# evidence for god? some one said so. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 21, 2013, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896 "2013-01-21T08:55:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 38
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/741 "2013-03-03T13:29:55Z")
> [@ruben4ruben](#): > > Oh nice statement, but you “forget” to enlighten us as to **where in the bible** the book says the earth is flat. Let me help you. > > Isaiah 40:22 speaks of the earth being round. Pick up any bible and see that thousands of years ago the Hebrews(and later Christians) had no doubt about the earth being round. In Latin: or′bi ter′rae. > > Now as for the smart Europeans…they were afraid for centuries to sail too far West because they thought they’d fall off. And i agree many **other** religions would have us believe the earth sits on the back of elephants standing on a turtle. > > But not the bible. > > ``` > **...and you will know the truth and the truth shall set you free.** > *John 8:32* > > ``` Because the Bible is really the work of humans, many people who know the truth no longer believe,and feel free. It is a matter of who, or what one wishes to believe!It was humans who decided what was God’s word, or what God inspired, so belief is really in some humans. ---
**Author:** ![ruben4ruben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@ruben4ruben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruben4ruben)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/742 "2013-03-03T13:36:58Z")
> [@](#): > > The pagan Romans and Greeks were also big on cleanliness. Not really, Hollywood and some educational films would have you believe that. But Rome was a stinking city. Yes, they pioneered sewers and aquaducts but there were still a lot of filthy habits and people that did not feel like _pioneering cleanliness._ The old Hebrews for example had the Mosaic Law. A law that gives specific orders for disposing human waste, dead bodies, washing hands and clothes, quarantaining the sick, burning certain belongings of deceased or sick persons… the list is very long. If medieval Europeans simply translated and **read** their bible, that stupid book from Middle-Eastern fools, they would not have died like rats in their millions from the plague. Plato, Pythagoras, Socrates and their own great men of science could not save them from their own (filthy) ignorance. Knowing exactly what Pi is did not help them either. Up to this day any doctor or surgeon can tell you the Mosaic law provides an excellent (basic) tool for preventing diseases (and spreading). Example: In certain areas today in 2013 people still defecate in lakes,streams and rivers while they also bathe in it and drink from it. (Try sipping from the Ganges) A 1st century Jew would never do that. A 1000 years BC Hebrew would also never do that as their holy book, their law gave them the wisdom to **BURY** their sh\*t. It took the Europeans centuries and the invention of microscopes and bacteria to figure out washing your hands might actually be a good idea. God be my witness, up to this day i still see European men walk right out of the toilet after taking a dump without touching water or soap. (you know who you are at the office!) Love you all, stay clean. Ruben PS to Andy the Westie: Psalm 10:4 , 1 Corinthians 3:19 (don’t waste your time here bro) ---
**Author:** ![ruben4ruben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@ruben4ruben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruben4ruben)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/743 "2013-03-03T13:45:44Z")
PPS to Andiethewestie: Look at this statement after i prove the bible said the earth was round about 3000 years ago: > [@](#): > > Because the Bible is really the work of humans, many people who know the truth no longer believe,and feel free. It is a matter of who, or what one wishes to believe!It was humans who decided what was God’s word, or what God inspired, so belief is really in some humans. I rest me case laddie. I’m not wasting one more minute here today. It’s no use, save your time bro. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/744 "2013-03-03T14:07:10Z")
> [@ruben4ruben](#): > > Oh nice statement, but you “forget” to enlighten us as to **where in the bible** the book says the earth is flat. Let me help you. > > Isaiah 40:22 speaks of the earth being round. Pick up any bible and see that thousands of years ago the Hebrews(and later Christians) had no doubt about the earth being round. In Latin: or′bi ter′rae. > > Now as for the smart Europeans…they were afraid for centuries to sail too far West because they thought they’d fall off. Isaiah 40:22 speaks of the circle of the earth–a flat place with round borders. It does not speak of a globe or sphere. The ancient people knew that the Earth was a globe, long before the bible was (recently) used to confuse those who were not paying attention. No one in Europe (Christian or otherwise) thought that the world was flat and that they would fall off if they went too far west. That legend was only created in 1828 (by Washington Irving, no less), to re-write the history of Columbus and no educated person believes that, today. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/745 "2013-03-03T16:07:21Z")
