Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Stealth on November 22, 2002, 12:40:52 pm
-
There's so many religions and there are so many "gods" nowadays... what do you think God's name is? i'm curious to see.
let's try to stick to Christian names (don't get into Islam, Buddism, etc.) and also don't turn it into a religious discussion, ok?
if "other", post a post and say what you think it is...
i'm going to go with two 'names' that i've heard people use in the poll. a "other", and a "God doesn't exist". if another option seems to be pretty dominant then an admin can add it to the poll...
keep it clean, no flaming. explain why if you wish
-
Bob
his true name is ...........bob
;7
-
no funny stuff.
i'm serious about this thread. i'm curious what you guys think
-
Timmy. Mostly because God's a retard.
-
If God does exist what does he need with a name?
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Bob
his true name is ...........bob
;7
close
-
Kazan. :p
but honestly... I don't really believe in a god, and if I did, I don't think he'd have a name at all.
-
Originally posted by Bri_Dog
If God does exist what does he need with a name?
The same reason you have to be in a church for him to hear your prayers.
Time for my fortnightly von Daniken (http://www.daniken.com/e/) link, methinks.
-
Other: God's name is God. :p How about we leave it at that? :p
-
Green dragon, since he is the purple dragon's friend. :D
Kazan. :p
I like this one actually. :D
-
Assuming there was a god, he'd have every name and no name. The theoretical "God" created all things, but also inhabits and embodies all things. Call 'im the Tao, because it's the closest equivalent (Actually, it'd still be the Tao-without-a-name, since there's one that can be labeled and one that cannot)
-
How about the Om then? :D
Actually, I am inclined to go with Pythagoras and say that god's name is Prime Number. :nod:
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
close
Well now I didn't actually mean you persay :P
If a name is requested the answer is always "bob"
All other answers are always "42"
Seriously thou ... Stryke's pretty much got it .
1: If he created all....why have a name hence he'd have first been alone among nothing.
2: Every religion "titles" and "Names" him differently.
My personal belive, religion and god are 100% thorughly and completely within one's own heart. What YOU believe is what YOU believe. You don't need to be in a certain location or call him by a certain name, title, language etc etc for whatever you choose to believe in to be effective about your live.
Some ppl see religion as a community thing ... for me it's much more of a deeply personal thing....course then again I've studied and taken bits of many different believes from my birth religion of Roman Catholic , all the way down to Wiccan and such.
The core is it's all up to you.
-
"Om" means only perfection- it's not an embodied thing, or an entity of any sort, like "god" is, it's a concept. You're probably thinking Atman.
-
well atleast 70% of people agreee with me no god
-
There is no god. But the christian God:s name is Jehovah, lord means just... well, a lord. :)
-
I'll go dig up my Greek-Hebrew interlinear....
*blows dust off Bible*
*looks up Lord or God in Genesis somewhere*
I'd say "Yaweh" or "Christos" ( :p take that) Ones Hebrew and the other Greek *Yaweh for God and Christos for "The Annointed One". * That's my opinion
I'll go hide in my corner now
-
Originally posted by Pera
There is no god. But the christian God:s name is Jehovah, lord means just... well, a lord. :)
Jehovah... yeah... that's what i thought to!
but if His name is Jehovah, then why do no pastors and priests call him Jehovah, they always call him "Lord" and/or "God".
also, what do Jehovah's Witnesses believe then?
-
Originally posted by Stealth
Jehovah... yeah... that's what i thought to!
but if His name is Jehovah, then why do no pastors and priests call him Jehovah, they always call him "Lord" and/or "God".
also, what do Jehovah's Witnesses believe then?
Because Jehovah is the formal name of God. Lord, God, and Father are informal names.
The Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian Cult.
Another Christian Cult is the Harvest Army of America, Inc. (They threw a pamphlet at me in NYC)
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Because Jehovah is the formal name of God. Lord, God, and Father are informal names.
Yup. Says so in the bible. Though it's arguably Yeovah or something. But in the end it's only a minor variation.
The Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian Cult.
Grrrrr.
Another Christian Cult is the Harvest Army of America, Inc. (They threw a pamphlet at me in NYC)
Yeah, and Morons.....err...Mormons.
-
We've got a random christian cult near us. Christian cults are very weird and scary.
-
I picked "other" as I like to call God "the One Above."
But I think Bri_Dog and Warlock have it right: what could the Creator need with a name? He/She/It just is.
---------------------------
Scene: Heaven near the Dawn of Time. Enter God the Almighty at stage left. God approaches audience.
God: Let's see, I've just spent six days, or 20 billion years, depending on who's counting, creating the Universe, but something seems to be missing... What could it be?
God wanders around the stage, pacing.
God (suddenly): I got it! I forgot to name myself! How wierd is that? I create the whole Universe from super-galactic star clusters all the way down to subatomic particles and beyond and everything in between, down to the smallest detail, but I forget to give myself a Name. (suddenly embarrassed)Boy, is my face red!
Enter Moses, dressed in Old Testament attire.
Moses: My Lord, you could always call yourself "YHWH." That sounds like a good name. Most people would even have trouble spelling it because it doesn't even have any vowels. You could even make it, like, your own personal secret-decoder type name!
God: That sounds like a really great idea, Moses! A secret-decoder type name would make me sound more mysterious and mystical-like and stuff.
Enter Jesus Christ, dressed in 1st Century Judean clothes.
Jesus Christ: Naw, my Lord, you should call yourself "Jehovah." It sounds really poetic and flows from the tongue real easy.
God (sounding less certain): I do like poetry... Jehovah does sound nice...
Enter Mohammed, dressed in 6th Century Arabian clothes.
Mohammed: I think "Allah" would be a good name for you, my Lord. It's short, it's simple and to the point and if anyone else doesn't like it, can always take them hostage in your name.
God (doubtfully): Isn't that a little excessive, Mohammed?
Mohammed (with sincere fervor): For you, my Lord, nothing is excessive.
God (shrugging): Well, since I'm looking for worship and devotion, I guess I can't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Enter the FS Community, a disparate, raggedy-looking band of nerdish gaming geeks. At the head of the crowd is Stealth, a pot-bellied, beer-swigging dude with beady eyes and a bemused, yet endearingly bewildered expression perpetually on his face.
Stealth (turning to rest of FS crowd): So, dudes, I've got, like, this question to ask y'all: do you think God has a name?
Quiet murmuring emanates from FS crowd for a minute or so. Then Bri_Dog and Warlock, two strapping young bucks in the prime of their gaming lives, step forward.
Bri_Dog: Nah, what use would God have for a name?
Warlock: I agree. He created the Universe, therefore he's unique and doesn't need a name.
Su-tehp, a young, handsome and virile law student in the prime of his life steps forward out of the FS Community crowd.
Su-tehp: Guys, if God really exists, something that has not been proved with any sort of certainty, mind you, then God could call himself He wants. Besides, it's not like we're ever gonna meet the guy, right?
Murmurings of "He's right" and "Damn, Su has a good point" begin emanating from the FS crowd.
God and the three Prophets (Moses, Jesus Christ and Mohammed) become aghast at this lack of faith. God turns to his Prophets.
God: What the hell are you all doing standing around? Those geeks are losing faith in me! Do something!
Mohammed steps forward and faces the FS crowd.
Mohammed: You must all bow down before the will of Allah! If you do not, I will fight a jihad against you infidels!
The FS crowd is oblivious to Mohammed’s rantings. CP5670, carrying a bunch of computer printout papers, steps forward.
CP5670: Guys, you should all take a look at this. I just managed to mathematically prove that God doesn’t exist.
God: He did what?
Su-tehp: Dude, CP, no ****, you mathematically proved that God doesn’t exist?
CP5670: Yeah, Su, have a look. (CP5670 hands the papers to Su-tehp.)
Su-tehp: Well, I’m no mathematician, but this does look good to me. Guys, here, have a look at this. (Su-tehp begins passing out the papers to the rest of the FS crowd.)
God (beginning to fade from sight): This is intolerable! (shoves the bewildered Mohammed out of the way and grabs Moses by the arm) Moses, I think I see a Jew in that crowd. Talk to him and help him to make the others see reason!
Moses steps forward and approaches Sandwich, an Israeli soldier wearing combat fatigues.
Moses: Shalom, little one. YHWH has sent me to tell you that you must try to restore your friends’ faith in the Almighty.
Sandwich (turning to face Moses): I know you. You’re Moses. I read about you in school.
Moses: Yes, my son, I am Moses. Will you help me?
Sandwich (with disdain): Oh, please. These people are my friends and most them aren’t Jewish. I’m not going to help you forcibly convert them. After everything I’ve seen in Judea and Samaria recently, I’m no longer certain that YHWH still cares for the Jewish Nation. The whole history of our people has been one ****-kicking after another lasting five thousand years. We finally got our homeland back after more than three thousand years and people still want to wipe us from the face of the Earth. If you really wanna help me, how’s about knocking off a bunch of Palestinian terrorists so more of our people don’t get killed in suicide bombings?
Moses, defeated, walks back to God.
Moses: I’m sorry, YHWH. The man has a point. There’s nothing I can do.
God (fading even further from view): Jesus Christ, you’re my last hope. Help Me before I fade away entirely!
Jesus Christ begins desperately scanning the crowd of FS gamers, most of whom have seen CP5670’s printout disproving God’s existence. With each person reading the printout, God fades away a bit more. Finally, Jesus Christ approaches one of the gamers in the crowd.
Jesus Christ (nearly in hysterics): Shivan Archon, you’re a Republican, aren’t you? You have to help me restore your friends’ faith in God! There’s no time to waste!
Shivan Archon: I’m sorry, JC, that would cost me political capital. The Republican Party just got all three branches of the American government, so you can go to them for whatever you need. Besides, I just hang out with these guys just to play with their free FS mods. (shrugs) Sorry, dude, I can’t help you.
The printout at this point has now been read by the entire FS crowd. God has almost entirely faded from view.
God (in a small voice): Oh, dear. This could be slightly unpleasant.
God disappears in a small poof of smoke.
Enter Setekh, stage right.
Setekh: Hey, guys, what’s going on?
FS crowd (in unison): STEAK!
Sandwich: Dude, Steak, long time, no see, dude!
Su-tehp: Steak, WB, buddy! (grinning) Have you heard about my new campaign?
CP5670: Steak, you need to take a look at my printout! I just proved there’s no God.
Setekh: No ****?
Su-tehp: Yeah, Steak, we all looked at it and we all agreed it was legit. CP’s actually came up with a practical use for his mathematical talents!
FS crowd erupts in laughter.
Su-tehp: Guys, I got an idea. Now that Steak is back, how’s about I treat you all to a dinner at Outback? I’m buying!
FS crowd (in unison): SWEET!
The FS crowd begins milling out, stage right. In center of stage, Moses, Jesus Christ and Mohammed stare dejectedly at the spot where God last stood before he disappeared. Then they look at each other with forlorn expressions.
Fade to black.
-
You know Steak would start trying to convert you all to Christianity, right?
The *Poof!* God'd be back.
Anyway, I stil believe. I'm just horribly skeptical of Church bureaucracy.
-
Regarding the name of the Judeo-Christian God:
The Hebrew language was originally written only in consonants, with vowels being understood (i.e. the Hebrew reader should know what vowels to use when pronouncing the word in the same way that an English reader should know which way to pronounce "ough" in cough or in through). Vowel indicators were not added until very, very late, as the language was dying out and Jewish rabbis needed to do something to the texts so that readers would know how to read and pronounce them.
Why does that matter? Well, the name God gives for Himself is YHWH (or JHVH if you are German). There were no vowels originally written in the text, as said above. Now, over time, the tradition developed in the Jewish community not to pronouce the name of God, but to substitute the word 'adonay, "lord", in its place. This was done partially out of a sense of respect for God, and partially as a way of insisting upon monotheism (i.e. if there is only one God inexistence, why should we need to identify Him by name?). As a result, by the time the vowel points were added to the Hebrew text, no one knew how to pronouce YHWH anymore. In some places, the vowel points for 'adonay were used, in others the vowel points for elohim, "God" or "gods", and in others none at all were used.
As a result of all this, no one knows just how the name God gave for Himself was originally pronounced in Hebrew. YHWH is all that can be said for certain anymore.
On a more theological note, rather than purely linguistic one, Yahweh is given as God's name primarily for its similarity to the Hebrew for "I am," as in (literally) "I am that I am," or (in English rather than Hebrew grammar) "I am that who is," which is what God says to Moses when he asks God for a name to give to the Israelites. But this post is long already, so I won't draw out the implications of that now. :)
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
You know Steak would start trying to convert you all to Christianity, right?
The *Poof!* God'd be back.
Steak would be too busy chowing down n the filet mignpon I'd be buying him at Outback to try and convert us. :D
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Anyway, I stil believe. I'm just horribly skeptical of Church bureaucracy.
Amen! My mom was like that too. She was the best Catholic I ever knew, especially since she didn't bother with all the dogma crap. She was also pro gay rights and pro-choice, so you know Mom could never go for the whole "letting the Church control your thoughts" thing.
As for me, I'm an agnostic. The whole catholic thing just fell apart for me at age 12, more's the pity. :D
And what's what with all the priests getting freaky with the altar boys? :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
I picked "other" as I like to call God "the One Above."
But I think Bri_Dog and Warlock have it right: what could the Creator need with a name? He/She/It just is.
---------------------------
Scene: Heaven near the Dawn of Time. Enter God the Almighty at stage left. God approaches audience.
...
Fade to black.
I'm not sure Sandwich would be too happy with the words you put in his mouth, Su.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Steak would be too busy chowing down n the filet mignpon I'd be buying him at Outback to try and convert us. :D
Amen! My mom was like that too. She was the best Catholic I ever knew, especially since she didn't bother with all the dogma crap. She was also pro gay rights and pro-choice, so you know Mom could never go for the whole "letting the Church control your thoughts" thing.
As for me, I'm an agnostic. The whole catholic thing just fell apart for me at age 12, more's the pity. :D
And what's what with all the priests getting freaky with the altar boys? :wtf:
My skepticism is based upon my knowledge of the Church in the middle ages.
And about your point about the priests, it is a very rare occurence. They've had, what, a few hundred priests accused? From events over the last 50 years? That's a very small percentage. Actually, it should be about even with the percentage among the general population.
Also, a bit of a shot at the people being stupid, the only priest accused in my area of phedophilia was a Methodist :p
And for proof of the Setekh thing, don't make me drag out the Religion thread.....
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
I'm not sure Sandwich would be too happy with the words you put in his mouth, Su.
You're probably right. It's just a fictional story, but if Sandwich gets angry because of this, I'll apologize to him.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
You're probably right. It's just a story, but if Sandwich gets angry because of this, I'll apologize to him.
Well, I doubt he'd get angry; he's too mature a Christian (yes, he is both Jewish and Christian). But he probably would rather have seen some very different words put into his mouth.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Well, I doubt he'd get angry; he's too mature a Christian (yes, he is both Jewish and Christian). But he probably would rather have seen some very different words put into his mouth.
Yah, this is true also, I think. When I wrote this, I admit my own biases about the 50 years war (I HATE the suicide bombings and everyone who approves of them) colored how I wrote that part of the story.
