God vs. Science

[bu villain]

But can you win the lottery every day for the rest of your life? 1:1,000,000 odds are drastically better than 10_37th. Big difference. If ANY of the items listed went wrong, you wouldn't be typing. How many people do you know that have won every lottery that they have played?

Read about DNA sequencing. There is not way that could happen expressly by chance. Possible - Yes (anything is), Probably - No. There is a difference.

I am not sure where you are getting the chance of life is 1 in 10^37 (or how one could possibly even develop odds for such an event at all) or why it is a lottery that must be played continuously (isn't once enough?) But even if that were the case, if there are 10^100000 universes out there, all with unique properties, then chances are quite good one of them will have life. I don't take it on faith that there are many other universes, I take it as a fact that I don't know. To assume there is only 1 is to claim you know for sure there are not others. The point is, probability is not a good argument for intelligent design.

Of course, that does not mean that you can't believe it. Just know that you are taking it on faith. Again, nothing wrong with that. If everyone was the same, we would be robots. Again, you are completely entitled to your opinion and beliefs. I am not belittling that. Just be informed as to why you believe something.

This part is very interesting. I take the position that there is not enough evidence to claim there is intelligent design based on the information I have read. You say, you are convinced by the evidence and I can not say they are wrong to come to that conclusion. I think we both agree on that. Both our positions are based on reason (even though they differ) and thus "faith" as used in the traditional sense is not really a good term to put on either of us.

Faith in the religious sense means believing one way regardless of any evidence. You will have to speak for yourself but my "faith" as you put it, is malleable. New evidence will change it, it will constantly question it, and I will never disregard information simply because it doesn't fit with my existing belief. If there is a question to which I don't know the asnwer, my response is "I don't know" not "It is God".

Finally, thanks for the concern but don't worry I am not sensitive. I don't mind my beliefs being challenged. It will only lead me closer to truth.

[David88vert]

Well put statement. I will clarify. God can neither be proven nor disproven through science. If you choose to believe in a god, that is based upon faith. The information listed earlier is only evalution of the Big Bang hypothesis, not God. The evidence for and against the Big Bang exists in this finite universe, and thus can be evaluated.
Basically, there is not enough evidence at this point in time to conclusively prove the Big Bang happened, and current evolutionary conclusions are drawn off of this concept.

My belief in God is based solely upon my faith. My observations of scientific information currently supports this. It is not to change your beliefs, only to give you info to draw your own conclusions.

[Maniac1]

We don't know what god is, but we know what he isn't. http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

[The12lber]

Calling lack of belief in god "faith" is a very misleading use of the word. Choosing not to believe in something for which there is no evidence isn't faith in the same sense believing in god is at all, especially since by choosing to believe in god you are not only choosing to believe in the supernatural but something very specific.

Take this very nondescript example to demonstrate the logic behind this. An event happens, did it happen without any outside intervention or did something unknown cause it to happen?

Its one thing to decide that it was something unknown or that the event happened without outside intervention without evidence. Its something else altogether to decide that something else did it and that something was bigfoot. This is EXACTLY what you have done when you choose to believe in god or in anything more specific than that. Supernatural creation or design don't have to be god. Why couldn't it have been space aliens? Or the cosmic design committee? The Hindu or Olympian Pantheon?

More over, those who have concluded there is no supernatural intervention in the natural world can rely on increasingly accurate science (hence, its not faith in any sense of the word) to explain the operations of this world in the abscence of the supernatural. And the thing is, no matter how advanced science becomes, it can never be advanced enough to disprove the existence of a transcendant being. Don't call not believing in something like that "faith", its ridiculous

[NAG2I]

well for a believer there is a little evidence. you make it sound like people who believe in a God just got there ideas from there imagination. most people who believe, have a source where they get there beliefs from. whether it be the bible or the koran or whatever.

[The12lber]

well for a believer there is a little evidence. you make it sound like people who believe in a God just got there ideas from there imagination. most people who believe, have a source where they get there beliefs from. whether it be the bible or the koran or whatever.

What you're talking about is only evidence of man's ability to create and disseminate mass media.

The Bible and the Koran are evidence of god's existence the same way rednecks with incoherent stories of anal probing on the history channel are evidence for the existence of extraterrestrials.

