Debate here if you deny Jesus is the Creator of the universe born in flesh

[Apatheist]

Okay, lots to unpick here. I'll abbreviate it to make it easier to deal with everything.

I assume you are here to explore these questions; I am not sure you find my answers worth reading.

Just because I don't agree with your view, it doesn't mean I don't find it interesting.

Apatheist, I am challenging to offer something intelligent to discuss, unlike the drivel posted and impotent insults offered by others. I find your question about Scientology a mere distraction and avoiding more important topics and questions. If you have not tried to Fast for Religious reasons, and you continue to attack, deny, and denigrate religious matters, then really there is NO POINT to discuss this, other than as a POSSIBLE intellectual discussion of "what if"? It seemed to me that that is all you want. You do not give religious matters any real consideration, other than it is "NOT for me."

I give them consideration, and my reasons for not going along with them. I've had nearly 64 years to decide whether I believe in them.
You asked if I've fasted, and I haven't; you believe it has a benefit, I don't.
Unfortunately I can't give you an alternative practice to do instead to prove your worth to god, or whatever, because I don't believe there is one.
I appreciate that it means that all my responses are negative - but that's the nature of this debate. You're saying you believe religion because of this, that and the other - I'm afraid that all I can do is explain why I don't agree. If you do manage to say something that convinces me, rest assured that I shall acknowledge it. Bear in mind though that the thread is about denying, which is what I'm doing.

You say we cannot know it all. You said:

I don't think anyone CAN know why we're here, so why bother trying?

Science, which you seem to put much "faith" in, CANNOT answer that question as to WHY we're here. Religion can, and does. You asked me, and I gave you TWO answers.

I agree, science can't - or perhaps hasn't yet been able to - answer the WHY. Religion gives answers - but different religions give different answers, which is my problem with them. You've given two answers indeed; my Muslim, Hindu and Jewish friends (and yes I do have them) would give other answers.
My response, to be clear, is that because of the variety of explanations, I can't opt to follow any of them in the way that you are happy to.

You seem to put much "faith" in Science. But Science and Religion are two different ways to explore the unknown. One does NOT exclude the other, imo. You seem to reject Religions, all of them, and instead accept only Science for answers. That is fine. But realize the limitations of Science. Are you familiar with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Let me ASK YOU a question: do you understand any philosophical implications of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?

Of course I am familiar - and Schrödinger's cat and Pavlov's dogs
I think the difference is that I am prepared to carry on without knowing everything - I don't need to fill in the gaps with religion. I'm not perturbed by there being things that we don't yet know.

the speed of light being 186000 mph
As a scientist, I am surprised that you claim the speed of light in non-metric units (mph).
...
but as a citizen of the UK, I would expect you to use SI and not the old British Imperial system. Perhaps this is ALL a minor point.

That's your misunderstanding of the UK. Our road speed limits are still in mph - certainly the vast majority of people my age would talk distance in miles, as well as their height, and weight, in imperial. We still go to the pub for a pint, not a 0.47 litre. Petrol is sold in litres (because the numbers looked scary for the price of a gallon) but we still talk about miles per gallon. No-one will tell you how many kilometres their car gets to the litre.

One more example: we discuss fasting and you basically say "it ain't for me" and give NO possible credence to the notion that it can be spiritually beneficial.

You can't expect me to consider a spiritual benefit when I don't believe in the spirit.

First, and perhaps most importantly, I doubt we will ever know definitively while in this world what the "Star of Bethlehem" was. Second, I do not see any Scientific consensus that the "Star of Bethlehem" was a comet. There is some evidence that it may have been a confluence of planets; there are other possible explanations.

They investigated this on The Sky at Night, including the other theories about a confluence of planets and a supernova.
The telling part is that, in the biblical account, it talks of the "star" brightening, then disappearing for a while, then appearing going the other way, but less bright.
This is classic cometary behaviour. They related it to I think a Babylonian tablet which recorded the comet in 6BC.
As with believing David Attenborough on nature, I am happy to take my information on this from astronomer Professor Chris Lintott.

As for the eternal verities - it's just realism. I don't think anyone CAN know why we're here, so why bother trying?
So why are we discussing such topics, Apatheist? Why do we bother NOW?

I only discuss them when attempting to show up the fallacies of religion. I don't give them a thought otherwise.

I think you are engaging in an activity that humans have explored since we could THINK. This fundamental question of why we humans are HERE, on earth, NOW, has vexed humans for our entire existence, imo. We are exploring that question, so why shut out reasonable ideas that may offer insights?

I'm not shutting them out arbitrarily, I'm rejecting them when they fail in my view. Do you believe that you've been reincarnated and were a rabbit in a previous life? If not, do you give that view any credibility, or spend any time wondering whether it's true or not? Either there is some form of reincarnation or there isn't; you choose to reject one view, I choose to reject both.

