better.

Good point.
The story of Genesis (like most stories in the bible) have been told and retold countless times before they reached the bible. Therefore, they have come through many different filters before they reached the bible.

I think you also have to consider the audience that the bible was originally written for. Could people in those days have even comprehended that there was a universe and that it was billions of years old. the "science" of the time (mostly casual observation) told them the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it!

I personally view the bible (and the stories as they ended up in the bible) as trying to tell certian truths and convey certian values and messages in a way that could be understood by people of the day. That is why certian stories, in a very direct, literal sense don't hold up as well today, they were written for a different audience, that wasn't as informed through science, philosophy, ect. as we are today; and the stories are frankly, extremely dated. Still, as I pointed out to fossten, the basic principles it teaches still hold up in any rational interpretaion of the stories, even today. That is why the bible is such a remarkable document.

what makes you believe that this one is the true story?

I don't really believe that the story, in a literal sense is true. I think it has some basic truths at the core of the story, but was written to convey those truths to a different audience on their terms. (I know that sounds like some pretensious nonsense, but that is the best way I could think to explain it). Hope that helps.

 

[MAC1]

Good point.
The story of Genesis (like most stories in the bible) have been told and retold countless times before they reached the bible. Therefore, they have come through many different filters before they reached the bible.

True, the Bible has been told and retold over the centuries. However, not too long ago the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls were found, which are believed to be at least 2000 years old and, to my knowledge, nothing was found in the Scrolls that contradict today's version of the Bible. Moreover, the Christian Old Testament has not been questioned by Hebrew scholars regarding it's accuracy. Therefore, it could be argued that there is no direct evidence suggesting today's version of the Bible has been materially mistranslated or corrupted.

I think you also have to consider the audience that the bible was originally written for. Could people in those days have even comprehended that there was a universe and that it was billions of years old. the "science" of the time (mostly casual observation) told them the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it!

Considering the many prophetic books of the Bible including Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, and Daniel, clearly the Bible was written for both the audience of the day as well as for future generations. In fact, the prophetic books of the Bible including Ezechiel and Daniel could not be understood by the people of the day because they contained prophecy about events which would occur thousands of years into the future. However, today's biblical scholars understand that much of the prophecy contained in the Bible has either already occurred or is happening at this very moment.

I personally view the bible (and the stories as they ended up in the bible) as trying to tell certian truths and convey certian values and messages in a way that could be understood by people of the day. That is why certian stories, in a very direct, literal sense don't hold up as well today, they were written for a different audience, that wasn't as informed through science, philosophy, ect. as we are today; and the stories are frankly, extremely dated. Still, as I pointed out to fossten, the basic principles it teaches still hold up in any rational interpretaion of the stories, even today. That is why the bible is such a remarkable document.

I don't really believe that the story, in a literal sense is true. I think it has some basic truths at the core of the story, but was written to convey those truths to a different audience on their terms. (I know that sounds like some pretensious nonsense, but that is the best way I could think to explain it). Hope that helps.

The Bible contains many truths and lessons that are instructive even by today's standards. But also, the Bible (Old and New Testament) contains historical documents which, to my knowledge, have not been conclusively contradicted even by its most ardent of critics. And the more archaeologists unearth in Israel and its surrounding areas including Iraq, the more the archeological findings indicate that the events and circumstances described in the Bible are historically accurate.

 

[hrmwrm]

yes mac, the dead sea scrolls do validate the old testament. they would seem to be the first writing down of the stories. a much better way to positively hand down stories and information. the bible is an historical text, and does contain thoughts of moralities. i'm not knocking what moralities and "humaness" is in there, just by todays knowledge it's account for creation falls short.

when they had an ideal of a creator, it was a pretty good guess as to the order. and intelligent thought would lead a person of the time to credibly philosophise such a beginning. good philosophy only comes from asking the right questions to answer. and if you thought a creator made it, how would you answer? probably similarily with a little personal idealism thrown in. but as it carries on in genesis, there are some who come from nowhere it seems. that is why i see it as a "genesis" of a particular family or clan, not all of mankind of the time. yes i have read through the bible. being atheist doesn't make me a heathen.

 

[fossten]

hrmwrm, I sincerely doubt that you have read through the entire Bible.

hea·then (hn)
n. pl. hea·thens or heathen
1.
a. One who adheres to the religion of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.
b. Such persons considered as a group; the unconverted.
2.
a. One who is regarded as irreligious, uncivilized, or unenlightened.
b. Such persons considered as a group.