[NAG2I]

What you're talking about is only evidence of man's ability to create and disseminate mass media.

The Bible and the Koran are evidence of god's existence the same way rednecks with incoherent stories of anal probing on the history channel are evidence for the existence of extraterrestrials.

That might be the way you look at it and thats fine. but thats what makes people have different beliefs. different people choose to believe different things. i dont think one side of this will ever win over the whole other sides beliefs.

[The12lber]

That might be the way you look at it and thats fine. but thats what makes people have different beliefs. different people choose to believe different things. i dont think one side of this will ever win over the whole other sides beliefs.

Uhh that's not really a way to "look at it", that's a fact. An unsourced story isn't evidence of anything supernatural. Its evidence of the existence of literature, bad literature with painfully one dimensional characters, unexciting stories with hackneyed settings and predictable outcomes. If you can explain to me how something being written about in one source with nothing to compliment it is evidence of anything but the author's lively imagination I welcome you to.

The bible not only contradicts itself (old/new testament!?) but the world we live in (see problem of evil in previous post). More over, "back in the day", church officials used to get together and decide which books would go in the bible and which would be ommited. Its all the word of god, but apparently some of the word of god wasn't worth putting in the bible.

[NAG2I]

Uhh that's not really a way to "look at it", that's a fact. An unsourced story isn't evidence of anything supernatural. Its evidence of the existence of literature, bad literature with painfully one dimensional characters, unexciting stories with hackneyed settings and predictable outcomes. If you can explain to me how something being written about in one source with nothing to compliment it is evidence of anything but the author's lively imagination I welcome you to.

The bible not only contradicts itself (old/new testament!?) but the world we live in (see problem of evil in previous post). More over, "back in the day", church officials used to get together and decide which books would go in the bible and which would be ommited. Its all the word of god, but apparently some of the word of god wasn't worth putting in the bible.

alright to answer your questions or propositions saying that the bible is a bunch of made up stories from some guys a long time ago that liked writting.

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a biblical reference ."

a respected classical historian at Oxford says about the book of Acts,
"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming...any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd."

"The Bible is literally filled with detailed prophecies that have been fulfilled with 100% accuracy."

"To be skeptical of the 27 documents in the New Testament, and to say they are unreliable is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the New Testament."

it really takes very little research to find that the bible we read today is almost identical to the ancient texts. im not sure where you get the fact that church officials pick and chose which books would be in the bible but i wouldn't mind seeing who wrote that.

[The12lber]

alright to answer your questions or propositions saying that the bible is a bunch of made up stories from some guys a long time ago that liked writting.

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a biblical reference ."

This is plainly false. A specific and significant example. Jews in bondage in Egypt? NOWHERE BUT THE BIBLE. Moses? NOWHERE BUT THE BIBLE. There is no other evidence. NONE.


a respected classical historian at Oxford says about the book of Acts,
"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming...any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd."

This is undoubtedly true. Notice he refers to The Book of Acts only, though. The bible is full of individual books. One being true doesn't make the entire thing true by association, I'm not sure if you're trying to be misleading or you're that dumb.

"The Bible is literally filled with detailed prophecies that have been fulfilled with 100% accuracy."

ORLY? This one isn't even worth refuting. I can find plenty of quotes arguing that Nostradamus and Mayan priests were flawless fortune tellers as well.

"To be skeptical of the 27 documents in the New Testament, and to say they are unreliable is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the New Testament."

The New Testament is only part of the bible. The New Testament is indeed more or less historically accurate. The New Testament is also, more or less, far less fantastic in its storytelling than the Old.

it really takes very little research to find that the bible we read today is almost identical to the ancient texts. im not sure where you get the fact that church officials pick and chose which books would be in the bible but i wouldn't mind seeing who wrote that.

This is true. Obviously, you didn't understand what I said. "Back in the day", meant to insinuate the somewhat distant past, there were indeed meetings during which the contents of The New Testament was decided upon. It will only take, in your words "very little research" to verify this.

Past iterations of The New Testament are indeed similar to the current one. Not all "Books" by theological writers were added to the bible, however.

You haven't really demonstrated anything here. Not only is this a collection of falsehoods and half truths, it also fails in respects to demonstrating how literature can be explicit evidence of the existence of the supernatural. If I were you I'd watch Penn & Teller's BS episode on The Bible's historical accuracy if you want further education.