And truth be told, Sandwich has seen the aftermath of this stuff up close and personal, whereas I'm nice and safe 4,000 miles away and I only see it on television. Was it presumptuous of me to write that stuff? Maybe it was. :o :(
-
i said keep it on-topic
if this goes OT or to a religion discussion, then it'll get closed, and you know that!
-
Right, anyhoo, as I was saying: I don't think God particularly needs a name because he's unique. And who would he talk to that would need to call by name? :confused:
What could we call him? "Hey you"?
-
Originally posted by Stealth
i said keep it on-topic if this goes OT or to a religion discussion, then it'll get closed, and you know that!
Ok how can you have a poll and discussion about the name of god and it NOT be a religious discussion ? ? :wtf:
-
El dios
Bob
The Sky Spirit
Big Poppa
Lord Almighty
Jehova
Father
Mr. Bonkers
Allah
Ymh or whatever
Garfield De La Staloski
..........
take your pick
-
Gonna have to be Mr Bonkers, innit?
Anyways,
The argument runs something like this:
"I refuse to prove I exist", says God "because proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing".
"Ah", says man, "but the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist, and so therefore you dont. QED".
"Oh", says God, "I hadn't thought of that", and promptly dissapears in a puff of logic.
"Oh", says man, "that was easy", and goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed on the next zebra crossing...
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Yah, this is true also, I think. When I wrote this, I admit my own biases about the 50 years war (I HATE the suicide bombings and everyone who approves of them) colored how I wrote that part of the story.
And truth be told, Sandwich has seen the aftermath of this stuff up close and personal, whereas I'm nice and safe 4,000 miles away and I only see it on television. Was it presumptuous of me to write that stuff? Maybe it was. :o :(
Heh - I couldn't resist replying here. :) (Su, we really need to hook up next week. And I'm 4,000 miles away just like you at the moment. :p :D)
Basically, I don't really have the time to reply to this properly, like I would if I was back home. But in a nutshell, God's name is YHVH, according to the Bible.
As far as my beliefs go, Sesq seems to have a pretty good grasp of things. ;)
And as far as my outlook on Israel and the Jews' troubles and stuff like that... As a Christian, I fully expect to undergo persecution in the future, according to God's Word. But also according to God's Word, the Jews have been resotred to the land God has given to them as an inheritance - it's a direct fulfilment of prophecy, one which, if you are willing to accept the Bible as the Word of God, is quite exciting! I mean, who would have thought that I, Michael, would be a fulfilment of Biblical prophecy? It's awesome! :)
So yeah, that's my abridged 2 pence. :p
-
How dare you say that there is no God. God is real! Real I tell ya!
-
I thought Yahweh was a non-translation of what God said when he was sidestepping giving a name, "I am that is" or something like that...
Personally, I think that'd be a good a name as any, were I an all-powerful deity hanging around with a bunch of guys starving in the desert, anyway...
-
Sandwich, thanks for letting me off the hook, dude.
*breathes a huge sigh of relief*
Oh, BTW, I might be able to get to DC on Tuesday, rather than Wednesday, of next week, but I have to check to see if I can exchange the bus tickets tomorrow.
PM me to remind you to tell you what's up with my travel plans and also to give me your itenerary, if it needs to be updated.
See you soon, pal! :D
-
Dude- you going to DC? I live maybe 20 minutes away, and that's beltway time...
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
PM me to remind you to tell you what's up with my travel plans and also to give me your itenerary, if it needs to be updated.
.....and in English?? :confused:
:p
Yeah, Stryke, I'll be in DC Monday-early Friday... Tuesday'll probably be the best day for me to get together with people, as my friend, who is the main reason I'm gonna be in DC, is going to be busy in law school classes that day.
So, uhm... if all the DC people wanna get together on Tuesday, maybe someone should post a topic about it? ;)
-
Hmmm... Crap. You picked one of the few days I'm NOT gonna be in DC. Gonna be a few hundred miles away, in fact, shooting a wedding.:D
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Gonna be a few hundred miles away, in fact, shooting a wedding.:D
(http://www.guntactics.com/sniper.jpg)
:devil:
Good to see that most people in this poll have some common sense.
-
I sympathise with the dude in that picture - he's thinking 'I wonder if there's enough time to swing my rifle around a make a shot before he pops a cap between my eyes'.
The answer, of course, is no.
-
Originally posted by Razor
How dare you say that there is no God. God is real! Real I tell ya!
Easy, Razor, easy! God's been dealing with people denying him since the beginning. He's able to handle it. :)
-
Moses: My Lord, you could always call yourself "YHWH." That sounds like a good name. Most people would even have trouble spelling it because it doesn't even have any vowels. You could even make it, like, your own personal secret-decoder type name!
Regarding the name of the Judeo-Christian God:
The Hebrew language was originally written only in consonants, with vowels being understood (i.e. the Hebrew reader should know what vowels to use when pronouncing the word in the same way that an English reader should know which way to pronounce "ough" in cough or in through). Vowel indicators were not added until very, very late, as the language was dying out and Jewish rabbis needed to do something to the texts so that readers would know how to read and pronounce them.
Why does that matter? Well, the name God gives for Himself is YHWH (or JHVH if you are German). There were no vowels originally written in the text, as said above. Now, over time, the tradition developed in the Jewish community not to pronouce the name of God, but to substitute the word 'adonay, "lord", in its place. This was done partially out of a sense of respect for God, and partially as a way of insisting upon monotheism (i.e. if there is only one God inexistence, why should we need to identify Him by name?). As a result, by the time the vowel points were added to the Hebrew text, no one knew how to pronouce YHWH anymore. In some places, the vowel points for 'adonay were used, in others the vowel points for elohim, "God" or "gods", and in others none at all were used.
As a result of all this, no one knows just how the name God gave for Himself was originally pronounced in Hebrew. YHWH is all that can be said for certain anymore.
On a more theological note, rather than purely linguistic one, Yahweh is given as God's name primarily for its similarity to the Hebrew for "I am," as in (literally) "I am that I am," or (in English rather than Hebrew grammar) "I am that who is," which is what God says to Moses when he asks God for a name to give to the Israelites. But this post is long already, so I won't draw out the implications of that now.
Great explanation.
Fool, I rebuke you. To understand why the Jews gave/used this name to God you must understand them. They thought God was unreachable. If you mad him mad (sinning), you died. So to not make him mad they gave him a name that had no vowels because God's name was too good for them.
If you know anything about this subject you would have refered yourself to Exodus 3:13-14 "Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?"
14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am*. [1] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
*3:14 Or I will be what I will be
So we see here God's is God. Note the capital G not the lower case g, which would refer to pagan gods.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Because Jehovah is the formal name of God. Lord, God, and Father are informal names.
The Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian Cult.
Another Christian Cult is the Harvest Army of America, Inc. (They threw a pamphlet at me in NYC)
LOL and i bet it was in times square... thats possibly true cause out here, especially in brooklyn, theres like all of a sudden, hundreds of Black Jews (a abstract version of judism and muslim), im like WTF?! these dudes be in the middle of times square dressed like the 3 wise men, and then like, go, WHITE MEN STEAL OUR WOMAN; white men are the devil; JESUS is BLACK ETC ETC ETC, im like, of course he would be, most people in that area of the world get tans (its the friggen desert)....
my favorite one is when im walking down the street one night and one of them dudes was preching and goes, "see that! a white man stealing our black woman!"..... me being the puerto rican with a chip on my shoulder kinda guy, i sez to him, "Mutha F*cker! Yo Soy Boricua...." and cursed him out in spanish- his IGNORENT ASS. and ended it with a, BTW, she aint black, she Dominican you moron!:ha: goes to show you how ignorent some of these "religous guys" and religion makes some people.
my aunt is even worse, she a jahova witness right, and tell me why when she was like 10, mind you my father side (which is her side of fam), is heavily traditional, and she got so scared one time cause she said a curse - damn; and someone told her she gonna burn in hell. she then runs for her life, and ends up infront of jehovas witnesses preaching on a corner and begs for forgiveness, and like, ends up being ANOINTED a Jahovaswitness. what i dislike about most of them (i am not syaing anyone is like this-but around my way they are) they impose the religion on everyone, they hustle the religion on stgreet corners like its a drug, and MORE SO WORSE, they swear, if u dont believe in us, ur gonna be damned or some dumb 'ish like that...
now i aint hating on the religions, but when i see my "god given" free will to think my own thoughts are currupted by anything, to make me believe that im gonna go to hell cause i cursed, then how is it god given free will if ur constraint to do what u can within certain rules, that MIND YOU, although come out of a bible, but the bible, was still made by a MAN, interpreted by a MAN from a higher being. and with that said, all religion is a fixation of MAN. look @ minority report. the guy was like the system was perfect, but it was made by man, man has flaws, always will. religion was interpreted by man through man. who sez it aint perfect but the guys who overly believe in it? why u think the feds blew away "heavens gate". (see the weed be telling u things, it be showing u the evils lol):wink:
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
...which would refer to pagan gods.
My favourite kind, as I'm sure the likes of an0n will agree...
I see the Catholic Church has voiced disapproval for an attack on Iraq, saying that war is un-christian. One word answer to that - CRUSADES.
-
:lol: Su, that was pretty funny... :D
Actually, I changed my mind a bit; Khinchin's CF constant is undoubtedly god. :)
-
God is...God. That's his universal name, so that's what we should call him.
-
And what we call Khinchin's constant is this God.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Great explanation.
If you know anything about this subject you would have refered yourself to Exodus 3:13-14 "Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?"
14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am* /quote]
Dude, ****. God is Popeye.
Never saw THAT coming.
-
Originally posted by deep_eyes
LOL and i bet it was in times square... thats possibly true cause out here, especially in brooklyn, theres like all of a sudden, hundreds of Black Jews (a abstract version of judism and muslim), im like WTF?! these dudes be in the middle of times square dressed like the 3 wise men, and then like, go, WHITE MEN STEAL OUR WOMAN; white men are the devil; JESUS is BLACK ETC ETC ETC, im like, of course he would be, most people in that area of the world get tans (its the friggen desert)....
I saw them too. Times Square is full of morons, isn't it?
-
I think gods real name is....................sharon:rolleyes: and that he wears a dress
-
Why name someone/something who/that doesn't exist?
-
but khinchin's constant certainly exists!! :D
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Why name someone/something who/that doesn't exist?
You got a piont........
-
Tiara: People name imaginary things all the time. They're good for working with theoreticals and certain things that can't be based on observatoin for some reason for another- I'm not sure why CP hasn't mentioned Calculus yet, but other things would include fairies, spaceships, and the whole truth-and-justice thing. They're all hypotheticals, with no basis in reality. Yet peopel use them, to such an extent that you'd have a rough time NOT talking about or naming one.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
To understand why the Jews gave/used this name to God you must understand them. They thought God was unreachable. If you mad him mad (sinning), you died. So to not make him mad they gave him a name that had no vowels because God's name was too good for them.
Err, no.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Why name someone/something who/that doesn't exist?
Your absolutely right, except... we give Santa Claus a name, don't we?
(Sorry if I just ruined anyone's Christmas... :drevil: )
[EDIT] HotSnoj mate - :wtf: are you banging on about?
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Tiara: People name imaginary things all the time. They're good for working with theoreticals and certain things that can't be based on observatoin for some reason for another- I'm not sure why CP hasn't mentioned Calculus yet, but other things would include fairies, spaceships, and the whole truth-and-justice thing. They're all hypotheticals, with no basis in reality. Yet peopel use them, to such an extent that you'd have a rough time NOT talking about or naming one.
Eh... the fairies, spaceships thingies is quite different. Reasons:
- Fairies is just a fantasy story from wich we know they don't exist (or at least 99.9% of all ppl do :p)
- Spaceships isn't the same as God for we know that much of it can be realized.
In God people actually believe and Religion cannot be compared to anything like final fantasy...
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Your absolutely right, except... we give Santa Claus a name, don't we?
(Sorry if I just ruined anyone's Christmas... :drevil: )
[EDIT] HotSnoj mate - :wtf: are you banging on about?
Santa? Whos Santa? :p Never believed in it, never will.
*doesn't celebrate christmas with santa...*
*doesn't celebrate christmas with christmas tree...*
*celebrates christmas with family and gift*
-
But surely... I mean, I met Santa in the shopping center today... he had the beard and the red suit and the black boots and everything... It must have been him? Right? Right???
-
For some ppl ,... especially thousands of years ago,.. they needed someway to explain the unexplainable. I wouldn't knock ppl for choosing to believe in their faiths. Everyone believes in SOMEthing.
Course ,... the funnest thing to me is seeing ppl I know swear they don't believe in god ,... then hear them yelling "God damn it" or something later :D
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
But surely... I mean, I met Santa in the shopping center today... he had the beard and the red suit and the black boots and everything... It must have been him? Right? Right???
Did he show you his sack?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Did he show you his sack?
ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
-
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I remember a time when my best friend got smacked by santas sack. He was behind him and santa when to sit down, turning around with the sack over his shoulder and *BAM*
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Err, no.
Sorry thats how I understood it. I'll change my opinion right away.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
I see the Catholic Church has voiced disapproval for an attack on Iraq, saying that war is un-christian. One word answer to that - CRUSADES.
...Which were a horrible travesty of Christianity. A bunch of guys in the Middle Ages screwing up doesn't change the fact that what the Pope is saying now is right.
-
war is always good. :yes: :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
war is always good. :yes: :D
Thanks I try to be :D
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
[The Crusades]...Which were a horrible travesty of Christianity. A bunch of guys in the Middle Ages screwing up doesn't change the fact that what the Pope is saying now is right.
Excuse me? What the Pope is saying now is right?
Let's have a look at that, shall we?
Today the Pope says:
--Using contraceptives is a sin and Catholics shouldn't be allowed to use them.
--Women are not allowed to be ordained to become priests simply because none of Jesus' disciples were women.
--Gay marriage is not to be allowed or blessed by Catholic priests.
--The laity is not to be given a greater voice in deciding the fate of priests accused of sexually abusing children.
--No action of reprimand is to be taken against church officials who knew about abusive priests but covered it up. (Why does Cardinal Law still have his job, BTW? SHouldn't he have been fired long ago? :wtf: )
The Pope can claim to be the infallible Vicar of Christ all he wants, but I think all of the above three things (all of which the Pope stands for!) are all wrong. Thus, I think the Pope is wrong, thus, in my view, the Pope is not infallible.
And it's not just me who says this. There are millions of pro-choice, pro-gay right, pro-women ordainment Catholics living here in America.
My mother, God bless her soul, was one of them. So was I, until my conscience told me to become an agnostic.
Whatever, so long as there are good Catholics like my mother who know enough to think for themselves, uphold their faith and be true to their consciences and beliefs and not pay any attention to the pope when he makes grandiose proclamations that would go against those beliefs, then Catholicism will survive.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Excuse me? What the Pope is saying now is right?
...
Edited for great justice.
:wtf::wtf::wtf: I never said everything the Pope says is right. I'm a Protestant. I agree with him on this issue, not everything. ;)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Did he show you his sack?
No... but he did invite me to sit on his lap and talk about the first thing that popped up...
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
No... but he did invite me to sit on his lap and talk about the first thing that popped up...