[jusplay4fun]

For Lionz,

Let me tackle the Rock Layers and the Great Flood involving Noah first:

In order for you "experiment" or analogy to work to create the layers of ROCK, you need a big MIXER. How does all the rocks get "mixed" or stirred or agitated to put into a container of some sort to settle into different layers? You attribute that to the Great Flood. That does not work, for many reasons.

First, in your experiment, the larger heavier (more massive) rocks settle to the bottom. The fine sand and finer silt settle later. Your photo of layers shows large rock layer in the middle, the lighter color one. The layers below are some of sand and silt.

Where was this big "mixer" bowl? The Ocean?

And how did that layer end up so far above the Ocean?

There are likely more problems for Lionz on this one point, but that is enough to start THAT part of the discussion.

Lionz is trying to use Geology to defend the Great Flood that affected the ENTIRE World and Noah.
1) There is not geologic evidence for a world wide flood in the geologic record.
2) There is evidence that the Story of Noah and the Great Flood was an adopted from stories from ancient Babylon, now the region in the country of Iraq.
(See Gilgamesh flood myth for more details on the possible origin of the Story of Noah. I included those refences at the end, for those who want to delve into that aspect.)

AI Summary

This AI-generated answer is powered by OpenAI. AI-generated content may sometimes contain inaccurate, incomplete, or biased information, so make sure you do additional research. You should not rely on this feature for medical, financial, or legal advice.

To assess the geological evidence for the Great Flood of Noah, consider the following points:

Lack of Universal Evidence: No geological evidence supports a global flood event as described in the Bible.

Local Flood Theories: Some suggest that local floods could have inspired the Noah story, particularly in Mesopotamia.

Sedimentary Layers: Geological layers show a long history of sediment deposition, not a single catastrophic event.

Fossil Records: Fossil distribution indicates gradual evolution and extinction, inconsistent with a sudden flood.

Ice Age Evidence: Geological records support ice ages and glacial periods rather than a singular flood event.

Cultural Myths: Many ancient cultures have flood myths, suggesting a common human experience rather than a specific historical event.

The AI summary above agrees with nearly everything I have read on the matter of Noah's Ark and the Great Flood. Below are details below to add depth to those bullet points from AI that summarize the scientfic and geologic evidence.

and, specific sources:

"The one thing we know for sure from geology is that a global flood never happened," said David Montgomery, a professor of geomorphology at the University of Washington in Seattle and author of "The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood" (W. W. Norton & Company, 2012). "If you look at it as literally a global flood that covered the world's highest mountains, I'm sorry, there's just not enough water on Earth to do that," he told Live Science. (...)

According to historical documents, Noah's flood is a retelling of older stories, and it's likely allegorical rather than a literal recounting of an event. Ira Spar, professor of ancient studies at Ramapo College of New Jersey, told Live Science that the biblical stories in the Old Testament, which were written down between 800 B.C. and 500 B.C., likely came from older oral traditions and multiple sources.

There are slightly different accounts of Noah's flood story in other religious books, such as the Quran, while earlier versions of a cataclysmic flood stem from ancient Mesopotamian texts. Spar noted that there's a Sumerian flood story recorded in fragments that dates back to the late third millennium B.C.

https://www.livescience.com/human-behav ... lly-happen

and

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth (...)

Scientific Evidence Against a Whole-Earth Flood (...)
In the Epic of Gilgamesh, [Utnapishtim] is warned that a god plans to destroy all humanity and is told to build a ship to save himself, his family, friends, and cattle. In the Epic of Atrahasis, a tribal chief survived with his family by floating in a boat down to the Persian Gulf. After the flood subsided, the chief got out on dry land and erected an altar and sacrificed to a water god so that such a flood would not happen again (Anonymous nd-a). Noah also built an altar when he got off the Ark and offered sacrifices (Genesis 8:20). Because these stories all describe an ancient huge flood in Mesopotamia, it is extremely likely that a huge flood could have occurred. However, the next question is: "Did the Noachian Flood cover the whole earth?" (...)

Regional Evidence for the Noachian and Similar Floods
Two rivers, the Euphrates and Tigris flow through Mesopotamia, which is now the country of Iraq (Figure 1). There are several layers in exposed rocks near these two rivers in southeastern Mesopotamia (Iraq) that are likely flood deposits. Most are about a foot (0.3 m) thick, but one is as much as 3 meters thick (MacDonald 1988). Flood debris from this same thick deposit along the Euphrates River near the ancient Sumerian city of Shuruppak about 200 km southeast of Baghdad has been dated by the C14 method, giving an age of 2900 BCE (Best nd). Flood deposits 2.4 meters feet thick are also reported by MacDonald (1988) as far northeast as the ancient Babylonian city of Kish (120 km south of Baghdad). At any rate, the many flood-deposit layers show that flooding in southeastern Mesopotamia was not unusual in ancient times. (...)