[Maniac1]

If I were you I'd watch Penn & Teller's BS episode on The Bible's historical accuracy if you want further education.

LOL! http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

[NAG2I]

this has some good info in it
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibletru.html
the whole website to
just has more info about how the bible is truth, explaining it much better then i can.
i mean i dont know what exactly you believe,and thats fine i dont need to know its none of my business if you dont want it to be.
i can also accept the fact that there are reasons you dont accept the same things i believe.
all i can say for myself is that i believe in the things i believe 100% without a shadow of a doubt.
i just hope that everyone else can say the same about themselves in time
might take a while to settle upon something but i hope it happens for everyone
whatever it may be.

[Maniac1]

i mean i dont know what exactly you believe,and thats fine i dont need to know its none of my business if you dont want it to be.
i can also accept the fact that there are reasons you dont accept the same things i believe.

No one here is trying to force any to change their beliefs. Me personally, I just want to know why others believe something I don't. I can argue on events in the bible that supposedly took place, because some of the storys in it are totally impossible. And there are no facts to prove them ever happening.

[NAG2I]

No one here is trying to force any to change their beliefs. Me personally, I just want to know why others believe something I don't. I can argue on events in the bible that supposedly took place, because some of the storys in it are totally impossible. And there are no facts to prove them ever happening.

oh i understand what your saying completely. I'm not trying to change peoples beliefs either just try and give a small representation as to why i believe what i do. and its hard to do online for me.

[The12lber]

this has some good info in it
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibletru.html

You know websites like this are full of ****, right? This reminds me of the Intelligent Design museum where they teach kids man coexisted with dinosaurs. Good evidence comes from websites of reputable secular educational insitutions, documentary type programming with reputable expert testimony or even wikipedia.

No offense to you sir, but I don't know how dumb you have to be to believe that the archaelogical record supports everything in the Old/New Testament. Its one thing to believe in god, believing man's fantastic stories is another.

The Penn/Teller thing synopsizes things pretty well. They use actual reputable sources, its short and to the point. Its not my fault if you don't watch it.

[NAG2I]

You know websites like this are full of ****, right? This reminds me of the Intelligent Design museum where they teach kids man coexisted with dinosaurs. Good evidence comes from websites of reputable secular educational insitutions, documentary type programming with reputable expert testimony or even wikipedia.

No offense to you sir, but I don't know how dumb you have to be to believe that the archaelogical record supports everything in the Old/New Testament. Its one thing to believe in god, believing man's fantastic stories is another.

The Penn/Teller thing synopsizes things pretty well. They use actual reputable sources, its short and to the point. Its not my fault if you don't watch it.

now i didnt say here is this website, i believe everything on it and it is what i live by. no i think some of the things he talks about are interesting. and i checked out his sources for the things i read.

[The12lber]

No, what you said was

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibletru.html
the whole website to just has more info about how the bible is truth, explaining it much better .

which, in the context of this conversation, is pretty much the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history

The synopsis: no reputable scholar believes that all of the bible is hisotorically accurate, most feel that it provides a limited amount of generally accurate historical information. And while the archaelogical record it some cases confirms the general historical accuracy of the bible, it also widely contradicts it and or cannot confirm the historiocity of the bible (and not having explicit disproof of something is not evidence of the item in question's truth, the study of history doesn't work that way).

The best part is, even if it was more or less entirely historically accurate, its still not proof of anything supernatural. Most of Rome's recorded history is true, but if I had to guess Romulus and Remus never nursed from a she-wolf and Gaius Julius Caesar wasn't really a descendant of Venus.

[CRXchic19]

we all came in the same way, and we are all exiting the same way, whatever you chose to believe in the process is not going to help the end result.

think of it the way you will, weather you believe there is an afterlife, or you dont. Obviously if just one religion is correct, then there surely is a hell of a lot of people who are wrong, it doesnt change the origin of where we came from though.

throughout history religion has been used to sugar coat excuses for war and greed. i see no difference now. man has yet to learn from his mistakes. i know what i believe, what i dont, and what i take into consideration. i would never bash anyone for thier beliefs or try to make them agree with my own...

i think the bible is pretty much a composite towards the lines of Aesop's fables, none of it REALLY happened, but at the end it leaves you with a bunch of morals and certain "guidelines" you are expected to live by...

but i still have a problem with trying to justify that there is a big guy looking down on us at all times, watching our every move and thought, telling us we are horrible horrible people, need to repent, and that we will burn in hell in the afterlife if we dont listen to what the church/bible tell us to do..... but remember kids.... HE LOVES YOU!!!