> [@ruben4ruben](#): > > Not really, Hollywood and some educational films would have you believe that. Because it’s true, they went to the bathouse several times a week. It was also a social meeting place. The poorer classes indeed would not be able to afford to go as often but they too had public fountains. that’s what the aquaducts are for. No one would be stupid enough to drink from the Tiber. > [@](#): > > The old Hebrews for example had the Mosaic Law. A law that gives specific orders for disposing human waste, dead bodies, washing hands and clothes, quarantaining the sick, burning certain belongings of deceased or sick persons… the list is very long. Glad to hear they picked _something_ up from the Greeks > [@](#): > > If medieval Europeans simply translated and **read** their bible, that stupid book from Middle-Eastern fools, they would not have died like rats in their millions from the plague. Total nonsense. Did you think the Jews, in all their cleansiness, were spared? The Black Death reached Jerusalem by 1348 and wreacked havock just like anywhere else. Soon after it reached Mecca, where people do that little ritual washing as well. > [@](#): > > Plato, Pythagoras, Socrates and their own great men of science could not save them from their own (filthy) ignorance. Knowing exactly what Pi is did not help them either. What _are_ you on about? > [@](#): > > Love you all, stay clean. You too, and please do a bit more scrubbing than mosaic law prescibes. ---
**Author:** ![ruben4ruben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@ruben4ruben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruben4ruben)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/746 "2013-03-03T17:09:33Z")
> [@](#): > > Because it’s true, they went to the bathouse several times a week. It was also a social meeting place. Roman baths often had no drain. Romans knew it was not wise to go to a both house if you had any scratch or small wound as the water often just sat there without being drained or changed for days. tomndebb: The word used in Isaiah is not circle but orb or sphere. Keep trying though. Latro: The Mosaic Law, (dating from the Time of Moses) has nothing to do with Greece. Greece had not even started it’s own Classic period. There were people and tribes but no united Greece state. Just another random shout, but where is your evidence material? Keep trying though. I’m out of this place for good. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/747 "2013-03-03T17:12:37Z")
> [@ruben4ruben](#): > > Roman baths often had no drain. Romans knew it was not wise to go to a both house if you had any scratch or small wound as the water often just sat there without being drained or changed for days. Cite, please. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/748 "2013-03-03T18:04:13Z")
> [@ruben4ruben](#): > > I’m out of this place for good. Is your utter failure to prove your point the reason for your leaving? ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/749 "2013-03-03T18:39:06Z")
> [@ruben4ruben](#): > > Roman baths often had no drain. More nonsense. [Quik Google](http://www.livescience.com/26202-drain-lost-items-roman-baths.html) > [@](#): > > Latro: The Mosaic Law, (dating from the Time of Moses) No it doesn’t. > [@](#): > > has nothing to do with Greece. [The action netilat yadayim comes from the Aramaic word natla נטלא - the vessel used for washing hands. The word natla, in turn, comes from the Greek antlion (bucket).](http://www.balashon.com/2006/10/netila.html) There are, of course, dissenting views. Keep shouting though and be sure to keep your fingers in your ears as well. > [@](#): > > I’m out of this place for good. Bye bye. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/750 "2013-03-03T18:43:48Z")
> [@ruben4ruben](#): > > tomndebb: The word used in Isaiah is not circle but orb or sphere. Keep trying though. Actually, while _khug_ can mean an arc or sphere in different contexts, the context of that sentence makes it clear that it is a flat circle, (particularly since the notion of a sphere violates the description of Genesis.) ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/751 "2013-03-03T20:21:46Z")
> [@ruben4ruben](#): > > I’m out of this place for good. I’m starting to think that maybe it’s us… ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/752 "2013-03-04T02:10:50Z")
> [@ruben4ruben](#): > > Oh nice statement, but you “forget” to enlighten us as to **where in the bible** the book says the earth is flat. . . . Don’t attribute intentions to others; that’s a grievous fallacy. (I might say “You ‘forgot’ to read the Bible,” and that would be the same fallacy.) The Bible speaks of the Earth having edges, corners, pillars, a foundation, and a firmament overhead. The Bible describes the earth as a tent. The Bible describes the whole world being visible from one tower, and from one mountaintop. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/753 "2013-03-04T02:14:26Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > . . . No one in Europe (Christian or otherwise) thought that the world was flat . . . The very most ancient civilizations – Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians – might not have known the earth was a globe. Their mythic imagery, like the Bible’s, seems to indicate that they didn’t know. The Greeks certainly did know. But at what point did the knowledge become common among educated people? I think the Biblical view is of the more ancient kind, before the knowledge spread. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/754 "2013-03-04T07:22:02Z")
The Greeks, Pythagoras and Aristotle, already postulated a round earth in 6th/5th centuries BC. Maybe the Egyptians also knew, who knows. When the bible was written, around the same time, they stuck to the mesopotamian idea of a floating disc. When Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth, around 200 BC, the bible was already some 300 years old. By then most educated people knew the earth was round. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/755 "2013-03-04T13:21:27Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Isaiah 40:22 speaks of the circle of the earth–a flat place with round borders. It does not speak of a globe or sphere. > The ancient people knew that the Earth was a globe, long before the bible was (recently) used to confuse those who were not paying attention. > > No one in Europe (Christian or otherwise) thought that the world was flat and that they would fall off if they went too far west. That legend was only created in 1828 (by Washington Irving, no less), to re-write the history of Columbus and no educated person believes that, today. Augustian in “the City Of God” says," It is impossible for the earth to be round", so some didn’t believe that. The OT also says there was a dome over the earth, I don’t remember the chapter or verse but I think it was in Genesis. ---
