Is There Any Reason to Believe the Biblical Story of Creation?

One not need be a rocket surgeon to spot low class.

I am not surprised....that would be par for the course.

I have seen no evidence that you are an astute judge of class. In fact, people who have some class don't go around castigating others on that account. You don't know the course, so there's no way you can know what par is. It seems to me that you just wanted to jump in to get snotty with me. As you're not addressing the topic here, i'm not going to waste any more of my time on you.

Thank You!

The thing that really requires some explanation is this. Neo has been asked over and over and over to come up with some evidence that the universe was created by an omnipotent being and has been unable to. At most, he shows that some parts of the Bible could be viewed as consistent with reality, which is hardly evidence that an all powerful creator exists. It is self-evidently illogical to believe something without evidence. I have, for instance, no evidence that I am descended from Irish kings and would therefore be a fool to believe that I am. The only reason to believe that something is true is if there is some indication that it is. If he did have some evidence that there is a God who created the universe, this thread would have been a golden opportunity to share it, but he cannot come up with any. Yet, he isn't phased a bit that there is no evidence that his theory of the universe is true and continues to believe it. I can only conclude that he intends to believe what makes him happy without any evidence that it's so - a method of reasoning that would not be expected to lead to correct opinions.

Not to say that you are trying to start a pissing match, but I'm not interested in pursuing this line of argument with you. As such I withdraw my statement and do not maintain an assertion that it is true.

Thank you, because I have been very careful for a long time to argue about the subject and not about the poster.

What a despicable liar I must be, writing the same things now as I wrote nine years ago. The least I could do would be to change my story from time to time.

The least you could do is to acknowledge when you are wrong. Your whole line of bullshit about this alleged prediction is wrong. I showed you that it was wrong, and you had no rebuttal.

The smarter one is, the easier it is to figure out ways to deny that which is plainly stated in the scriptures. That doesn't mean you have to be stupid to understand.

Should you contemplate the meaning of what I just said, you will see why my message does not change.

You appear to be looking for some esoteric line of reasoning, one to be understood only by those with Mensa level IQs.

I assure you I have the IQ; but the reasoning of the scriptures is fundamental.

The message does not change because you start with the assumption, and look for ways to claim that scripture supports it. Young men did not die in the streets. The foundations of the city were not destroyed. The walls were not laid low. Any idiot ought to know that you can't take a walled city with archers. The people in the surrounding countryside did not leave, taking their livestock with them. The land around the city was not devastated. There was no drought and the waters did not dry up. The city was not taken by force. Both when the Medes attacked Babylon and when the Persians attacked Babylon, the defenders opened the gates and surrendered. For all that that raging old hillbilly Jeremiah may have enjoyed dreaming of bloodshed and slaughter, it just didn't happen.

The message doesn't change because it's delusional, and you cling to your delusions.

The opposite of what I actually said. I'm looking for any evidence whatsoever that the universe was created by a supreme being. I've asked you over and over and over and pretty much all you do is misdirect me. It is unreasonable to believe something for which there is little or no evidence. I didn't suggest that the Bible is hard to understand. I suggested that you have no evidence that it's true.

(bump)

(bump)?

I've seen this used before. What is it intended to mean?

It could be Brandon seeking more evidence. Perhaps he thinks I have left the room. But # 4 grandson is graduating this week, leaving less time for this fun topic.

There you go again. It's not more evidence, since you have given me no evidence so far, unless you want to count the fact that Babylon didn't last forever. After weeks of questioning on two threads, that is the totality of evidence you have given me that a supreme being created the universe. If you have such a strong case, then why are you or anyone else able to come up with the tiniest particle of evidence that this is so?

Help me out here Neo... not sure how this applies to what I said, but then Im new here.

Bumping the thread up so that it doesn't disappear so that neo will either respond or it will be obvious that he didn't.

The main reason not to believe the creation story is that it is a rip off of the story of Gilgamesh, which is the first recorded story in the history of civilization. But when this story was written close to 5000 years it was taken as just that...a story; a form of entertainment.
Interesting no religion came of it's telling for over a thousands of years.

Seems to me the main reason is that there is little or no evidence that it's true.