...just my

[bu villain]

Well put statement. I will clarify. God can neither be proven nor disproven through science. If you choose to believe in a god, that is based upon faith. The information listed earlier is only evalution of the Big Bang hypothesis, not God. The evidence for and against the Big Bang exists in this finite universe, and thus can be evaluated.
Basically, there is not enough evidence at this point in time to conclusively prove the Big Bang happened, and current evolutionary conclusions are drawn off of this concept.

My belief in God is based solely upon my faith. My observations of scientific information currently supports this. It is not to change your beliefs, only to give you info to draw your own conclusions.

I think we are pretty much in agreement. You're certainly right, there is no way science (or anything else for that matter) can 100% prove or disprove God (the most abstract of all concepts).

Im interested in your take on this statement:
The basic difference between atheists (or at least agnostics) and believers is that athiest do not assume anything, it must be proven, believers assume there is a God until proven otherwise.

Also, why do you choose to make the assumption that there is a God (defined loosely as an all knowing, all powerful, infinite entity who created our universe) as opposed to our universe being created by a group of super intelligent alien scientists? Why is an entity that is at the most extreme end of knowledge, power, and time more believable than an a group of entities with a great amount of knowledge, power, and time (though at least slightly less than infinite)?

Obviously I would not advocate believing in either but I would like to hear your views.

[man]

It takes an awfully closed mind to fully support either God or Science and completely reject the other.

[The12lber]

It takes an awfully closed mind to fully support either God or Science and completely reject the other.

It takes an awfully stupid person to decide that if there was a supernatural origin to the universe that it was god.

As a side note, I don't really know any believers who reject science outright- they only reject the parts that they feel contradict their faith.

[man]

It takes an awfully stupid person to decide that if there was a supernatural origin to the universe that it was god.

What is god?

[yaggrauo]

its nothing more than a thought, a figure people portray as the all and mighty. there is no evidence of 'it' every existing but people choose to believe in it because it makes them feel happy or safe while in its presence.

What is god?

[man]

its nothing more than a thought, a figure people portray as the all and might. there is no evidence of 'it' every existing but people choose to believe in it because it makes them feel happy or safe while in its presence.

And you got this from which credible source?

[yaggrauo]

there is no other explanation for it, that is the truth! 'it' is nothing more than an image. or are you going to sit here and tell me all of 'its' features and show me evidence of him existing? i think not.

And you got this from which credible source?

[man]

there is no other explanation for it, that is the truth! 'it' is nothing more than an image. or are you going to sit here and tell me all of 'its' features and show me evidence of him existing? i think not.

Ahhhh... so you are Mr. Answerman am I correct? So you have no sources? No proof to back your statements? I should just take your word because you are confident? I find it funny how easy it is to convince people one way or the other.

[yaggrauo]

no you are incorrect, smartguy. no one convinced me to think this way, i made my own conclusion. its not about having sources, do you have any to prove me wrong? i would paypal you 20 bucks if you can find me a source to disprove my thought on the subject.

Ahhhh... so you are Mr. Answerman am I correct? So you have no sources? No proof to back your statements? I should just take your word because you are confident? I find it funny how easy it is to convince people one way or the other.

[man]

no you are incorrect, smartguy. no one convinced me to think this way, i made my own conclusion. its not about having sources, do you have any to prove me wrong? i would paypal you 20 bucks if you can find me a source to disprove my thought on the subject.

Don't try to turn this around. You stated "its nothing more than a thought, a figure people portray as the all and mighty. there is no evidence of 'it' every existing but people choose to believe in it because it makes them feel happy or safe while in its presence."

I asked for your source of this definition. But then again you apparently came up with this all by yourself, no sources? That's pretty brave. You must be the most intelligent person in history if your brain can come up with conclusions like that on its own.