**Author:** ![paul32](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc348/32.png) [@paul32](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paul32)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/756 "2013-03-04T20:05:44Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > You’re mixing up the concept of the information carrying capacity of a communications channel, and the amount of information that is in a set of data. You had originally asked about the information contained in the DNA data set, but you’re objecting based on Shannon communications concepts, and those just don’t apply to this question. > > Imagine you have a set of data with X bits of information. If you want to communicate this information to somewhere else, you need a channel, and the channel will have a capacity of the number of bits per second that it can carry. If you add noise to the channel, it will have a lower capacity and will take longer to communicate the X bits of information, but that has nothing to do with the question here, which is the number of bits that are in X in the first place. I didn’t mention this earlier. Your distinction here is not valid. A noise event on some data applies if it is in storage the same as sent over a channel. The coding of the data to handle the error rate is needed in each case, it is just they generally have very different error rates. > [@Voyager](#): > > Just saying that **CurtC** is absolutely correct. A basic misunderstanding is confusing meaning with information. In a sense meaning reduced the amount of information. > I do acrostics. One of the ways you solve them is to guess the words in the meaning based on several letters and context. They have meaning, but less information than if the “word” was a set of random letters, in which case you’d need to solve all the clues to get the word. > > As for substitution, if all letters were substituted, the amount of compression would be the same. (It might be different if only some were.) And if the resulting coded message had the same structure as English words, it can often be easily decrypted. (Another common puzzle.) As far as the substitution, I’m not following how all letters substituting would be the same. A basic concept of compression is Huffman coding, which uses less space for frequently used letters. If you substitute Q’s for E’s, it won’t compress as well. Yes, I’ve done these puzzles, and never said this was good encryption, just an example that doesn’t change information, but does change the result of compression. Meaning vs. information. I decided to look that up, and found this: [Information vs. Meaning | ScienceBlogs](http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2009/09/21/information-vs-meaning/) It says: It doesn’t care what the string means. Information theory cares about how much information is in a string; it doesn’t care what the string means. In fact, you can say something much stronger about information theory: if you consider meaning at all, then you’re not doing information theory. So, I think from this, that **CurtC** incorrectly used information theory to begin with by talking about the text file. The above reference goes on to say meaning is the context of interpreting the information, and without context you can’t really measure the amount of information, and continues on about a minimal context. I can now see where you are coming from about more information in a random sample of data. But that information is meaningless! > [@Trinopus](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Using your text file example, if you encode it with a simple replacement code (F for A, R for B, etc), you will get a new file the same size, but when you compress it, the result is bigger than the original when compressed. So by your definition, it has more information, but clearly there is no more information. It is the same message in a different form. > > Not quite: the compression schema, itself, is “information” and if you don’t know it, you don’t have access to the compressed data. You have to add the information that describes the compression schema, and that brings us back to par. The compression schema may be information, but 1) it isn’t contained within the data, and 2) it is the same for any input so doesn’t change the amount of information in each case. So, I’ll still assert the amount of information is not just the number of bits. > [@Trinopus](#): > > And I could post a file that has gigabytes of “real” information – say, the Wikipedia – but which is encoded using a random key – and you would not be able to tell it apart from a “truly” random file. The appearance of randomness is no guarantee of “true” randomness. > > In fact, the worth of a file of data is in your inability to differentiate it from a truly random file! Did you really mean ability (not inability)? The worth of a file is your ability to not only differentiate it, but decode and use it, right? Like I said above, truly random data is meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/757 "2013-03-04T22:52:54Z")
> [@paul32](#): > > Your distinction here is not valid. A noise event on some data applies if it is in storage the same as sent over a channel. You’re not getting the point. You’re used to thinking in terms of having an original source of data, and trying to transmit/preserve that without error. Any randomness you add is therefore different from the original, so is therefore less of its information. But that’s not what we’re talking about here, and your original question is not addressed by those concepts. Instead, think about having two different sets of original data - which one has more information? Even though they could have the same number of bits, one may have more information, right? What it basically comes