*is glad she always carries her axe*
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
:wtf::wtf::wtf: I never said everything the Pope says is right. I'm a Protestant. I agree with him on this issue, not everything. ;)
Which issue are you referring to, Sesqy? I mentioned several so I'm curious which issue is the issue you agree with the Pope. :)
-
War being bad.
Or, at least, THE war being bad.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Which issue are you referring to, Sesqy? I mentioned several so I'm curious which issue is the issue you agree with the Pope. :)
As Stryke said.
-
Meaning the "maybe-soon-to-come" war in Iraq? Yeah, I agree that the time to wage war on Iraq is not now, but war with saddam MIGHT be inevitable. It depends on whether (or when) he decides to screw around with the weapons inspectors.
*shrugs*
Our priority right now should be Al-Queda. We can aford to deal with Saddam later.
Pope doesn't like war and I don't either, but this is the extent to where we agree. I believe that war is sometimes necessary. I think ol' John Paul would try to avoid it at all costs, and that's ALWAYS a recipe for disaster.
-
*Points to name tag*
*thinks nostalgically about last Christian War(s)*
-
I need to think of a way to explain to the Airforce recruitment guys that I'm a pacifist... I just hope for their sake they have access to a :wtf: smiley...
-
"So, why do you want to fight for your country with the Royal Airforce?"
"Fight?"
-
If you're going to assume that he exists in the form Stealth implies then yes, God is the encompassing name. Say God and everyone will have a mental image of who you're talking about with the properties of an almighty creator. And since there is only one God in this instance there's no need for other names, God is all you need.
However, I don't think God exists. Go figure.
-
:yes:
-
Originally posted by Thunder
However, I don't think God exists.
Yup, same here. Why would you need a god when you have yourself to believe in.
I believe in 2 things:Thats all I need :)
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Yup, same here. Why would you need a god when you have yourself to believe in.
I believe in 2 things:Thats all I need :) [/B]
and you never look around and wonder who created everything?
-
Originally posted by Stealth
and you never look around and wonder who created everything?
I thot it was santa... :nervous:
-
Nothing to say it was actually God in the Christian or Islamic sense of the word though...
-
Originally posted by Stealth
I am 00010010
Hey!
-
i'm not copying your name :D
-
First vadar, and now him... ;)
-
Originally posted by Stealth
i'm not copying your name :D
Personally I wouldn't give a flying **** if you did :)
-
I like those odds!
*steals 01010's name*
Ha! Now you have to be my beyatch!
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
I like those odds!
*steals 01010's name*
Ha! Now you have to be my beyatch!
:: Does the funky Beyatch Dance ::
EDIT: Me hi-jack threads. Never.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
and you never look around and wonder who created everything?
I'm sure there is a plausible explaination that we'll find in say a few milennia.
Currently I find it more plausible that we are just a big ant farm for some other being then to believe there is a god who created us out of nothingness. :p
-
I refuse to believe anything that is told to me or tried to be taught to me.
However I do believe that whiskey in a hipflask is nicer than whiskey in the bottle. Or in the Jar-o.
-
and you never look around and wonder who created everything?
I did. :D
-
Originally posted by 01010
I refuse to believe anything that is told to me or tried to be taught to me.
Same here but if that wich is taught to me can be proven with facts I will believe it.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Same here but if that wich is taught to me can be proven with facts I will believe it.
so the stars, the planets, the way everything in nature functions perfectly, all the details of every creation is not facts? what is it then? fiction?
i'm sorry but i'm just curious as to why some people don't believe that anyone/anything created the earth and everything on it... i find it hard to believe that everything just "appeared"
... enlighten me
-
His name is Yahweh or Jehovah, even tho those witnesses are whacked, they make a good point on his name.
Yahweh is the official translation, but some beleive the W and Y are pronounced differently.
but "IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT HIS NAME IS!" cause he cld whoop us all, equally.
-
err. .. thats diffrent.. being "whooped" by god. :D
i guess it differs on your amount of entusiasm..
*wishes someone would try to convert me to a religon*
It's always fun to see how hard they try...
-
Originally posted by Stealth
so the stars, the planets, the way everything in nature functions perfectly, all the details of every creation is not facts? what is it then? fiction?
i'm sorry but i'm just curious as to why some people don't believe that anyone/anything created the earth and everything on it... i find it hard to believe that everything just "appeared"
... enlighten me
Easily done:
evolution
-
Originally posted by Stealth
so the stars, the planets, the way everything in nature functions perfectly, all the details of every creation is not facts? what is it then? fiction?
i'm sorry but i'm just curious as to why some people don't believe that anyone/anything created the earth and everything on it... i find it hard to believe that everything just "appeared"
... enlighten me
But if you look at what the scientists say (basically a counter-argument) it didn't just 'appear'. Big bang theory and all that.
Conversely, i'm curious that you CAN believe that someone/something created everything and while I don't deny that this could well be true you can't just accept it as is.
Like I've said before, I don't care for religion, I don't care for science, I accept things as they are when I can see that there is acceptable reason for me too.
I accept that I like to get pissed for example. :)
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
err. .. thats diffrent.. being "whooped" by god. :D
i guess it differs on your amount of entusiasm..
*wishes someone would try to convert me to a religon*
It's always fun to see how hard they try...
I got a great religion. S'called Danism. Basically you do what the **** you like for your entire life, live as a human, thinking for yourself, undiliuted by other 'bad' religions and such.
Plus, if your that worried about hell theres always the old "recant on my death bed" scheme. Your not insured against unexpected death though.
-
Originally posted by 01010
Plus, if your that worried about hell theres always the old "recant on my death bed" scheme. Your not insured against unexpected death though.
Ah yes, but Carlinism clearly dictates that we all get our two minute warning.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
so the stars, the planets, the way everything in nature functions perfectly, all the details of every creation is not facts? what is it then? fiction?
i'm sorry but i'm just curious as to why some people don't believe that anyone/anything created the earth and everything on it... i find it hard to believe that everything just "appeared"
... enlighten me
Well God made everything just "appear"?
"First there was nothing..."
Then God said "let there be light and there was light"
etc
etc
etc
Now _that_ seems a tad bit illogical...
But if there was prove it wouldn't have "just appeared" because there was evidence on how it appeared. Therefor I believe in facts. :D Facts are proven, religions are not.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Ah yes, but Carlinism clearly dictates that we all get our two minute warning.
Well, I'll throw that in for free. I'm in a good mood.
By the way it's not pronounced as Daneism it's pronounced Dan-ism.
Now if you'll excuse me, this deity is off for a shot of something strong.
-
Hahaha, saying the world just "appeared" is like saying computers just "appeared" through evolution.
Funny thing about evolution, is it has ended. Do we see Apes evolving today? Is there an ape or gorilla out there with human traits besides physical ones? Sure they learn, but only when they are threatened and their way of life is changed. Leave them alone in the jungle though and i guarantee they will continue to live the same way as they have for thousands of years.
So evolution is a crock, otherwise it would still be happening, but there is no evidence of continued evolution is there?
So if you think our world appeared through a big bang, take your computer apart and see if it eveolves into a working machine al put together cause evolution took its course.
Silly humans.....
Oh and BTW, we are supposedly finding other galaxies in which a big bang is occurring. If this evolution theory is true, then other planets such as mars or pluto should show signs of the beginnings of life. I mean evolutionist theory is that evolving is due to habitat, so why hasnt any other planets created ice creatures, or why hasnt the universe created a being that can survive in space? I dare say evolution is not happening today, nor has it happened in the past.
We are the image of our creator, we love to create and design as a race of people. We are constantly looking for new ventures, and ways to spread ourselves across the universe.
Now for all you evolutionists out there, isnt it true to beleive in evolution is to have faith? Since there really isnt any proof we evolved from anything, it does take great faith to beleive in such a theory. Which in turn requires an open mind, therefore, to beleive in evolution and denounce their is a God is an oxymoron in itself. So either have an open mind and beleive both, or be closeminded and only beleive what you can see and prove. Evolution and God is unproveable (as of yet) therefore if your an evolutionist dont turn around and denounce God, it just doesnt make sense.
-
Originally posted by Lonestar
Hahaha, saying the world just "appeared" is like saying computers just "appeared" through evolution.
Funny thing about evolution, is it has ended. Do we see Apes evolving today? Is there an ape or gorilla out there with human traits besides physical ones? Sure they learn, but only when they are threatened and their way of life is changed. Leave them alone in the jungle though and i guarantee they will continue to live the same way as they have for thousands of years.
So evolution is a crock, otherwise it would still be happening, but there is no evidence of continued evolution is there?
So if you think our world appeared through a big bang, take your computer apart and see if it eveolves into a working machine al put together cause evolution took its course.
Silly humans.....
I think your missing the point. The whole theory behind evolution is that it is driven by necessity over a huge period of time. Your not going to notice evolution in your lifetime or your childrens lifetime, but people are getting smarter and also taller. Can't remember where I read it but the average person is now at least 5 inches taller than the average person of some 200-300 years ago.
-
What to know a stupid theory?
First there was nothing, then there was something. Thats the big bang in a nutshell, course my way of explaining the fact that the big bang occured is God made it happen. Otherwise, why would matter just suddenly appear if it didnt exist before then?
-
Originally posted by 01010
I think your missing the point. The whole theory behind evolution is that it is driven by necessity over a huge period of time. Your not going to notice evolution in your lifetime or your childrens lifetime, but people are getting smarter and also taller. Can't remember where I read it but the average person is now at least 5 inches taller than the average person of some 200-300 years ago.
Ill tell you why we are taller, only the strong survive. Their genes survive the ages. We as humans destroy on a daily basis. In the past many wars were waged and the weak perished, therefore it makes sense only the strong ones are alive today and their ancestors.
Evolution cannot be proven, thats why its still a theory my man. God on the other hand has been spoken of before scientist were even called scientists. As i said to beleive in evolution means your openminded, so beleiving in God is not that far faetched from beleiving evolution or the big bang.
There is more proof in the world God is alive then their is of a big bang or evolution. (major flood over the earth has proven true, cities in which God supposedly rained fire upon has proven true and much more) So in a scientists perspective it is more likely God existed then the fact the big bang occurred or evolution took place to create us from apes.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Well God made everything just "appear"?
"First there was nothing..."
Then God said "let there be light and there was light"
etc
etc
etc
Now _that_ seems a tad bit illogical...
But if there was prove it wouldn't have "just appeared" because there was evidence on how it appeared. Therefor I believe in facts. :D Facts are proven, religions are not.
what the heck are you talking about? you want evidence that there is a god, and i'm saying look around you... touch yourself, look outside, isn't that evidence enough? we're living evidence!
Easily done:
evolution
isn't it amazing how a man makes up some idea off the top of his head, publishes a book or two about it, and later in his life even admits that his ideas were flawed and that he was wrong... but what do the gullible masses do? because they're too simple-minded to think of anything else: they say "yeah, there's a good idea, two molecules collided one day millions of years ago and formed the earth, and all the plants, animals, and people in it"
... that THAT "seems a tad bit illogical" (to quote Tiara)
-
Originally posted by Lonestar
Ill tell you why we are taller, only the strong survive. Their genes survive the ages.
That my friend, is the theory of evolution in a nutshell.
Like I've stated before, I believe nothing without conclusive proof and if that makes me ignorant then so be it.
Personally I prefer my own "Wish everyone wouldn't get their ass in their hands over something that there is no conclusive evidence for" stance on life. If more people were like me, people would be too wasted to really care :)
-
Originally posted by 01010
That my friend, is evolution.
No its not, its natural selection. Not evolution. If there were no wars we wldnt be quandering over why we are taller, heck we'd be overpopulated. Besides the point, strong survive because they destroy better then the weak. Natural Selection my friend not evolution.
Like Stealth said, the theory of evolution has proven to be flawed, therefore your point has no point.
-
No its not, its natural selection. Not evolution.
tis' :nod:
I smell another Religous debate...
Like I said, it all depends on your attitude; a certain point of veiw.
-
Seems a little far-fetched that everything in the world is merely chance, a lot of very improbable things created most species.
-
Can't remember where I read it but the average person is now at least 5 inches taller than the average person of some 200-300 years ago.
perhaps, but there's a difference between saying "man has grown 3 inches in 500 years" and saying "fish have changed into apes which have turned into men" in 5000 years. it's illogical... and why you can't see that i really don't understand.
see, because the earth is also getting hotter every year... did you know that? because of all the atmosphere pollution, the earth rises (forgets how many degrees) as a whole every year. now does that mean that it's "evolution"? does it mean that the reason the earth is getting hotter every year is because evolution's taking place? of course not!
of course it's a matter of opinion.
some people aren't smart enough to think past what most people believe, or what "sounds" logical... but hey.
now here's an idea. if we keep it clean, no flaming, etc. perhaps the admins would allow us to form teams.
for example, those who believe in God/Christianity: (for example, myself, Sesquidpelian, Sandwich, and Lonestar)
and another team, of say, those who aren't of any religion/don't believe in God. for example: (Tiara, 01010, whoever else)
and only those teams are allowed to post in teh thread, and they debate it. wouldn't that be awesome :D :)
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
tis' :nod:
I smell another Religous debate...
Like I said, it all depends on your attitude; a certain point of veiw.
Exactly, I'm not pushing the case for evolution by the way, it's just that what you say is very borderline and could be construed as evolution. It's all about context.
-
for example, those who believe in God/Christianity: (for example, myself, Sesquidpelian, Sandwich, and Lonestar)
Ahem! Ahem! Me too. I Christian right wing extreamist (as the libs say anyway). Me also a Rush-ite All who are not, will burn, very sad. Yes, very sad indead. :(
-
for example, those who believe in God/Christianity: (for example, myself, Sesquidpelian, Sandwich, and Lonestar)
Thats perhaos the stupidest thing i've read in the last hour but it has merit. :D
Can I join in the crusdade agaisnt the unholy mus... Atheists? Pretty please?? I've spent all my life in a christian background/family. I HAVE TEH $|<1|_|_z
:thepimp:
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Seems a little far-fetched that everything in the world is merely chance, a lot of very improbable things created most species.
Given enough time, even the furthest extremes of the bell-shaped curve become virtual certainties.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Thats perhaos the stupidest thing i've read in the last hour but it has merit. :D
oh it's stupid as hell! i'll admit that!
but i think it'd be pretty fun :D
-
When do we start?
We should do it like rpg/chess style!
* Knight Templar moves Crusader to E3, Galapagos Islands. Crusader uses combined power of Pope and Jesus to convert tortoises to Christianity. *
All your tortoise are belong to Jesus
-
lol naaaaa :D
the admins'd hate it ;)
-
Originally posted by Stealth
perhaps, but there's a difference between saying "man has grown 3 inches in 500 years" and saying "fish have changed into apes which have turned into men" in 5000 years. it's illogical... and why you can't see that i really don't understand.
In 5000 years I could see why it would be illogical. But carbon dating of fossils indicates that living creatures have been around for millions of years and just because you can't see how something can happen doesn't mean it can't.
Like I said I'm not Pro-Evolution or Anti-God, I believe what I can see to be solid facts but you can't just discount something because it goes against something you believe in and personally I am suprised by a lot of the singular mindedness of some people (in general, not just here) because an open mind is one of the best things that humans possess.