There isn't much difference here. If you want to split hairs, maybe, but not generally.

Shag, you're incorrect about stories being retold countless times before being recorded. That's not how it worked. In the case of the Pentateuch, for example, Moses took down every word as dictated to him by God. Subsequent copies have been made, canonized by the church, and passed down from generation to generation.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, while interesting and important in the general sense, were in fact flawed copies that in many places follow the Greek Septuagint instead of the correct Masoretic text. The most important evidence of the preservation of God's Word is the fact that the Textus Receptus, as compiled by Erasmus, and used to translate the King James Version, was supported by 95% of all extant copies of manuscripts of that period. That speaks volumes to the remarkable inerrancy of the KJV, and should not be discounted when considering whether or not the Bible is God's Word or just another book.

 

[shagdrum]

hrmwrm, I sincerely doubt that you have read through the entire Bible.

hea·then (hn)
n. pl. hea·thens or heathen
1.
a. One who adheres to the religion of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.
b. Such persons considered as a group; the unconverted.
2.
a. One who is regarded as irreligious, uncivilized, or unenlightened.
b. Such persons considered as a group.

There isn't much difference here. If you want to split hairs, maybe, but not generally.

Shag, you're incorrect about stories being retold countless times before being recorded. That's not how it worked. In the case of the Pentateuch, for example, Moses took down every word as dictated to him by God. Subsequent copies have been made, canonized by the church, and passed down from generation to generation.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, while interesting and important in the general sense, were in fact flawed copies that in many places follow the Greek Septuagint instead of the correct Masoretic text. The most important evidence of the preservation of God's Word is the fact that the Textus Receptus, as compiled by Erasmus, and used to translate the King James Version, was supported by 95% of all extant copies of manuscripts of that period. That speaks volumes to the remarkable inerrancy of the KJV, and should not be discounted when considering whether or not the Bible is God's Word or just another book.

Seeing as you are much more familiar with scripture and the theological schools of thought surrounding it, I will defer to your wisdom here.

 

[fossten]

Seeing as you are much more familiar with scripture and the theological schools of thought surrounding it, I will defer to your wisdom here.

Don't you remember the account in Exodus where Moses was up on the mountain with God for several days, and he came down with the two tablets of the Ten Commandments? It doesn't take days to write down ten commandments. That's likely a good time for him to get a lot of the Bible written. What else do you think they were doing up there, chatting about the results of Egyptian chariot races?

 

[shagdrum]

Weren't they on stone tablets? carving those might take a few days...

 

[hrmwrm]

i have read through it completely fossten. but it is a lengthy text, and unlike you i don't study it such that i may quote it in times of doubt. as for stories being told many times, i doubt moses sat dictating in stone everything he thought. but he's not the only orator or dictator of the bible. as i said before, the story of noah predates the jewish religion and has been found in stories of the assyrians. except noah is known as gilgamesh. and if god wiped out mankind with noah, then why is hinduism the oldest practiced belief. surely it can't be older than adam and eve. yet it is. your religion is full of holes that you refuse to accept. a belief in god is 1 thing, but religion is messed up. it's a power grab for control. and you are hooked.

 

[fossten]

.

 

[fossten]

i have read through it completely fossten. but it is a lengthy text, and unlike you i don't study it such that i may quote it in times of doubt. as for stories being told many times, i doubt moses sat dictating in stone everything he thought. but he's not the only orator or dictator of the bible. as i said before, the story of noah predates the jewish religion and has been found in stories of the assyrians. except noah is known as gilgamesh. and if god wiped out mankind with noah, then why is hinduism the oldest practiced belief. surely it can't be older than adam and eve. yet it is. your religion is full of holes that you refuse to accept. a belief in god is 1 thing, but religion is messed up. it's a power grab for control. and you are hooked.

Again, your knowledge of the Bible is severely lacking. Nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that Judaism is the oldest religion. Nothing of what you said contradicts the Bible. Furthermore, you cannot find a single shred of evidence that Hinduism is older than 6,000 years old. Nice try, but you don't have your facts straight. And you don't even know what my religion is, so to to say that there are holes in it shows presumptuousness. You are speaking from stereotypical ignorance. Tell me, which religion am I? I'll even give you 3 guesses. (cue Jeopardy music)

 

[hrmwrm]

so your implying judaism is 6000 years old? or that any religion here now is that old? or that even the bible is? i'd like to see your proof of that.as for genesis, something that expresses my doubts well.