Should I alert the presses now or would you like to wait a little while to give a more official statement?

[yaggrauo]

haha, wow! you asked 'what is god'. i gave you the only answer anyone will be able to give, go to a church and ask, see what they tell you. no one is going to sit here and successfully explain what it is. because there has never been any actual evidence! what more do you want?! someone posted this in this thread, "we don't know what god is, but we know what he isn't." which is true, but we also know what religion people see it as, and that is an image of the creator of all.

Don't try to turn this around. You stated "its nothing more than a thought, a figure people portray as the all and mighty. there is no evidence of 'it' every existing but people choose to believe in it because it makes them feel happy or safe while in its presence."

I asked for your source of this definition. But then again you apparently came up with this all by yourself, no sources? That's pretty brave. You must be the most intelligent person in history if your brain can come up with conclusions like that on its own.

Should I alert the presses now or would you like to wait a little while to give a more official statement?

[man]

haha, wow! you asked 'what is god'. i gave you the only answer anyone will be able to give, go to a church and ask, see what they tell you. no one is going to sit here and successfully explain what it is. because there has never been any actual evidence! what more do you want?! someone posted this in this thread, "we don't know what god is, but we know what he isn't." which is true, but we also know what religion people see it as, and that is an image of the creator of all.

That's all I wanted. Especially the bold part.

[TheChosenOne]

fcman: How can you badger this man about his "definition" of god. Your really just chasing your tail.

The true argument is over whether or not he exist. I know people like he and I are fighting an up hill battle, being that we reside in the "bible belt", but the truth is inevitable.

Assuming that we are talking about the Christian God, if he were truley the King ruler of all, then why, 2000 years after "his only begotten son" roamed the Earth and preached the word, does less than half the world believe in him?

Would a truley omnipitent and loving God let the majority of his children live in ignorance?

Slavery? Holocaust? Genocide?

I ask you whole-heartedly, where is your "God"?

[man]

fcman: How can you badger this man about his "definition" of god. Your really just chasing your tail.

In what way? I was merely asking him how he could be so sure of his definition when defining the word "god" is one of the largest controversies of the intellectual community.

The true argument is over whether or not he exist. I know people like he and I are fighting an up hill battle, being that we reside in the "bible belt", but the truth is inevitable.

The truth may be inevitable but it is also the most evasive "truth" in history.

Assuming that we are talking about the Christian God, if he were truley the King ruler of all, then why, 2000 years after "his only begotten son" roamed the Earth and preached the word, does less than half the world believe in him?

I am not talking of any specific "God".

Would a truley omnipitent and loving God let the majority of his children live in ignorance?

Slavery? Holocaust? Genocide?

Omnipotence is an absurd idea.

I ask you whole-heartedly, where is your "God"?

I associate myself with no "god". I do applaud the ambiguity of the question, how am I supposed to answer such an obscure question?

[yaggrauo]

everyone has a different thought or defintion of what is "god." he may not want to post up what he thinks, because he hasn't encountered any evidence of him existing or not existing. so he would rather just stay neutral. i on the other hand choose to believe in what i said. becaus at the end of the day all you really have going for you are your own thoughts and beliefs.

fcman: How can you badger this man about his "definition" of god. Your really just chasing your tail.

[David88vert]

I think we are pretty much in agreement. You're certainly right, there is no way science (or anything else for that matter) can 100% prove or disprove God (the most abstract of all concepts).

Im interested in your take on this statement:
The basic difference between atheists (or at least agnostics) and believers is that athiest do not assume anything, it must be proven, believers assume there is a God until proven otherwise.

Also, why do you choose to make the assumption that there is a God (defined loosely as an all knowing, all powerful, infinite entity who created our universe) as opposed to our universe being created by a group of super intelligent alien scientists? Why is an entity that is at the most extreme end of knowledge, power, and time more believable than an a group of entities with a great amount of knowledge, power, and time (though at least slightly less than infinite)?

Obviously I would not advocate believing in either but I would like to hear your views.

The Raelians do believe aliens are the foundation for our existence, as other groups have in the past. It comes down to personal choice, you research all of the information that you can assimilate and draw logical conclusions. My conclusion is that there is a God, and he created us in His image.
A belief that aliens created us would not explain the origins of the universe. A finite being car not exist indefinitely. Again, matter would have to be created from nothing. Scientific laws do not support this hypothesis.