-
[glow=orange red]Viva revolución! [/glow]
*remembers schoolwork due tommarow*
Tommarow pinky.. we will take over the world
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Ahem! Ahem! Me too. I Christian right wing extreamist (as the libs say anyway). Me also a Rush-ite All who are not, will burn, very sad. Yes, very sad indead. :(
Then I choose to burn. This is the kind of attitude that rags me about the more extreme kinds of any religion really, the 'holier than thou' attitude which does nothing to help convert people to your cause in my opinion.
-
religious extremism = bad
look where its got us:
Crusades
Indulgences/corruption
Inquisition
Suppression of science (not evolution, but Galileo and Copernicus)
Salem witchcraft trials
Arab-Israeli war
9/11
TV evanglists
mormons
im sure there is more. I believe in God, but i'm too cynical to see the bad stuff about religion in general to do much more. plus my pastor at my church raped kids
-
some people aren't smart enough to think past what most people believe, or what "sounds" logical... but hey.
now here's an idea. if we keep it clean, no flaming, etc. perhaps the admins would allow us to form teams.
[/b]
Ok first you say ppl that choose to believe something beyond the common believe (sciene or otherwise) that they're 'not smart enough'.........than say not to flame and to keep it clean ? :wtf:
Issues ?
-
Originally posted by 01010
In 5000 years I could see why it would be illogical. But carbon dating of fossils indicates that living creatures have been around for millions of years and just because you can't see how something can happen doesn't mean it can't.
Like I said I'm not Pro-Evolution or Anti-God, I believe what I can see to be solid facts but you can't just discount something because it goes against something you believe in and personally I am suprised by a lot of the singular mindedness of some people (in general, not just here) because an open mind is one of the best things that humans possess.
:yes:
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Ok first you say ppl that choose to believe something beyond the common believe (sciene or otherwise) that they're 'not smart enough'.........than say not to flame and to keep it clean ? :wtf:
Issues ? [/B]
ok now, uhhh, what the **** are you talking about?
seriously... in those three lines i couldn't decipher anything. learn proper grammar, and learn to spell, and then come back, 'kay? :D
EDIT: wait, i THINK... (just THINK) i'm getting what you're trying to say... are you saying that i said that anyone who chooses to believe something beyond what most people (the majority) believes aren't smart?
actually you're getting it wrong... i said GOOD FOR ANYONE who chooses to look past what most people think... i never said they're stupid!
also, calling the majority of people in general stupid is not flaming really.
-
My bad ,...between typing my reply and IE crashing 5 times I ended up typing 3 thoughts into the same thing :lol:
I meant the way it came across to me was the average person isn't smart enough to think beyond the common theories,...be them religious or scientific.
And check your own posts before *****ing about someone elses grammer and spelling ok ?
-
Here's what I think of organized religion in a nutshell:
(_|_)
,,|,,
As for the Great Flood being "proved" to have happened, I'm more likely to believe that evolution really did happen. Those millions-year-old hominid skeletons didn't just appear out of the grace of God, dudes...
Cripes, next people are going to start saying that the world really is only 6,000 years old and that the Big Bang theory is just a "scientific myth..."
And as for HotSnoj saying that those of us who don't beleive as he does being destined to burn in Hell...
...Well, I've seen Hell. I'm in law school, remember? Hell didn't impress me.
Oh and HotSnoj, your arrogance has earned you a gift from me:
*farts in HotSnoj's general direction*
If you guys enjoy stories of Hell and Damnation, I suggest you all go out and buy Demon:the fallen, an RPG just published by White Wolf Game Studios. It looks like an excellent game; you can find out more about it here:
http://www.white-wolf.com
And while I'm going through a shameless plug here, I'll leave you all with this question: Whatif Lucifer and the angels who rebelled against God didn't do it out of jealousy but did it out of love for Mankind and that unrequited love earned them nothing but an eternity in Hell?
---------------
"It's the End of the World, Father Adams."
"Maybe. What are you going to do about it?"
"God forced me to keep the world in darkness for far too long. I'm going to light a fire."
Lucifer and Father Adams, Midnight in the Garden
-
If you guys enjoy stories of Hell and Damnation, I suggest you all go out and buy Demon:the fallen, an RPG just published by White Wolf Game Studios. It looks like an excellent game; you can find out more about it here:
http://www.white-wolf.com
And while I'm going through a shameless plug here, I'll leave you all with this question: Whatif Lucifer and the angels who rebelled against God didn't do it out of jealousy but did it out of love for Mankind and that unrequited love earned them nothing but an eternity in Hell?
I've seen this ,...been a fan of WW's work for awhile now but currently was too involved in D20 SW,...but I do plan to pick it up even if it's just as a "good read".
One thing I've always enjoyed about WW games is how they blend fact and fiction to the point it could almost be taken as complete fact. ;)
-
*sigh*
HotSnoj, Stealth, Warlock, et al.: Fine. You're free to believe what you like. Stealth, I'll even partway agree with you that most people believe in what they do without understanding it fully, certainly not grasping the question and the available answers clearly enough to feel as strongly about it as they do. But this works both ways. There are just as many people who don't think about the universe they live in before giving a knee-jerk response to a rather significant question on any side of the argument. That's the nature of people- we're intellectually lazy but quick to form opinions by default. This thread is a case in point.
Personally, I can't offer any answers. I've taken an honest look at the universe around us, and what people have to say about it, and I can believe equally easily that there's some conscious force regulating it of one sort or another or that it exists on its own. I happen to find the latter particularly tantalizing, partially because many tenets of most of the major religions just don't hold water nowadays and partially because it's so much more interesting an idea to think that it formed of itself than that some guy just plonked it out over a working week plus overtime.
In a complete vaccuum of concrete information pointing conclusively either way, where the only thing that one can even begin to trust is personal observation, I think it's a bit arrogant to claim some higher knowledge of the workings of the world. Observe, deduce, hypothesize, but don't assume you understand it- if you drop your preconceptions and specious third-party data (such as the Bible, as well as quantum physics), you'll find that you don't know substantially more than you did as an infant, or have a much deeper comprehension of what, how, and why than does any living thing. Theorize if you like, but never take the stance that you know everything, or you'll never learn anything- and then you've defeated the whole point of thinking about the Universe.
I will say this, though. HotSnoj, if there is a God, and he's as bigoted, narrow-minded, and outright sadistic as you claim your God to be, I wouldn't worship him anyway on principle. I'd sooner go to whatever would await in Hell than bow down to the biggest bastard in the Universe.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
where the only thing that one can even begin to trust is personal observation, I think it's a bit arrogant to claim some higher knowledge of the workings of the world.
I'm not sure that one can even trust that much with certainty. I've had too much philosophy not to know better than that.
Ultimately we have NO certainties about ANYthing. No matter what we do, all our thoughts must ultimately be founded on simply believing something. My faith in my own senses is ultimately that, a faith. If someone questions me, asking "What makes you think your senses are trustworthy?" the best answer I can make is "It is the only option I can take," which is merely another way of saying "Just because."
Which beliefs we choose as our foundation will determine what conclusions we reach. Trying to prove them will always be a logically circular argument. The better evaluative approach is to follow the consequences of a belief or set of beliefs and see how they align with our experience (assuming we have decided to believe our experience is legitimate, which most of us appear to do). I find Christianity best accounts for what I have experienced. I may be wrong, but no better alternative has come my way. When I share my faith, I am inviting them to check it out, too. I'm not trying to convince them, that God's job. I'm just doing my part toset up the opportunity.
-
Waring: I am about to take this thread off-topic in order to give everyone a respite from the religious/trollish backbiting. Stand clear!
Warlock, dude, I've seen some of the pdf previews of Demon:the fallen on the White Wolf website; you will NOT be disappointed. WW pulled out ALL the stops to make this book. I've been talking a with a bunch of people on the White Wolf forums and pretty mch everyone agrees: not since Vampire: the Masquerade came out have people been so excited about the storytelling potential of a WoD game.
Demon: the Fallen is THAT good. :nod:
I've been looking for this book in my local bookstore for almost two weeks and haven't seen hide nor hair of it. I bit the bullet and ordered in online last week. It just arrived at my DC house today. When I get home tomorrow (thank God for Thanksgiving Break! :D) and after I meet up with Sandwich, I'm giving D:tF my full attention. I can't wait to read this book!
Oh, and Warlock, if you're interested in pdf character sheets for D:tF, a buddy of mine just made some White-Wolf quality character sheets for EACH of the seven Demon houses. If you want copies of these sheets for yourself, PM me. :)
And Stryke, you're absolutely right about what you said. I'm not religious, so whenever people get all uppity about saying that evolution is a farce and the Bible's version of history is the only "correct" one, I get peeved, but I think I've been doing the same thing with evolution. You're absolutely right in sayin that we have to do our own investigations for ourselves if we really want to comprehend the Universe.
No more parroting third-party data for me, not anymore.
Listen to Stryke, gang. Out of all the spamming done in this thread, Stryke cut right to the chase. His post is by far the smartest response seen in this thread so far.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
And check your own posts before *****ing about someone elses grammer and spelling ok ?
phewww man chill :)
everything said in this thread means nothing offensive :) some of us (myself included) may get carried away, but nothing's meant personal! :)
-
Originally posted by Stealth
phewww man chill :)
everything said in this thread means nothing offensive :) some of us (myself included) may get carried away, but nothing's meant personal! :)
Sorry man....been sitting here all day nursing a swollen knee and I've gotten a bit *****y.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
everything said in this thread means nothing offensive :) some of us (myself included) may get carried away, but nothing's meant personal! :)
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Ahem! Ahem! Me too. I Christian right wing extreamist (as the libs say anyway). Me also a Rush-ite All who are not, will burn, very sad. Yes, very sad indead. :(
I dunno, Stealth, HotSnoj's comment that I and others like me are going to Hell seems pretty personal to me...
HotSnoj's spelling and grammar suck donkey, too. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Waring: I am about to take this thread off-topic in order to give everyone a respite from the religious/trollish backbiting. Stand clear!
Warlock, dude, I've seen some of the pdf previews of Demon:the fallen on the White Wolf website; you will NOT be disappointed. WW pulled out ALL the stops to make this book. I've been talking a with a bunch of people on the White Wolf forums and pretty mch everyone agrees: not since Vampire: the Masquerade came out have people been so excited about the storytelling potential of a WoD game.
Demon: the Fallen is THAT good. :nod:
I've been looking for this book in my local bookstore for almost two weeks and haven't seen hide nor hair of it. I bit the bullet and ordered in online last week. It just arrived at my DC house today. When I get home tomorrow (thank God for Thanksgiving Break! :D) and after I meet up with Sandwich, I'm giving D:tF my full attention. I can't wait to read this book!
Oh, and Warlock, if you're interested in pdf character sheets for D:tF, a buddy of mine just made some White-Wolf quality character sheets for EACH of the seven Demon houses. If you want copies of these sheets for yourself, PM me. :)
And Stryke, you're absolutely right about what you said. I'm not religious, so whenever people get all uppity about saying that evolution is a farce and the Bible's version of history is the only "correct" one, I get peeved, but I think I've been doing the same thing with evolution. You're absolutely right in sayin that we have to do our own investigations for ourselves if we really want to comprehend the Universe.
No more parroting third-party data for me, not anymore.
Listen to Stryke, gang. Out of all the spamming done in this thread, Stryke cut right to the chase. His post is by far the smartest response seen in this thread so far.
Actually Walden's near me had a few copies of it,.... normally most of the Walden's and Books-A-Million here in Richmond have at least one of each of the main WW books.
As far as a pdf CharSheet,..I'm not really worried about one for a few reasons. Mostly because I doubt I'll actually play the game since my SW group only averages 1 game per month it'd be nearly impossible to gear them into trying a new game AND system and intermixing the games. (Most of the players are either the "been playing SW for a year or more but no other systems" or the "never played squat before and still learning D20-Sw"
Dude .... we seriously had one chic....during her 8th game or so....ask which skill was needed for her Jedi to move an object.
Of course I politely pointed to her Force Skills on the charsheet to the skill "move object"
Now ya think ppl like this would be good to introduce a new system too ? :D LOL
But thanks for the offer. ;) I'll still grab the game for my collection at least ;7
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Here's what I think of organized religion in a nutshell:
(_|_)
,,|,,
As for the Great Flood being "proved" to have happened, I'm more likely to believe that evolution really did happen. Those millions-year-old hominid skeletons didn't just appear out of the grace of God, dudes...
I agree with you on organized religion, they have taken advantage of something that is good and righteous. Taking advantage of a good situation, lets not damn the whole system because of some bad people, else we could damn the governments and people of the world for their misdeeds.
As for the Great Flood being proved to have happened, there is proof the world was flooded but they cannot put a date on when it happened exactly only give theories. however their is worldwide evidence of a mass flood on the earth. Since the evidence is from a geoligical perspective im kinda forced to give it some credit.
d
And while I'm going through a shameless plug here, I'll leave you all with this question: Whatif Lucifer and the angels who rebelled against God didn't do it out of jealousy but did it out of love for Mankind and that unrequited love earned them nothing but an eternity in Hell?
I really like the way your thinking here, very openminded. Your theory can very well be right, but for now unproveable and if their was an all powerful being we would never really know the truth about that.
-
what is the proof of the great flood??
-
There were water marks on the Sphinx or something like that...
Actually, that's old, and specious. There was quite a wealth of information at some point that the Mediterranean area had been a good deal wetter at some point a long time ago, but not nearly the catastrophe of global proportions described. Fact, a good percentage of the people in the affected region must have survived. Which validates the Flood story while reducing it to the exaggerations of a small-town historian. Mixed blessing for the Bible hardliners, if you ask me.
-
I'm a little suspicious of the "whole-world-underwater" thing that was described in the Bible. I haven't heard ANYTHING about geological evidence being uncovered that at some point in the past there was water covering the whole (or even most) of the Earth's landmasses.
When a number of respected geological scientists with Ph.Ds is Geology and anthropology (as opposed to theology) come forward and provide geological evidence (rather than passages from the Bible) that the world was once covered in water (all at once and all at the same time), THEN I'll be inclined to believe it.
Until then, I must, in good conscience, remain skeptical of such claims. :)
Originally posted by Lonestar
[In regards to Demon: the Fallen] I really like the way your thinking here, very openminded. Your theory can very well be right, but for now unproveable and if their was an all powerful being we would never really know the truth about that.
Dude, Lone, from what I've seen, Demon: the Fallen is an incredible read. I have to warn you, though, it's literally not a book for the faint-hearted. Anyone familiar with White Wolf RPGs knows that the material in their books deals with plenty of what can politely be described as "mature themes."
And when you're viewing a book dealing with fallen angels who have returned to the world as demons in human bodies, said mature themes are bound to make the sensitive and faint-hearted cringe (or worse).
With that said, Lone, I'm glad that you're open-minded about Demon's theme. I think you would enjoy reading it, but only if you're prepared to deal with some...uncomfortable concepts.
If you have trouble locating D:tF in your local bookstore or comic shop (considering its content, I wouldn't be surprised if your bookstore didn't carry it), it can be ordered online at white-wolf.com for about $30 or so. I recommend it as an exceptional read, but be careful.
If I can be allowed to wax poetic here, this book, Demon: the Fallen, is a door. It is a door that I invite you (and by "you", I'm not just referring to Lone but to all of you reading this thread) to walk through...but only if you're ready. Like I said, it ain't for the faint-hearted.