Most Christians have heard the argument that the word “day” in Genesis does not mean a literal 24 hour type day, but rather that the “days” represent 6 great ages of time. This is often referred to as the day-age theory. Many people have wondered whether this argument is valid. It is true, after all, that the Hebrew word for day (yom) can have several different meanings, depending upon its context. However, it is our opinion that when all the facts are gathered, it is abundantly clear that God communicated with precision that all creation took place during the time period of six, normal, 24-hour type days.


The Hebrew word for day (yom) can have several different meanings. The meaning is always clear when read in context.

The first reference to “day” in the creation account is in the context of a 24 hour cycle of light and dark, “And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day” (NASV, see Genesis One).

When the word “day” is used with a number, such as day one, day two, etc., it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day. This is true 100% of the time. This holds true all 359 times that “day” is used with an ordinal modifier (number) outside of Genesis chapter 1.

There is no Biblical indication that “day” is used differently in the beginning chapter of Genesis than it is throughout the rest of the book, or the rest of the Old Testament.

The “days” in Genesis 1 are always specifically used in connection with the words “evening and morning.” This phrase is used with “day” 38 times in the Old Testament, not counting Genesis chapter 1. Each time, without exception, the phrase refers to a normal 24 hour type day. It is also important to note that this phrase is never used in the Old Testament in a manner which is obviously metaphoric.

When the phrase “evening and morning” is coupled with a numbered modifier and the word “yom”, there is no stronger way of specifying a normal day. We understand that Genesis is describing six Earth rotations, not an unspecified period of billions of years.

We see therefore that a study of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 states in clear language that creation took place during the period of six, normal 24-hour type days. Further evidence of this conclusion is given in Exodus 20:11. This passage, written in stone by the finger of God Himself, states, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.” God, the only witness to the creation events, testifies that all things were created within a literal six day period.

 

[fossten]

so your implying judaism is 6000 years old? or that any religion here now is that old? or that even the bible is? i'd like to see your proof of that.

Go back and read my post. I said nothing of the kind. You're attempting to put words in my mouth. Why can you not stick with the topic? You aren't even good at this.

as for genesis, something that expresses my doubts well.


Most Christians have heard the argument that the word “day” in Genesis does not mean a literal 24 hour type day, but rather that the “days” represent 6 great ages of time. This is often referred to as the day-age theory. Many people have wondered whether this argument is valid. It is true, after all, that the Hebrew word for day (yom) can have several different meanings, depending upon its context. However, it is our opinion that when all the facts are gathered, it is abundantly clear that God communicated with precision that all creation took place during the time period of six, normal, 24-hour type days.


The Hebrew word for day (yom) can have several different meanings. The meaning is always clear when read in context.

The first reference to “day” in the creation account is in the context of a 24 hour cycle of light and dark, “And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day” (NASV, see Genesis One).

When the word “day” is used with a number, such as day one, day two, etc., it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day. This is true 100% of the time. This holds true all 359 times that “day” is used with an ordinal modifier (number) outside of Genesis chapter 1.

There is no Biblical indication that “day” is used differently in the beginning chapter of Genesis than it is throughout the rest of the book, or the rest of the Old Testament.

The “days” in Genesis 1 are always specifically used in connection with the words “evening and morning.” This phrase is used with “day” 38 times in the Old Testament, not counting Genesis chapter 1. Each time, without exception, the phrase refers to a normal 24 hour type day. It is also important to note that this phrase is never used in the Old Testament in a manner which is obviously metaphoric.

When the phrase “evening and morning” is coupled with a numbered modifier and the word “yom”, there is no stronger way of specifying a normal day. We understand that Genesis is describing six Earth rotations, not an unspecified period of billions of years.

We see therefore that a study of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 states in clear language that creation took place during the period of six, normal 24-hour type days. Further evidence of this conclusion is given in Exodus 20:11. This passage, written in stone by the finger of God Himself, states, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.” God, the only witness to the creation events, testifies that all things were created within a literal six day period.

Did you write the above collection of paragraphs? Because it looks suspiciously like a set of paragraphs I posted earlier. Why do you not put quotations around other people's work and attribute it correctly? Are you claiming that you wrote this? If not, what is your point in posting it? Just spewing a copy/paste does not make a point.