Almost every culture through history has a flood story to tell, as would the people in Bangladesh, but in each of these times and places, the floods would have been local and not worldwide.

and, same source, and very cogent to me:

On that basis, the "whole world" would definitely appear to be covered with water during the Flood, and that was the "whole world" for the people in this part of southeastern Mesopotamia at that time.

https://ncse.ngo/yes-noahs-flood-may-ha ... hole-earth

and,
https://www.historyskills.com/classroom ... ood-story/

more background, on the possible origins of the Story of Noah:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utnapishtim

The key point is NOT the FACTS of the story or what happened, but what these stories tell us about the Salvation of Humans.

The Science and History are NOT IMPORTANT in the Bible; Salvation of all humans and of the individual is the key point.

I have read lots about Geology, especially since my college days, and have read NOTHING that supports the Story of a Great World-wide Flood that impacted Noah.

After taking my courses in Geology in college, I was struck by several salient points:
1) the age of the Earth, and that the Geologists were correct that the Earth was BILLIONS of years old;
2) the environmental impacts of our modern society;
3) one should never build on a flood plain, especially of a river;
4) beaches are temporary , to the extend that the sand of the beach are constantly moving, not daily, but for a much longer period of time. Thus one should never build on beaches, unless one is willing to spend money to replenish the shifting sands.
5) identification of rocks and minerals; hence my interpretation of the rock layers in the Photo posted by Lionz.
6) There is MUCH more, but these are the points I will mention that are mostly germane to this discussion.

I may discuss other issue that Lionz raises later.

[Apatheist]

“Oh, that's right, it's because all the religious people were convinced that everything orbited the Earth, so a binary star wouldn't exist, would it?”

Doesn’t even mainstream cosmology suggest that everything including the sun is moving in the heavens? And how familiar are you with the morning star and what it does in earth’s sky every eight years? It’s like the Creator is playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers or something.

Yes it does. My point was that the religious doctrine, on pain of death, was that everything revolved AROUND the Earth. You raised Sirius B, which by your own admission rotates around Sirius A, thereby showing that the religious doctrine (allegedly wisdom received from a god) was wrong, and is therefore not to be trusted.
I'm well aware of transits, retrograde motion, and orbital cycles. What's that got to do with anything religious? That's the result of mass, gravity and angular momentum.
You've left out that the moon is 400 times smaller than the sun, yet 400 times nearer, which is why we get the eclipses we do...except of course, the moon is moving further away, and has been for some time, we're just lucky to be around when it's at this distance. There is such a thing as coincidence - two completely unrelated events that happen at the same time. It is a well-known fact that correlation does not imply causality.
Jupiter revolves in 10 hours, Mars has two moons - add them together and you get the number of disciples!! Just as relevant, I'm afraid.

“The Nephilim: Often translated as ‘giants’ or ‘fallen ones,’ they were considered heroic or famous warriors of antiquity, rather than strictly large in stature.”

I recommend looking into what was widely reported as recently as the 1800s by newspapers like New York Times if you don’t think literal giants existed in the past. Click individual images here if you want links directly to the New York Times:

http://www.sydhav.no/giants/newspapers.htm

Again, you're missing the point. Yes, of course giants of varying size existed, and still do (the definition is anyone over 6'5", and I've known a couple of them). I've never said they didn't.
The point was that the translation of Nephilim indicates nothing out of the ordinary - this was raised as though they were something supernatural, superhuman giants or fallen angels. I merely pointed out that the alternative translation suggests that they were important and brave warriors who "fell" in battle.

I've also seen a tv program which mentions the American giants, and the Homo floresiensis, or "Flores Man," an extinct species of small, ancient humans (approx. 3ft 7in or 1.1m tall) that lived on the Indonesian island of Flores until about 50,000 years ago. Nicknamed "hobbits," they lived alongside modern humans, hunted dwarf elephants, and likely evolved their small size through "island dwarfism" in isolation.

They posited that they, along with homo habilis, were three different experiments by aliens, to see which version of humans would actually survive.
Now, is that wrong because a) nothing was here 50,000 years ago b) there aren't (or weren't ever) any aliens c) aliens never visited here or d) it's just a barking mad theory by people who WANT to believe in aliens, with no basis in evidence? Or might it just be that animals evolve in different ways according to different environments?
I'm sure we'll all have different views on that. Before responding, you might like to consider parallels with any other belief system.