down to is how long it would take, ideally, to transmit each file over a data channel - the one that takes longer to transmit has more information in it. And if one of those two data sets is basically the first data set, but with randomness substituted for whatever was there, the second data set will have more information and take longer to transmit. > [@](#): > > Meaning vs. information. I decided to look that up, and found this: [Information vs. Meaning | ScienceBlogs](http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2009/09/21/information-vs-meaning/) > It says: It doesn’t care what the string means. Information theory cares about how much information is in a string; it doesn’t care what the string means. In fact, you can say something much stronger about information theory: if you consider meaning at all, then you’re not doing information theory. Great - you’re coming around. Voyager was explaining to you that you were incorrectly looking at “meaning,” and we were talking about information. Your original question was about information, so when you brought “meaning” into it, that just got you confused. > [@](#): > > So, I think from this, that **CurtC** incorrectly used information theory to begin with by talking about the text file. Huh? > [@](#): > > I can now see where you are coming from about more information in a random sample of data. Great, I’m glad that’s getting through. > [@](#): > > But that information is meaningless! Just when I thought we had you realizing that you need to keep the concept of “meaning” out of the discussion, you bring it back in again! We’re talking about information theory here. > [@](#): > > The compression schema may be information, but 1) it isn’t contained within the data, and 2) it is the same for any input so doesn’t change the amount of information in each case. So, I’ll still assert the amount of information is not just the number of bits. I’m glad you’re “asserting” that, because it’s what we’ve been trying to explain to you. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/758 "2013-03-05T01:04:54Z")
> [@paul32](#): > > . . . Did you really mean ability (not inability)? The worth of a file is your ability to not only differentiate it, but decode and use it, right? Like I said above, truly random data is meaningless. Nope: inability. Here’s an example: in English, the letter q is almost always followed by the letter u. You can effectively compress English by replacing “qu” with “q.” (Don’t qote me on this…) The information content of standard English is less than what it might be, because we often use two characters where one would do. Because we do know (in specific cases) what the next letter will be, the data is readily distinguishable from a random sequence of letters (in which we do not know what the next letter will be.) The actual information content is lessened. The most informative string of data is one which is (outwardly) indistinguishable from a random string. The string that contains sequences that are highly predictable carries less information than one that contains no predictable strings. (You can receive no useful information from, say, Jack Chick. You already know exactly what he is going to say! “Haw haw haw!”) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/759 "2013-03-05T18:27:31Z")
> [@paul32](#): > > As far as the substitution, I’m not following how all letters substituting would be the same. A basic concept of compression is Huffman coding, which uses less space for frequently used letters. If you substitute Q’s for E’s, it won’t compress as well. Yes, I’ve done these puzzles, and never said this was good encryption, just an example that doesn’t change information, but does change the result of compression. You are assuming that the knowledge the E is most common is built in. If this is not true - and I can’t recall ever seeing a writeup of encoding which assumes it - Q will be seen as most frequent, and the compression will be identical. In fact one of the ways you solve the puzzle is to count letter occurrences, and assume that the most frequent letter can be E depending on its placement in short words. I never thought you were claiming it was good encryption! But the amount of information in the string is independent of the identify of the letters, and thus is the same under this feeble encryption. > [@](#): > > Meaning vs. information. I decided to look that up, and found this: [Information vs. Meaning | ScienceBlogs](http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2009/09/21/information-vs-meaning/) > It says: It doesn’t care what the string means. Information theory cares about how much information is in a string; it doesn’t care what the string means. In fact, you can say something much stronger about information theory: if you consider meaning at all, then you’re not doing information theory. > > So, I think from this, that **CurtC** incorrectly used information theory to begin with by talking about the text file. > > The above reference goes on to say meaning is the context of interpreting the information, and without context you can’t really measure the amount of information, and continues on about a minimal context. I can now see where you are coming from about more information in a random sample of data. But that information is meaningless! The thing you just cited specifically says that information is meaningless. Think of the answer to a proposal of marriage: yes or no. One bit - not much information, but a wealth of meaning! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/760 "2013-03-05T18:34:30Z")
,Since God is unknowable,and it is only humans who give their idea of evidence, it is Moot. No one can say in truth they know anything about God, or gods,just what some human decided what was A god or God. One can only believe their own idea or some other’s idea of a god or God. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896.md?page=37) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896.md?page=39)