-
Eh. I'd doubt it even if they did. Supposedly smart people with degrees are routinely wrong, and revise their theories almost as fast as they can be published.
But the "proof" wasn't that the whole world was flooded, just a significant part of the Mediterranean area.
Though it's kind of interesting that apparently there are flood myths in Asian and American (that's Injun to you Anglos who think YOU'RE American) religions.
-
Ah good, another religion argument. I'm just going to watch the fall of cards for the moment but I might enter later on. I have my own unique way of looking at the universe and everything in it, so it should be fun. :D
I dunno, Stealth, HotSnoj's comment that I and others like me are going to Hell seems pretty personal to me...
Repeat after me: hell is good, hell is good... :D :D
Ultimately we have NO certainties about ANYthing. No matter what we do, all our thoughts must ultimately be founded on simply believing something. My faith in my own senses is ultimately that, a faith. If someone questions me, asking "What makes you think your senses are trustworthy?" the best answer I can make is "It is the only option I can take," which is merely another way of saying "Just because."
Well we have probabilities from certain types of observations and the rest is all theorizing to keep things consistent; who needs certainties anyway... :D (and the really essential axioms almost everyone agrees with, so that's not as much of an issue as it seems)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Repeat after me: hell is good, hell is good... :D :D
Well I'm sure you'd be too preoccupied with whatever painful treatments you get in hell to be conversing with all the intellectuals in hell :p
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Well I'm sure you'd be too preoccupied with whatever painful treatments you get in hell to be conversing with all the intellectuals in hell :p
Actually I think CP would be used as a torture device.
"What we gonna do with him? Make him talk math"
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
-
When I first arrived at my Uni halls last summer, the leader of a local Christian group (to this day I know him only as 'Scary Bernard') came round to lend a book (that bloody great 'Case for God' one) to one of the guys who was a bit of a hradcore Christian himself. Anyway, as bad luck would have, this dude was hanging around the door to our block, waiting for someone to come by and let him in, as I got home from a hard day of lectures (*ahem*).
So this dude follows me up to our corridor, and I took the book and said, yes, I'll give it to the guy, no problem. Then, he follows me to my room and actually follows me through my door. So now he's stood in my room, and he's asking me about my religious attitudes.
So I told him that I can't stand organised religion, be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or whatever it calls itself, and that I whilst I respect people's freedom to worship as they wish, I want no part of it. He asks me why. I tell him that I'm too much of a methodical scientist-type, that the major religions have too much internal screwed-upness to convince me to join, and that I believe religion to be responisible for more evil in the world than good over the last few millennia.
Not that he takes the hint.
He starts to quote some Bible story or other. So I listen politely, and than I start to quote some of Erich von Daniken's stuff. I ask him why the stories from the Bible have all been found on tablets created thousands of years before the Bible was writen, yet here he is claiming them to be Christian stories, glorifying God. He didn't seem to be able to respond to the accusation that the Bible had simply pinched those old stories and retold them to suit God's followers.
I asked him about the Epic of Gilgamesh - Gilgamesh apparently asked God to show His face to him. God flat refused, but put Gilgamesh on a cliff, and moved past him, covering his eyes with His hand as He passed, so that Gilgamesh could see only God's back. Later, Gilgamesh went west and crossed a great ocean, travelled across another continent, then sailed upon a seemingly endless ocean (read Atlantic, South Am, and Pacific, methinks) before finally comming to a mountain and meeting God Himself (who was apparently Gilgamesh's grandfather - God getting frisky with the mortal ladies, perhaps).
This chap Bernard had no idea what I was talking about.
I asked him about Jainism, and ancient Indian religion with the oldest known texts in the world (7000 years - woo!). These texts speak quite plainly about travellers fomr other stars comming to Erath in giant spaceships. Carvings and engravings show 'airships' floating high above the populace.
Again, the dude had no idea what I was referring to.
So I asked how I was supposed to argue my point if he hadn't learned about how Christianity appears from the outside. He stumbled over his answer, but recovered enough to invite me to a meeting of a Wednesday evening. Apparently one of his specialtites was to edit together bits of popular films and demonstrate how they were actually showing us that God is The Man(tm). I told thanks, but no thanks, now please go away.
And off he went.
Interestingly enough, this guy had appently been a computer consultant before he found God, and was earning upwards of 100K... he gave it all up to persue Christianity (you wonder if mebbe God would have preferred him to keep earning the mega bucks but give the money to charity?). By all accounts, his wife left him when the uber-wages stopped and the religious rhetoric began. I was impressed by his computer knowledge, though, when he took one look at my tower and said 'that's an impressive system'. In retrospect, I should have asked him to tell me its specs, just by looking at the case...
-
Originally posted by a bunch of people
discussion of proof for the Flood
*holds head in hands*
No, no, no, no, no. The mass of mis-assumption and misunderstanding of the Bible is overwhelming here. The whole discussion is based on a fundamental miscontrual of what the Bible's purpose and intentions are. The Bible's intent is to guide us into a relationship with God in Jesus Christ. It uses all sorts of literary genres for this task, including songs, histories, letters, myths, collections of wise sayings, parables, novel-like stories, you name it. That is what it is doing, and trying to force its every word to be a factual truth is a horrible violence to what Scripture presents itself as doing, and shows a dramatic disrespect for it. Let the Bible tell you what it is trying to do, don't you tell it! If it feels like using a myth, let it use a myth! Who are we to tell God that he's wrong to do so?
On the off chance that anyone is interested in reading a more carefully considered and fully wrought discussion about this, follow this (http://www.angelfire.com/space/sesquipedalian/misc/scripturepaper2.html) link to a recently completed paper of mine.
(Note that it was intended for a readership within theological circles, so there is a bit of jargon, but nothing too intense in that respect.)
Regarding hell:
Contrary to popular opinion, the actual biblical teaching on the final fate of those who choose to reject God is eternal destruction, not eternal torture. That idea is an inheritance from our pre-Christian past, not from the Bible. No one will be sitting around in misery, or talking with their fellow inmates or whatever. They will have of their own free choice decided that death is better than God, God will have granted them their choice, and they will have ceased to exist.
-
Ses, you're a religious person I can get along with. :)
remember kids,
context good
literalism bad
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
context good
literalism bad
Agreed.
For balance' sake from my last post, I probably should also mention that some parts of the Bible are history. Most importantly, that Jesus really did rise again to life. In this case, that the narrated events are historically true is integral to the Bible's intended purpose. In the Flood, not.
*Astute readers will note that miraculous events do not have any bearing on whether a text is to be considered historical or otherwise. It's about a given text's intention, not whether what it says is miraculous. If God is real, there is no reason to reject a miraculous event just because it is miraculous.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
*
Regarding hell:
Contrary to popular opinion, the actual biblical teaching on the final fate of those who choose to reject God is eternal destruction, not eternal torture. That idea is an inheritance from our pre-Christian past, not from the Bible. No one will be sitting around in misery, or talking with their fellow inmates or whatever. They will have of their own free choice decided that death is better than God, God will have granted them their choice, and they will have ceased to exist.
Ahhh, so what you're saying is that essentially after death there CAN be nothing? From what my idiotic religious friends (not pointing fingers at religion, just the morons in it) say there is always "something beyond" and there simply cannot be a nothingness ...
My opinion about God's name: It doesn't matter, names are created so we can identify this from that. As long as the name communicates the concept of "god" it's fine.
However if god made a name for itself there's no way we can guess what it's like so it's pointless to discuss it.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Agreed.
For balance' sake from my last post, I probably should also mention that some parts of the Bible are history. Most importantly, that Jesus really did rise again to life. In this case, that the narrated events are historically true is integral to the Bible's intended purpose. In the Flood, not.
What evidence is there that Jesus did rise from the dead? I'm curious.
I regard the bible just as any other novel, as a story about humans. I don't see a reason to treat it any different, I regard people who take it too literally (atheists usually) and people who cannot separate story from truth (religious nuts) as having huge misconception on the purpose of the bible...
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Ahhh, so what you're saying is that essentially after death there CAN be nothing? From what my idiotic religious friends (not pointing fingers at religion, just the morons in it) say there is always "something beyond" and there simply cannot be a nothingness ...
Yes and no. For those who choose it, endless and overflowing life awaits them with God. For those who choose it, eternal destruction. It is all about whether one will say to Jesus "I'm your man," or "Screw off, buddy."
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
I regard the bible just as any other novel,
I can't go with you there. The "religious nuts" do have the story partially right, in that God does speak to us through the Bible, precisely in and through the human aspects of it as well as the direct-speech-of-God parts, and it is his means of guiding us into a relationship with him in Jesus Christ, as I said before.
as a story about humans.
and I regard people who take it too literally (atheists usually) and people who cannot separate story from truth (religious nuts) as having huge misconception on the purpose of the bible...
After the above qualification, I'd agree with these words, assuming we mean the same thing by them. (Though that is not entirely sure.)
-
dbl post
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
What evidence is there that Jesus did rise from the dead? I'm curious.
Well, this is a long answer, but here goes:
Given that the resurrection is claimed as a historical occurence, it only make sense to tackle the question with the approach usual for any historical event. Christianity stands or falls by this claim, so let's see how it fares under the lights of historical scrutiny. I'm not going to ask you to treat the Bible as God's Word in this discussion, just as ancient documents recording an event.
What criteria do historians use to evaluate the historical value of an ancient document? (Note, I'm not an expert in this field, but this amounts to a good summary. I'm relying on outside sources for the following lists) Basically, there's the "internal criteria" and the "external criteria".
Internal criteria:
1) Was the author in a position to know what he or she was writing about? Does the text claim to be an eyewitness account, or based on one? Or is it just hearsay?
If the document doesn't even claim to be an eyewitness account or based on one, its vlue is probably less that it would be otherwise. Of course, being an eyewitness account doesn't make it true (see External Criteria)
2) Does the document contain specific, and especially irrelevant, material?
Firsthand sources are typically full of material, especially details, which aren't central to the story, whereas fabricated accounts tend to be generalised.
3) Does the document contain self-damaging material?
If a document includes material which could cast a negative image on the author, on the "heroes" of the story, or especially on the truthfulness ofthe story, this is typically a good indication that the author had truth as a central motive for writing.
4) Is the document reasonably self-consistent?
There is a coherence to truth which fabrications usually lack, though different perspectives on a single historical account usually include some minor discrepancies.
5) Is there evidence of "legendary accretion" in the document?
Fish stories tend to be exaggerated over time. The presence of "larger than life" features in a document suggest a later time of writing, and proportionally diminish the document's historical trustworthiness.
External Criteria
1) Would the authors of the document have a motive for fabricating what they wrote?
Obviously if a motive can be established for the author to make it up, the document's trustworthiness is diminished. Conversely, if the author had nothing to gain, or even something to lose, by writing it, trustworthiness is increased.
2) Are there any other sources which confirm material in the document and/or substantiate it's genuineness?
Outside confirmation increases trustworthiness, provided the confirming source is also trustworthy, of course.
3) Does archeology support or go against material in the document?
Should be obvious what this does, eh?
4) Could contemporaries of the document falsify the document's accont, and would they have a motive for doing so?
If there were people around who could have exposed the document as a falsehood and would have wanted to do so, but didn't - so far as history tells - then credibility is increased.
So what happens when we use these criteria? Let's see!
Internal #1: Luke, who was not an eyewitness, tells us he is using eyewitness sources an that he is seeking to write an orderly and truthful account of what he records (Luke 1:1-4). John tells us he is an eyewitness. Matthew and Mark don't make an explicit claim to being eyewitness accounts, but simply assume it. Other sources in the early second century confirm that these were the authors. (This is external criteria #2)
Internal #2: the Gospels contain an awful lot of irrelevant detail. For example (and this is a good one since it deal directly with the Resurrection), John 20 1:8:
Early on the first day of the week (when? does it matter?) while it was still dark (who cares?), Mary Magdalene (an incriminating detail, see next criterion) went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came runniing to Simon Peter an the other disciple, the one Jesus loved (John's usual modest way of refering to himself -- another mark of genuineness. This identification is made with himeself only at the end of his gospel, in case you were wondering) and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and we don't know where they have put him!" (note her lack of faith here). So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. They were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first (again, who cares about this irrelevant detail?). He bent over (the tomb entrance was low, a detail which is historically accurate for tombs of the kind and time period in question) and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in (why not? irrelevant detail). Then Simon Peter who was behind him arrived and went into the tomb (Peter's boldness stands out in all the Gospel accounts). He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head (irrelevant and unexpected detail -- what was jesus wearing?). The cloth was folded up by itself, seperate from the linen (WHO CARES? Jesus folded up one part of the burial cloth before he left. Whoopee.) Finally, the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went inside (and we care about the order of entrance because...?).
I hope you see the point. There's absolutely no reaosn to throw in this sort of irrelevant detail. It contributes nothing to the story line, except it's just part of what happened, so he throws it in as he remembers it. The Gospels are full of stuff like this.
Internal #3: The Gospels are full of self-damaging detail. For example, in the Resurrection account above, a woman is said to be the first one to discover that the tomb was empty. But this could only damage the testimony of the early Christians, as women in first-century Jewish culture were considered incurable "talebearers." They couldn't even testify in court (which is why Paul doesn't include any women in this list of people who saw the risen Christ in 1 Corinthians 15). Moreover, the disciples are constantly protrayed in a bad light, which is not a good plan if you're supposed to be leading people. Even aspects of Jesus' life are included which, if the story were being fabricated to convince people of his messiahship, would have been excluded. For example, on the cross Jesus cries out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This is not what one would expect from a document trying to prove that Jesus was divine. It's a tough statement, but that just proves the point. The only reason to include it is because it happened.
Internal #4: The Gospels present a consistent portrait of who Jesus is and what he did, as well as the events surronding his life. If the accounts were individually fabricated, where did the consistency come from? On the other hand, however, there are minor differences, showing the relative differences of their perspectives. If they were all fabricated together, the consistency would be greater than it we find.
Internal #5: C.S. Lewis was a professor at Oxford and an expert on ancient mythology. He once said, "as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the gospels are, they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend, and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing." Basically, the Gospels contain much supernatural activity, but they just don't have the ususal legendary style. Legends make a big deal out of stuff, waxing poetic, embellishing with detail, and painting an epic picture of things (read the Odyssey, or the Lord of the Rings for that matter, to see what I mean). The Gospels are almost drab in their presentation. The style is about like this: "There was this one time he multiplied some kid's lunch to feed thousands of people. Then later he went off to pray." That's about it. One could almost wish it WAS more embellished; it'd be more fun. It is interesting to note that later fake gospels were written, largely by a broad branch of heretics called Gnostics, and their gospels do evidence much embellishment where these recognised ones do not.
External #1: What motive could the early disciples have had for faking it? Well, actually they had a whole lot of reason NOT to believe what they did. It tended to get you severely persecuted. In fact, of all the original bigwigs of the church, the only one not to meet some unpleasant end for refusing to deny Jesus spent his old age exiled on a windswept rock. The rest were all killed in unpleasant fashions (decapitations, more cruxifixions, fed live to starving lions, honest-to-God boilings in oil, etc.) because they refused to deny that Jesus was risen and was Lord.