I have studied the origins of the universe for many years and have found that my faith is supported by known scientific laws and facts. I have also found that the Big Bang hypothesis and Evolution are not physically possible as currently presented by the majority of scientists that propose it's existence. Maybe in a few years they will revise their positions and it will need to be reevaluated. I am not condemning them or attacking them, I just do not find their explanations of the universe plausible based upon know scientific facts and laws.

[man]

everyone has a different thought or defintion of what is "god." he may not want to post up what he thinks, because he hasn't encountered any evidence of him existing or not existing. so he would rather just stay neutral. i on the other hand choose to believe in what i said. becaus at the end of the day all you really have going for you are your own thoughts and beliefs.

I believe it is better to leave the unknown as it is rather than settle for a guess. It is the unknown which motivates us. Perhaps my personal definition of a "god" is simply uncertainty and "faith" is simply hope. Those that have faith in a "god" start everyday with a positive outlook on uncertainty, whereas the "godless" perhaps take uncertainty in a negative light. Then there are people like me who look at uncertainty as a fork in the road, producing results neither desirable nor undesirable.

[David88vert]

Calling lack of belief in god "faith" is a very misleading use of the word. Choosing not to believe in something for which there is no evidence isn't faith in the same sense believing in god is at all, especially since by choosing to believe in god you are not only choosing to believe in the supernatural but something very specific.

Take this very nondescript example to demonstrate the logic behind this. An event happens, did it happen without any outside intervention or did something unknown cause it to happen?

Its one thing to decide that it was something unknown or that the event happened without outside intervention without evidence. Its something else altogether to decide that something else did it and that something was bigfoot. This is EXACTLY what you have done when you choose to believe in god or in anything more specific than that. Supernatural creation or design don't have to be god. Why couldn't it have been space aliens? Or the cosmic design committee? The Hindu or Olympian Pantheon?

More over, those who have concluded there is no supernatural intervention in the natural world can rely on increasingly accurate science (hence, its not faith in any sense of the word) to explain the operations of this world in the abscence of the supernatural. And the thing is, no matter how advanced science becomes, it can never be advanced enough to disprove the existence of a transcendant being. Don't call not believing in something like that "faith", its ridiculous

Trusting in men to tell you what to believe takes faith. Who decides who is credible and who is not? If you believe in evolution based on "credible scientists", you are having faith in their words and books. There is no difference in believing in their books or the Bible, Koran, etc. And of course, there is nothing wrong with that - those are your beliefs.

I see you repeatedly confusing science and philosophy. You do realize that they are two different subjects, correct?

[NAG2I]

LOL! http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

about this video
if we followed all the rules of the old testament today. it would be a crazy world.
christianity itself wasn't even created until after the old testament. not to say that nothing in the old testament is correct.

[man]

about this video
if we followed all the rules of the old testament today. it would be a crazy world.
christianity itself wasn't even created until after the old testament. not to say that nothing in the old testament is correct.

Plus the video is merely stating how society doesn't follow the bible. Not how the bible is contradictory.

[David88vert]

Would a truley omnipitent and loving God let the majority of his children live in ignorance?

Yes. You make your own decisions and choices. He doesn't want a bunch of robots, rather people must freely choose to worship Him. Your parents had to let you learn to make your own choices. You were instructed not to do some things when you were younger, and yet you chose to do them anyway, and then you had to pay the consequences. Does that mean they did not love you?

I ask you whole-heartedly, where is your "God"?

The answer is simple. He is in the same place he has always been. Right here. You choose whether or not you wish to follow His rules. You reap the rewards and consequences for your actions. Did your parent leave you just because you made a mistake? Or was the door open if you chose to come home?

This is such a simple concept, even little children understand it. If you do not understand it, it is because you are unwilling to accept it.

However, even if you understand it, it does not mean that you have to believe in God, or accept that Jesus does for your sins, etc, etc, etc...
That is a different concept. I am not delving into that question in this particular post.

[The12lber]

Plus the video is merely stating how society doesn't follow the bible. Not how the bible is contradictory.

You obviously have a double digit IQ for coming to this conclusion if you watched this video the whole way through.