People just don't do that for something they know is a lie. Heck, many a later Christian denied it when faced with such torture and death, even though they did believe it. If I make up a lie to trick people with, and you say to me "Admit it was a lie, or we put the thumbscrews to you," I'm gonna admit it was a lie pretty damn quick! I know of no scholar anywhere who doubts that the disciples really believed what they preached.
External #2: As said before, the authorship of these Gospels is attested by numerous sources in the early second century,who were in a much better position to know than we are today. More importantly, perhaps, we can also ascertain some thngs about jesus and the early disciples, things which fit well with the Gospels, from other secular ancient sources as Tacitus (ca. 55-120), Suetonius (early second century), Josephus (cs. 37-97), Thallus (mid first century), Pliny (early second century), as well as ancient Jewish writing against the Christians (the Talmud). I know of no non-Christian sources that confirm the event of the Resurrection, and want to make that clear so as not to mislead you, Kamikaze. (That probably isn't surprising, though, since if one believes it happened, one is pretty certain to become a Christian, too.)
External #3: Well, archeology doesn't shed a whole lot of light here, given the nature of the texts, their short timelime and the fact that they primarily deal with the doings of a man, and not archological sorts of things. What light there is to be shone by archeology is concurrent with the Gospel acconts. It should suffice to say that the historical existence of Jesus where and when he is supposed to have existed is held as beyond doubt.
External #4: This one is one of the most telling for me. Christianity was running around claiming that this guy had risen from the dead and had done all these crazy miracles, and there were other people who absolutely hated Christianity. There was nothing they'd have liked better than to stamp out this "heresy," and it would have been ridiculously easy to do. Just take these Christians by the collar, drag them over to this tomb and say "Look, there's his body. He's dead. Shaddup." That would have been the end of it. Christianity would have been struck dead in its tracks. But no one did that. They didn't even deny that he did all those miracles. The best they could do was argue that he's really done those miracles by the power of Satan, and suggest that maybe the disciples stole the body (but see External Criterion #1).
So anyway, a long answer, and I'm sorry, but you asked a good quesiton about the single most important thing in my entire life, so I wanted to answer it well. :)
-
What I don't understand is why people mock things like the Flat Earth Society and the theory of the direct correlation between the stork population and the human birth rate, and then go for this stuff... :p
Well I'm sure you'd be too preoccupied with whatever painful treatments you get in hell to be conversing with all the intellectuals in hell
That's one of the great things about being there actually; you would be with all the sensible guys who refused to believe this stuff. :D
Agreed.
For balance' sake from my last post, I probably should also mention that some parts of the Bible are history. Most importantly, that Jesus really did rise again to life.
I really don't know what to say to this... :D
Yes and no. For those who choose it, endless and overflowing life awaits them with God. For those who choose it, eternal destruction. It is all about whether one will say to Jesus "I'm your man," or "Screw off, buddy."
Ah, I will choose the latter! ;7
-
to be perfictly honest if I die and suddenly there's God and I'm stand'n there,
I will admit I was wrong
now I don't know about Jesus being revived as beeing histoical fact, it is one of the few instances that the Bible does seem to be trying to state a historical fact, but if there is a God he seems to get great joy in doing nothing that can't be rationaly posable and this doesn't fit in his eternal m.o.
it is however a very moveing religous 'fact', in that he loved us all so much that he let himself be killed, ect...
but I've stoped beleveing in the fantastic (key root word fanticy), I accept the fact that there was a person who was put on a cross and died, who had a following of people that grew into the current day Chirstian church. there isn't anything un reasonable about that, and in fact makes quite a bit of sence, but I have long lost my belef in God and the after life and ultimate good/evil/perpose (do NOT start that argument again CP, not in this thread at least, I do beleve the sence of good and evil are an in born instinct and we have a cumpultion twards good, {mearly explaining how the statement does not conflict with my previus statments, not starting the argument})
-
There, answer posted, Kamikaze. Hope it helps. PM me if you want. Now I'm off to bed...
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
*holds head in hands*
No, no, no, no, no. The mass of mis-assumption and misunderstanding of the Bible is overwhelming here. The whole discussion is based on a fundamental miscontrual of what the Bible's purpose and intentions are. The Bible's intent is to guide us into a relationship with God in Jesus Christ. It uses all sorts of literary genres for this task, including songs, histories, letters, myths, collections of wise sayings, parables, novel-like stories, you name it. That is what it is doing, and trying to force its every word to be a factual truth is a horrible violence to what Scripture presents itself as doing, and shows a dramatic disrespect for it. Let the Bible tell you what it is trying to do, don't you tell it! If it feels like using a myth, let it use a myth! Who are we to tell God that he's wrong to do so?
On the off chance that anyone is interested in reading a more carefully considered and fully wrought discussion about this, follow this (http://www.angelfire.com/space/sesquipedalian/misc/scripturepaper2.html) link to a recently completed paper of mine.
(Note that it was intended for a readership within theological circles, so there is a bit of jargon, but nothing too intense in that respect.)
Regarding hell:
Contrary to popular opinion, the actual biblical teaching on the final fate of those who choose to reject God is eternal destruction, not eternal torture. That idea is an inheritance from our pre-Christian past, not from the Bible. No one will be sitting around in misery, or talking with their fellow inmates or whatever. They will have of their own free choice decided that death is better than God, God will have granted them their choice, and they will have ceased to exist.
Have you ever read Revelations? It says that all who did not believe will be thrown in the lake of fire. Read the book. No sense in trying to appease the "heathens" on what the Bible says. :D
BTW I know that my last post was grammerly incorrect. I did it that way to be funny. Now shut your traps and stop calling me arrogant.
As for carbon dating. It's a bunch of crap. Now I'm not just saying that because I'm a Christian. I'm saying that because scientificly it's unscientific. It's unscientific because you need to know the amount of parent/daughter materials in the object and how much left/went into it. The only thing they know is how much is in the object right now. And don't try to reject this with some Artic ice bubble crap. The only thing that tells you is how much of that stuff in right there. Not what was or left/came into the bone you're testing.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
As for carbon dating. It's a bunch of crap. Now I'm not just saying that because I'm a Christian. I'm saying that because scientificly it's unscientific...
Oh, and claiming as historical fact that a man rose from the dead simply because a 2,000 year-old book of poetry said so IS scientific?
Please. At least carbon dating uses the scientific method to try to prove its conclusions. The Bible doesn't even TRY to use the scientific method to prove its conclusions.
Whenever science reaches a factual conclusion that doesn't fit the current theory, scientists try to find a new theory that will fit the facts. If religion encounters a factual conclusion that doesn't fit the current theory in this case, the story of the Bible), the priests try to completely ignore the factual conclusion and deem it irrelevant, now matter how much evidence there is to support it.
The whole Great Flood thing is a case in point. The Bible says there was a Great Flood thing that covered the entire Earth a few thousand years ago. Geology tells us that while there was flooding here and there in various parts of the world, there's no evidence of such a worldwide flood having ever occurred. Bible-thumper then say when evidence of an extensive flooding in Meditteranean is found, "Aha! There was flooding here! Therefore, there must have been flooding everywhere else at this time because the Bible said there was a Great Flood!"
How "unscientific" does THIS sound?
-
ok we know how much there is now, and we know how fast it disapears, and we know how much is in the atmosphere at any given time, so how is it unscientific to just calculate how long it would take a given amount to go from were it was to were it is?
further how is it that on dates we know, carbon dateing confirms those dates in the vast majority of the cases?
-
let's try to keep it to one argument at a time please people... when the argument is done we'll move on to another
-
Well, if that fellow can come back to life then so can I. ph34r the zombie mathematician!! ;7
(do NOT start that argument again CP, not in this thread at least, I do beleve the sence of good and evil are an in born instinct and we have a cumpultion twards good, {mearly explaining how the statement does not conflict with my previus statments, not starting the argument})
bah, I already showed you why that made no sense... :p
Whenever science reaches a factual conclusion that doesn't fit the current theory, scientists try to find a new theory that will fit the facts. If religion encounters a factual conclusion that doesn't fit the current theory in this case, the story of the Bible), the priests try to completely ignore the factual conclusion and deem it irrelevant, now matter how much evidence there is to support it.
Actually, that's one thing I really like about these "extreme" religions over the "moderate" religions; at least they are honest, and they don't claim to hold any consistency with science. They just say that science is all wrong, and now god will smiteth you. :D
-
Funilly enough, I also believe in god, yet I also believe in evolution. Why couldn't he have created everything in that way, that he just makes it happen as if it looks like its all random acts of uncertainty that created stuff and then let that stuff evolve over time? Whats the fun in making everything in a second? I love building model airplaines and making puzzle, there'd be no fun in doing it in a second! :) I don't understand why it has to usually be one or the other extreme really... Science or Religeon... The reason I believe in evolution is that theres pritty damn solid evidence that it exists and the reason I believe in god is that even if evolution exists how the hell did a mass of atoms decide to group together to create something living? How does something inorganic and not alive, turn alive? And I also have faith, cause there would have been no chance in hell of me making it through the army if I didn't have any. Oh well, heading back to the topic of this whole thread I guess his name would have to be Pablo. But thats just his nickname.... :D
-
How does something inorganic and not alive, turn alive?
There is an easy answer to that; what we call "living" matter is really just as dead as the "nonliving" matter, and this will start becoming more apparent in the coming centuries. :D
-
good point.
-
Now I ask.
What do you have to lose if you believe that God is real? Give me five good answers, not jokes. And no crap about sex, drugs, and beer. No crap about changing your lifes before either, Jesus accepts you as you are. Though He changes you in the end. Like clay, the sculpter take the clay as it is. The sculpter doesn't take the clay already sculpted, no thats why he takes it in the first place, to make something with it. It's the same with you. Jesus (sculpter) takes you as you (clay) are and makes you a masterpiece.
And all you who are anti-christian and for science. How come all the first great scientists were Christian? They were against the Roman Church (current day Cathlic Church). Read a Christian based History book and you'll see (I say Christian based book 'coz I know of no secular book that will tell you the truth).
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Now I ask.
What do you have to lose if you believe that God is real? Give me five good answers, not jokes. And no crap about sex, drugs, and beer. No crap about changing your lifes before either, Jesus accepts you as you are. Though He changes you in the end. Like clay, the sculpter take the clay as it is. The sculpter doesn't take the clay already sculpted, no thats why he takes it in the first place, to make something with it. It's the same with you. Jesus (sculpter) takes you as you (clay) are and makes you a masterpiece.
And all you who are anti-christian and for science. How come all the first great scientists were Christian? They were against the Roman Church (current day Cathlic Church). Read a Christian based History book and you'll see (I say Christian based book 'coz I know of no secular book that will tell you the truth).
Looks like Jesus ****ed up royally with you my friend.
The whole point in believing that something is real is just that. Believeing, I find it hard to believe and therefore don't. You can't just say to someone "Believe, c'mon what have you got to lose" and expect them to just go "ok".
-
This is starting to become amusing thou ;)
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Have you ever read Revelations? It says that all who did not believe will be thrown in the lake of fire. Read the book. No sense in trying to appease the "heathens" on what the Bible says. :D
*sigh*
I'm taking the Bible as what it presents itself to be. The opinions of non-believers play no part in the issue, nor do the preconceived notions of fundamentalists, evangelicals, neo-orthodox or liberals. If one wants to hear what the Bible actually says, HotSnoJ, one has to read what it actually says. That's what I try to do, and surprise, surprise, my theology doesn't fit nicely into any of the usual camps as a result.
If you really have respect for the Bible, let it teach you. If you read all your assumptions into it, you aren't listening to it, just to yourself.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
How come all the first great scientists were Christian?
They were killed otherwise
-
How come all the first great scientists were Christian?
Depends on what you include in your category of "great scientists;" the truly first ones probably lived before any religions existed. :p
-
now that i realize it, i forgot pythagoras and all the other ancient greeks
:nod:
-
Interesting answer Sesquipedalian, I see you've put thought in your religion. :nod:
However this is the deducing of historians with their limited evidence right? So I guess my conclusion is that it was possible that Jesus was revived but we don't really know for sure. I won't refute it since we don't know enough about biology to claim that revival isn't possible (though I'd assume something like this is highly unlikely) 100%, but I can't accept what historians think with their limited evidence.
A point I'd like to talk about is, if Jesus really was revived. Is there not a possibility that the responsibility goes to the construction of the body rather than god? What if there was no 'divine intervention' in the matter? What evidence is there that god was reviver and no the human body?
About famous scientists being religious: Bull....
many scientists were religious but quite a few questioned their faith or twisted their religion to suit their scientific claims.
For example Kepler originally thought orbits would be circular because of god but he found they were elliptical, he questioned his faith but I think he twisted his religion to suit his vision of the creator and science.
You are also limiting yourself to famous scientists which aren't necessarily the most important.
BTW: carbon dating is better than saying god faked the world to look older like many religious nuts say...
-
The fact we still speak of God after such a long time, and the fact the bible has lasted longer then any book in the entire world should reinforce ones beleif there is a God. Also, many stories in the bible have been proven scientifically to have happened, however some will say people were writing the bible, but what happened was a mere geological happening and had nothing to do with God.
The whole thing in a nutshell, all of what we speak of here, those who oppose and are for, has been foretold. In the end its all about faith. Either you beleive or you dont, those who dont will not have a spot with God and those who do will.
Its God's way of cleansing the earth, so let the non-beleivers take their place, so us Beleivers can have ours.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Interesting answer Sesquipedalian, I see you've put thought in your religion. :nod:
However this is the deducing of historians with their limited evidence right? So I guess my conclusion is that it was possible that Jesus was revived but we don't really know for sure. I won't refute it since we don't know enough about biology to claim that revival isn't possible (though I'd assume something like this is highly unlikely) 100%, but I can't accept what historians think with their limited evidence.
A point I'd like to talk about is, if Jesus really was revived. Is there not a possibility that the responsibility goes to the construction of the body rather than god? What if there was no 'divine intervention' in the matter? What evidence is there that god was reviver and no the human body?
Know for sure? No. We know nothing for sure. But as near as I can tell, it is as sure as claims that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River with his armies in 49 B.C. (which he did, going on to march on Rome and take it, ending the Republic and starting the Empire).
We know nothing for sure in this world, not even that own own experience is valid and true. Look at John Nash, the brilliant schizophenic mathematician whose life story became the basis for A Beautiful Mind. He only attained a right relationship with the world by not believing what his experience told him. So even this most fundamental source of information must still ultimately be trusted as a matter of pure faith. That faith in our senses is the foundation for just about everything else we do or think, but it itself has no basis except that we just plain assume it to be true.
So what do we do? How do we decide what to believe? By wieghing up the implications of each alternative belief and seeing which best fits with the rest of reality as it has presented itself to us. Given my experience, Christianity looks to be true.
Anyway, about the other question: Well, it may be theoretically possible, sure. But I'd say not. If something this odd happens, with nothing else like it recorded in history, it seems more likely to me that God intervened in the course of nature than that nature just spontaneously decided to reverse it's laws for this one special occasion. Nature never does that, and couldn't really, being the impersonal force it is. To decide to change the laws like that in this one case only makes sense in the context of an active will, an active person.
Resurrection isn't the same thing as revival, by which I mean that Jesus wasn't just "mostly" dead and then his body repaired itself via some strange, unknown natural process. Jesus was 100% dead, and was raised again to life via the supernatural act of God. The resurrection is significant precisely because it wasn't explicable by any natural means -- only God could have done it.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Anyway, there's one other small point I need to make. Resurrection isn't the same thing as revival, by which I mean that Jesus wasn't just "mostly" dead and then his body repaired itself via some strange, unknown natural process. Jesus was 100% dead, and was raised again to life via the supernatural act of God. The resurrection is significant precisely because it wasn't explicable by any natural means -- only God could have done it.
Of course I agree that nothing can be truly 'known' in the true sense of the word but because of that I will not put my faith in atheism or christianity. I'm an agnostic.
Anyway, about resurrection do we really know that it was truly resurrection rather than revival? any evidence that he was 100% dead? Are you sure it can't be credited to the writers imagination/exaggeration? Is it truly impossible to ressurect the human after it's '100% dead' via natural processes? (god is not what I call natural btw).
These kind of questions give me reason not to have faith... we can't say anything close to definite about events that happened far before us.
-
Ah, you answered while I was editing the post to more directly address these very questions. But I'll be more specific here.
Essentially, it's never happened anywhere else in recorded history, so it seems to make more sense to me to say that God intervened than to say he didn't. A miracle makes more sense here than not.
There isn't really any question that he was dead. It's pretty easy to tell when someone is dead as opposed to being on death's door. Plus, not only was he cruxified, but the Romans stabbed a javelin into his side just to make sure. Given that he was up on a cross and the guy doing the stabbing was down on the ground, it would have gone into his side and then upwards through his heart and/or lungs and so on. Between being whipped until his flesh was flayed right off his back, being cruxified (perhaps the most horribly torturous method of execution invented by man), and finally having a big long pointed pole shoved through him, there wasn't much doubt he was dead. If he hadn't been, they were going to break his legs so he'd die quicker, but there was no need.
As for whether we need to know whether he was truly dead and resurrected, and not merely revived, from the Christian perspective yes we do. If this was merely a reviving, then all of Christianity falls apart. He has to have died and have been resurrected (and to have then ascended to heaven and be going to return to re-new the world and raise us up to a perfected life), or Christianity is nothing.
Paul sums it up quite well in 1 Corinthians chapter 15, when he says And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. ... And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
[Note: "fallen asleep" was a common euphemism for death in the first century Mediterranean world]
-
26 alredy on there is no god, lots ot atheists here I see, I dont not belive in 'god' I just dont belive in religion
-
Originally posted by CP5670
ph34r the zombie mathematician!! ;7
:lol:
As for the flood covering "the entire earth", well...hyperbole is A-1 SUPAR. :) People have already agreed that there was a massive flood in the Meditteranean area a long time ago. So then, since it was such a big deal, the author said it flooded the whole earth to emphasize the impact of the flood, not necessarily to make a factual statement that the whole of Planet Earth was under water.
Or another way of looking at it: supposedly the Hebrew word rendered "earth" in the Genesis passage can also mean "land", so you can say the flood covered "the whole land" and not have a literal contradiction.
For the rest of it, I defer to Sesquipedalian. Good job, Sesq. :) Much more comprehensive and articulate than I think I would be.
EDIT: Oh, one small disagreement here: Sesq, the Bible repeatedly refers to Hell as a place where "the fire does not die, and their worm is not quenched", where "there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth", where "the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever", etc., which seems to me to very strongly imply eternal torture. What's your justification for annihilation?
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
EDIT: Oh, one small disagreement here: Sesq, the Bible repeatedly refers to Hell as a place where "the fire does not die, and their worm is not quenched", where "there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth", where "the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever", etc., which seems to me to very strongly imply eternal torture. What's your justification for annihilation?
Look at the fire imagery without preconceived notions for a moment. What does fire do? Burns stuff up. I put something in the fire, and then it's gone. The fire in the verse is eternal, not the stuff put in it. That the fire does not die sounds like an emphasis that this destruction is complete and permanent. If the fire goes out, that would raise the question whether this burning up was a permanent thing, or just some sort of purgatory. But is the fire does not die, there's no question but that being burned up is final. I'm just taking the imagery at face value the way it would appear to a reader when it was newly written and didn't have heaps of presupposition already piled onto it.
"Weeping and gnashing of teeth": nothing perpetual implied in that.
"the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever": well, that's a tough one from a tough-to-interpret, emphatically non-literal, and incredibly and deeply symbolic book. No, that one by itself wouldn't point to annihilation, but it's in a hard book to draw definite conclusions from. But Scripture interprets Scripture, and when everything else seems to point to annihilation, like 2 Timothy 1:9 (which book isn't being symbolic) that says "They will be punished with everlasting destruction," I'm inclined to look at this one verse from an admittedly and extremely symbolic text from the perspective of all the other texts which don't carry, or even outright contradict, the endless torture theme.
-
Just a minor point to throw in. The Big Bang theory is discredited amoung some Chirstians as saying where it it come from. Surely the same can be said about God? Where did he/she/it come from? And if God was always around can't the universe be continually expanding and collapsing and expanding again without the need for a god. In the end it's probably a matter of 'faith' where ever you stand.
Secondly the Bible is all well and good as a source of 'evdience' but what about secondary support from independent sources? Does any exist?
Admittly being somewhat of an atheist* I'm unlikely to be swade, but I'm still intressed in anyones ideas.
*I'm also sure many atheist might be swade into believing if the sky suddenly peeled away and big booming voice said 'I exist!'. I might be converted in such a case. :)
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Of course I agree that nothing can be truly 'known' in the true sense of the word but because of that I will not put my faith in atheism or christianity. I'm an agnostic.
Anyway, about resurrection do we really know that it was truly resurrection rather than revival? any evidence that he was 100% dead? Are you sure it can't be credited to the writers imagination/exaggeration? Is it truly impossible to ressurect the human after it's '100% dead' via natural processes? (god is not what I call natural btw).
These kind of questions give me reason not to have faith... we can't say anything close to definite about events that happened far before us.
Are you daft? Did you ever read the Bible? He was pierced in the side before they took him off the cross! He was also beaten in various ways and then made to carry his cross to the hill (He couldn't make it all the way so another guy carried it the rest of the way).
Did you ever read or heard how terrible crucifixion is? You can't breath while resting on the cross. You have to push yourself up on it to be able to breath. In the process you have to push on the nails in your feet and your back is getting splinters in it while it is running against the wood. It is not a good way to die. But he did it anyway, for your sins. Read the Old Testiment, Jesus fulfills directly or indirectly 300 prophecies, starting from Genesis 3:14
14 "So the LORD God said to the serpent (Satan), "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."
How on earth could this man centuries before Christ predict this? There are other prophecies/knowledge verses in the Bible that tell you that God told them the writers.
I will search the internet for a list of the prophecies. Meanwhile READ THE BIBLE and see for yourself.
The Cathlic Church in the middle ages was badly distorted. It was Protesant Christian's who brought around the science we know today. The only thing Kepler changed in his beliefs was the orbits of the heavenly bodies. His research only confirmed to him that God made an orderly universe. As with the others. Note that the Cathlic Church was against these discoveries because they underminded the Cathlic Church's claim about these things.
Also make this note, "HotSnoJ is no jackass when it comes to history". Now repeat after me, "HotSnoJ is no jackass when it comes to history".
-
:lol:
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Are you daft? Did you ever read the Bible? He was pierced in the side before they took him off the cross! He was also beaten in various ways and then made to carry his cross to the hill (He couldn't make it all the way so another guy carried it the rest of the way).
Did you ever read or heard how terrible crucifixion is? You can't breath while resting on the cross. You have to push yourself up on it to be able to breath. In the process you have to push on the nails in your feet and your back is getting splinters in it while it is running against the wood. It is not a good way to die. But he did it anyway, for your sins. Read the Old Testiment, Jesus fulfills directly or indirectly 300 prophecies, starting from Genesis 3:14
14 "So the LORD God said to the serpent (Satan), "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."
How on earth could this man centuries before Christ predict this? There are other prophecies/knowledge verses in the Bible that tell you that God told them the writers.
I will search the internet for a list of the prophecies. Meanwhile READ THE BIBLE and see for yourself.
The Cathlic Church in the middle ages was badly distorted. It was Protesant Christian's who brought around the science we know today. The only thing Kepler changed in his beliefs was the orbits of the heavenly bodies. His research only confirmed to him that God made an orderly universe. As with the others. Note that the Cathlic Church was against these discoveries because they underminded the Cathlic Church's claim about these things.
Also make this note, "HotSnoJ is no jackass when it comes to history". Now repeat after me, "HotSnoJ is no jackass when it comes to history".
You haven't got a clue. Shut up.
I have spoken.
-
HotSnoj, buddy, no one questions your enthusiasm, but unarticulate zeal just turns people off. People don't convert overnight - it takes a while. Build up your argument slowly. ;)
And the passage you cited in Genesis is poetic. Yes, it foretells Christ's victory over Satan, but in a very roundabout way. Non-Christians aren't going to be very impressed with that passage. Find other passages, such as Isaiah 53 or Psalm 22. (Yes, these are poetic too, but they're a little more explicit.)
Better yet, use secular arguments. People who don't accept the authority of the Bible are not going to believe an argument that uses the Bible for its primary support.
Now that I've finished offering unsolicited advice to HotSnoj...:p
The Big Bang theory fits with the Biblical theory of creation. All matter came from nothing, all at once. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." "God created what is seen out of what is unseen." It makes sense: God snapped his fingers, and the universe sprang into being. He spent the next six days arranging it to his liking.
As for the age of the universe-- Peter says "Remember, with the Loard, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day." The creation account was written from God's perspective, and he probably has a different conception of time than we do. Perhaps he divided the creation process into "days" according to if a major phase of creation was finished during that period.
And for "where did God come from"...the only thing that makes sense, given the Christian interpretation of things, is that God is uncreated and exists outside of time. Therefore, he exists from eternity past to eternity future all at once - he always was, and always will be. It's an odd way of thinking about it, and it requires a perspective outside of our normal conception of time.
-
Originally posted by God
You haven't got a clue. Shut up.
I have spoken.
Luckily for me I don't believe in your existance - and therfore have no problem with IP banning you this very second, don't even go down the road you're facing now.
I have spoken.[/b]
-
:lol: lightning strikes again
-
Extra Crispy:D
-
:lol:
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
The Big Bang theory fits with the Biblical theory of creation. All matter came from nothing, all at once. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." "God created what is seen out of what is unseen." It makes sense: God snapped his fingers, and the universe sprang into being. He spent the next six days arranging it to his liking.
I got question's for you. Have you ever seen a city being formed out of falling volcanic ash/debris?
Could a cardboard box have evolved? Some wind could have come along and put all those parts together. With your views/explaintions It could have because it is so much simpler then a human or any animal.
HotSnoj, buddy, no one questions your enthusiasm, but unarticulate zeal just turns people off. People don't convert overnight - it takes a while. Build up your argument slowly.
"There is no substitute for victory" ~ Gen. Douglas MacAruther. To win you must put all avalible power to attacking. I will not give in. They have said things that are not true, and I will fight them to stop them from adding more to the cess pool called Evolution, Idealism, and Humanism.
You haven't got a clue. Shut up.
So what don't I get? Only people who can't come up with a defence say that. I know, I use it to when arguing with my brother.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
victory
win
attacking
Not a very useful mindset for Christian evangelical purposes. Are you trying to bring the love of God's kingdom to people, or annihilate them?
-
Originally posted by Tar-Palantir
Just a minor point to throw in. The Big Bang theory is discredited amoung some Chirstians as saying where it it come from. Surely the same can be said about God? Where did he/she/it come from? And if God was always around can't the universe be continually expanding and collapsing and expanding again without the need for a god. In the end it's probably a matter of 'faith' where ever you stand.
If God had been made by somthing else, then God would not be God, and that something else would be instead. We could then ask what made that something else? Another something else? It looks like we are starting down the road of an infinite regress, which is logically impossible as an explantion of anything. So ultimately there has to be something that is "just there," and being "just there" is part of the definition of God, if he exists at all.
Why can't the universe be what is "just there"? Well, theoretically it can, but consider the following argument. It's short, but pretty dense, written up by a philosophy professor. But work through it; it's very powerful. I've written up an explanation of the meaning below to try and make the statements easier
1. The truth of There exist things whose existence it is logically possible to explain cannot be explained by there being things whose existence it is logically possible to explain (the existence of those things is just what is to be explained).
If little Susie asks about why there are golden retriever puppies, she can be told about golden retriever parents. If she asks about golden retriever parents, she can be told about golden retriver grandparents. But if she then asks about why there are golden retrievers at all, she cannot be told about golden retriever parents, or grandparents, or great-grandparents, or the like; these will all be the tings she want to know about - why have any golden retrievers existed at all. If little Susie asks why there ever have been any possibly explicable things at all that exist though they might not have existed, she cannot properly be told about there being possibly explicable things that exist but might not have existed; these are what she is asking about.
Premise 1 is plainly true; whatever Xs are, there being Xs cannot explain there being Xs.
2. That a logically contingent existential proposition is true can only be explained by some other existential proposition being true.
If, in the relevant sense of explanation, A's truth entails B's truth, A entails B. No existential proposition is entailed by a set of propositions that does not contain any existential propositions.
3. If an existential proposition does not concern something whose existence it is logically possible to explain, it concerns something whose existence is logically impossible to explain.
4. The truth of There exist things whose existence it is logically possible to explain can only be explained by a true existential proposition concerning something whose existence it is logically impossible to explain (from 1, 2, 3).
The upshot of the argument so far is that it is inevitable that one should come to something whose existence it is impossible to explain. For the theist, this is God. The atheist is left to find for himself something that exists and whose existence is logically impossible to explain. By this argument, it is shown that demanding an explanation for the existence of God is invalid.
4. The truth of The natural realm exists is not sufficient to explain the truth of The natural realm exists, and the truth of The natural realm exists can only be explained by a true existential proposition concerning something whose existence it is logically impossible to explain (from 1, 4).
Therefore, one is left with two options:
1) Posit a existential proposition as an explanation of the natural realm which refers to something that exists outside of the natural realm and is logically impossible to explain. This is the positing of some sort of supernatural reality, such as God.
2)Simply refuse to answer the question. This latter option is to leave onself in the awkward position of having a question (Why does anything in the natural realm exist, even though it might not have?) which is intelligible and basic and very well could have had an answer, but simply does not. One can adopt this later position only if one is willing to undermine the basic assumption of human science and knowledge that If it is logically possible that the truth of a logically contingent existential proposition be explained, then there actually is an explanation of its truth (whether we know what it is or not). However, if you do this, then mystery lies on your side of the fence, not the supernaturalist's.
Note that this isn't a proof of God. One can choose either of the two options above. But number two comes at a subtle, but actually quite hefty, intellectual cost...
Secondly the Bible is all well and good as a source of 'evdience' but what about secondary support from independent sources? Does any exist?
See my earlier post. :)
*I'm also sure many atheist might be swade into believing if the sky suddenly peeled away and big booming voice said 'I exist!'. I might be converted in such a case. :)
Coming to us in a way we can better understand by putting on human flesh rather one-ups that, doesn't it? ;) But no, probably most atheists would not. CP5670, for example, has made very clear that he hates God if he exists, and he is not alone in that. Since ultimately nothing can be proven either way, the atheist, like the theist, has to choose what he will believe, and if one has enough emotional interest vested in a decision that will sway the decision. Basically, when you get right down to it, all the atheist philosophers I've ever read reject theism because they just plain don't like it.
-
So much for this not turning into a religious debate. :)
-
Actually, this has been a nice discussion so far. :)
-
God got owned in a discussion on his own name.. hehe that makes me giggle. :D
-
God: rename yourself to Khinchin's Constant. That is your true identity. ;7
Not a very useful mindset for Christian evangelical purposes. Are you trying to bring the love of God's kingdom to people, or annihilate them?
Actually that is bringing them to love, considering the alternatives. :D
I will fight them to stop them from adding more to the cess pool called Evolution, Idealism, and Humanism.
Well, at least you have the last one right on the mark. :D
If God had been made by somthing else, then God would not be God, and that something else would be instead. We could then ask what made that something else? Another something else? It looks like we are starting down the road of an infinite regress, which is logically impossible as an explantion of anything. So ultimately there has to be something that is "just there," and being "just there" is part of the definition of God, if he exists at all.
uh...didn't you post this exact same idea and example in that really old religion topic? Also, you are thinking in the traditional sense of strict Newtonian causality; instead, you can have a causal loop in quantum mechanics, so that a maker that is not also made does not need to exist. (so that time is a multiply open ended set)
If, in the relevant sense of explanation, A's truth entails B's truth, A entails B. No existential proposition is entailed by a set of propositions that does not contain any existential propositions.
I will post the same thing once again too, so here is the example: This is a true statement. It's pretty much independent of others. :D
But no, probably most atheists would not. CP5670, for example, has made very clear that he hates God if he exists, and he is not alone in that. Since ultimately nothing can be proven either way, the atheist, like the theist, has to choose what he will believe, and if one has enough emotional interest vested in a decision that will sway the decision. Basically, when you get right down to it, all the atheist philosophers I've ever read reject theism because they just plain don't like it.
Actually I would, although then my next task will be to bring him down and install myself as the new SF, because he cannot do anything right. :D I have discovered cerain things about existence that are pretty hateful to me - the universe on the whole is a remarkably ugly system - but I will accept them nevertheless. As for the rest of it, that set of axioms does not allow us to eliminate anything (my purple dragon theory is much more consistent than your thing :D), so we must add in additional axioms according to a certain set of rules used only for that; you will see more about this soon enough. :D
-
We've had an ugly mug, hottest women, hottest woman II, and nameless other threads... how bout a post your religon thread? ;)
;7
-
Do it... if you're feeling brave... :devil:
-
this thread needs more carlin quotes
-
this thread needs more carlin quotes
Amen
*points* <-- See location
:thepimp:
-
You knwo what you never see enough of on Television? A good parachute accident. It's kinda fun.
If you live long enough, everyone you know has cancer
Never forget, Hitler was Catholic.
The Jews are smart. They don't have hell.
Godbless the homocidal maniac. They make life worthwhile.
May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house.
Never raise your hands to your kids. It leaves your groin unprotected
Next time a prostitute solicets your bussiness, ask for the clergymens rate
How can it be a spy satellite if they announce it on tv?
If its true we are alone in the universe, i'd have to say the universe aimed very low and settled for very little.
I have six locks on my door, all in a row. When I go out, I lock every other one. I figure no matter how long somebody stands there picking the locks, they are always locking three of them.
A lady came up to me on the street, pointed at my suede jacket and said, "Don't you know a cow was murdered for that jacket?" I said "I didn't know there were any witnesses. Now I'll have to kill you too".
"I've begun worshipping the sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the sun. It's there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There's no mystery, no one asks for money, I don't have to dress up, and there's no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to "God" are all answered at about the same 50-percent rate."
When it comes to BULL****...BIG-TIME, MAJOR LEAGUE BULL****... you have to stand IN AWE, IN AWE of the all time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion
"I want you to know, when it comes to believing in god- I really tried. I really really tried. I tried to believe that there is a god who created each one of us in his own image and likeness, loves us very much and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize...something is ****ED-UP. Something is WRONG here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is NOT good work. If this is the best god can do, I am NOT impressed. Results like these do not belong on the resume of a supreme being. This is the kind of **** you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently run universe, this guy would have been out on his all-powerful-ass a long time ago."
"Religion easily has the greatest bull**** story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever ´til the end of time...but he loves you."
I would type his conversation with jesus, but that takes some time.
-
aww here it is. :nod:
enjoy. :D
____________________________________________
Interviewer: Ladies and Gentlemen, we’re privileged to have with us a man known around the world as Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ.
Jesus: That’s me.
I: How are you Jesus?
J: Fine, thanks, and let me say it’s great to be back.
I: Why, after all this time, have you come back?
J: Mostly nostalgia.
I: Can you tell us a little bit about the first time you were here?
J: Well, there’s not much to tell. I think everybody knows the story by now. I was born on Christmas. And actually, that always bothered me, because I only got one present. You know, if I was born a couple of months earlier I would’ve got two presents. But look, I’m not complaining. After all, it’s only material goods.
I: There’s a story that there were three wise men.
J: Well, there were three kings who showed up. I don’t know how wise they were. They didn’t look very wise. They said they followed a star. That don’t sound wise to me.
I: Didn’t they bring gifts?
J: Yes. Gold, frankincense, and I believe, myrrh, which I never did find out what that was. You don’t happen to know what myrrh is, do you?
I: Well, I believe it’s a reddish-brown, bitter gum resin.
J: Oh, great. Just what I need. What am I gonna do with a gum resin? I’d rather have the money, that way I could buy something I need. You know, something I wouldn’t normally buy for myself.
I: What would that be?
J: Oh, I don’t know. A bathing suit. I never had a bathing suit. Maybe a Devo hat. Possibly a bicycle. I really coulda used a bicycle. Do you realize all the walking I did? I must’ve crossed Canaan six, eight times. Up and down, north and south, walking and talking, doin’ miracles, tellin’ stories.
I: Tell us about the miracles. How many miracles did you perform?
J: Well, leaving out the loaves and the fishes, a total of 107 miracles.
I: Why not the loaves and the fishes?
J: Well, technically that one wasn’t a miracle.
I: It wasn’t?
J: No, it turns out a lot of people were putting them back. They were several days old. And besides, not all those miracles were pure miracles anyway.
I: What do you mean? If they weren’t miracles, what were they?
J: Well, some of them were parlor tricks, optical illusions, mass hypnosis. Sometime people were hallucinatin’. I even used acupressure. That’s how I cured most of the blind people.
I: So not all of the New Testament is true?
J: Naaah. Some of the gospel stuff never happened at all. IT was just made up. Luke and Mark used a lot of Drugs. Luke was a physician, and he had access to drugs. Matthew and John were okay, but Luke and Mark would write anything.
I: What about raising Lazarus from the dead?
J: First of all, he wasn’t dead, he was hung-over. I’ve told people that.
I: But in the Bible you said he was dead.
J: No! I said he looked dead. I said, “Jeez, Peter, this guy looks dead!” You see, Lazarus was a very heavy sleeper, plus the day before we had been to a wedding feast, and he had put away a lot of wine.
I: Ahhh! Was that the wedding feast at Cana, where you changed the water into wine?
J: I don’t know. We went to an awful lot of wedding feasts in those days.
I: But did you ever really turn water into wine?
J: Not that I know of. One time I turned apple juice into milk, but I don’t recall the water and wine.
I: All right, speaking of water, let me ask you about another miracle. What about walking on water? Did that really happen?
J: Oh yeah, that was one that really happened. You see, the problem was, I could do it, and the other guys couldn’t. They were jealous. Peter got so mad at me he had these special shoes made, special big shoes, that if you started out walkin’ real fast you could stay on top the water for a while. Then, of course, after a few yards, badda-boom, down he goes right into the water. He sinks like a rock. That’s why I called him peter. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my church.
I: Well, that brings up the Apostles. What can you tell us about the Apostles?
J: They smelled like bait, but they were a good bunch of guys. Thirteen of them we had.
I: Thirteen? The Bible says there were only twelve.
J: Well, that was according to Luke. I told you about Luke. Actually, we had thirteen. We had Peter, James, John, Andrew, Phillip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James, that’s a different James, Thaddeus. How many is that?
I: That’s ten.
J: Simon, Judas, and Red.
I: Red?
J: Yeah, Red the Apostle.
I: Red the Apostle doesn’t appear in the Bible.
J: Nah, Red kept pretty much to himself. He never came to any of the weddings. He was a little strange; he thought the Red Sea was named after him.
I: And what about Judas?
J: Don’t get me started on Judas. A completely unpleasant person, okay?
I: Well, what about the other Apostles, say for instance, Thomas, was he really a doubter?
J: Believe me, this guy Thomas, you couldn’t tell him nothin’. He was always asking me for ID. Soon as I would see him, he would go, “You got any ID?” To this day he doesn’t believe I’m God.
I: And are you God?
J: Well, partly. I’m a member of the Trinity.
I: Yes. In fact, you’re writing a book about the Trinity.
J: That’s right, it’s called Three’s a Crowd.
I: As I understand it, it’s nothing more than a thinly veiled attack on the Holy Ghost.
J: Listen, it’s not an attack, okay? It happens I don’t get along with the Holy Ghost. So I leave him alone. That’s it. What he does is his business.
I: What’s the reason?
J: Well, first of all he’s a wise guy. Every time he shows up, he appears as somethin’ different. One day he’s a dove, another day he’s a tongue of fire. Always foolin’ around. I don’t bother with the guy. I don’t wanna know about him. I don’t wanna see him. I don’t wanna talk to him.
I: Well, let me change the subject. Is there really a placed called hell?
J: Oh yeah, there’s a hell, all right. There’s also a heck. It’n not as severe as hell, but we’ve got a heck and a hell
I: What about purgatory?
J: No, I don’t know about no purgatory. We got heaven, hell, heck, and limbo.
I: What is limbo like?
J: I don’t know. No one is allowed in. If anyone was in there it wouldn’t be limbo, it would just be another place.
I: Getting back to your previous visit, what can you tell us about the Last Supper?
J: Well, first of all, if I’da known I was gonna be crucified, I woulda had a bigger meal. You never want to be crucified on an empty stomach. As it was, I had a little salad and some veal.
I: The crucifixion must have been terrible.
J: Oh yeah, it was awful. Unless you went through it yourself, you could never know how painful it was. And tiring. It was very, very tiring. But I think more than anything else it was embarrassing. You know, in front of all those people, to be crucified like that. But, I guess it redeemed a lot of people. I hope so. I would be a shame to do it for no reason.
I: Were you scared?
J: Oh yea. I was afraid it was gonna rain; I thought for sure I would get hit by lightning. One good thing, though, while I was up there I had a really good view; I could actually see my house. There’s always a bright side.
I: And then three days later you rose from the dead.
J: How’s that?
I: On Easter Sunday. You rose from the dead, didn’t you?
J: Not that I know of. I think I would remember something like that. I do remember sleeping a long time after the crucifixion. Like I said, it was very tiring. I think what mighta happened was I passed out, and they thought I was dead. We didn’t have such good medical people in those days. It was mostly volunteers.
I: And, according to the Bible, forty days later you ascended into Heaven.
J: Pulleys! Ropes, pulleys, and a harness. I think it was Simon that come up with a great harness thing that went under my toga. You couldn’t see it at all. Since that day, I been in Heaven, and, all in all, I would have to say that while I was down here I had a really good time. Except for the suffering.
I: And what do you think about Christianity today?
J: Well, I’m a little embarrassed by it. I wish they would take my name off it. If I had the whole thing to do over, I would probably start one of those Eastern like Buddha. Buddha was smart. That’s how come he’s laughing.
I: You wouldn’t want to be a Christian?
J: No I wouldn’t want to be a member of any group whose symbol is a man nailed onto some wood. Especially if it’s me. Buddha’s laughing, meanwhile I’m on the cross.
I: I have a few more questions, do you mind?
J: Hey, be my guest, how often do I get here?
I: Are there really angels?
J: Well, not as many as we used to have. Years ago we had millions of them. Today you can’t get the young people to join. It got too dangerous with all the radar and heat-seeking missiles.
I: What about guardian angels? Are there such things?
J: Yes, we still have guardian angels, but now, with the population explosion, it’s one angle for every six people. Years ago everybody had his own angel.
I: Do you really answer prayers?
J: No. First of all, what with sun spots and radio interference, a lot of them don’t even get through. And between you and me, we just don’t have the staff to handle the workload anymore. In the old days we took pride in answering every single prayer, but like I said, there were less people. And in those days people prayed for something simple, to light a fire, to catch a yak, something like that. But today you got people praying for hockey teams, for longer fingernails, to lose weight. We just can’t keep up.
I: Well, I thin we’re about out of time. I certainly want to thank you for visiting with us.
J: Hey, no sweat.
I: Do you have any words of advice?
J: You mean like how to remove chewing gum from a suede garment? Something like that?
I: No, I mean spiritual advice.
J: Well I don’t know how spiritual it is, but I’d say one thing is don’t give your money to the church. They should be giving their money to you.
I: Well, thank you, Jesus, and good night.
J: Well, good night, thanks for having me on here today. And by the way, in case anyone is interested, bell-bottoms will be coming back in the year 2015. Ciao.
-
alright, that stuff was just hilarious... :D :lol: :D :lol: :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
uh...didn't you post this exact same idea and example in that really old religion topic?
:wtf: Yes...
Also, you are thinking in the traditional sense of strict Newtonian causality; instead, you can have a causal loop in quantum mechanics, so that a maker that is not also made does not need to exist. (so that time is a multiply open ended set)
Actually, I'm thinking in terms of logical causality: neither time nor quantum mechanics nor Newton have anything to do with it.
But to show you what I mean, here's a quick example in the sort of vein you are talking about. We are familiar with the time travel paradox where I go back in time and assassinate Hilter before he comes to power in Germany. If I succeed I have no reason to go back, so I don't go back, so I don't assassinate him, so I do have a reason to go back, ad infinitum. The paradox occurs when we forget that, regardless of temporality, there must be a beginning and end to the logical sequence of causation. So in quantum theory, which is the basis of your objection, an effect may well preceed its cause temporally, but in that process what brings about the cause must be something else. If it were not so, the situation would never arise in the first place. You have to distinguish between temporal sequence and logical sequence here, CP5670. :)
I will post the same thing once again too, so here is the example: This is a true statement. It's pretty much independent of others. :D
Fine, I'll clarify. :) If, in the relevant sense of explanation, A's truth entails B's truth, A entails B. No non-tautological existential proposition is entailed by a set of propositions that does not contain any non-tautological existential propositions.
Tautologies don't actually tell us anything about the world; they are merely language talking about itself. 2+2=4 doesn't tell me anything about whether there are two oranges on my desk or not. But when we ask whether something exists, the subject matter is a contingent a posteriori proposition.
(For the record, the original philosopher did define "existential proposition" for the purposes of his argument as refering to contingent a posteriori reality and not tautological statements prior to presenting the argument, but I didn't bother to include it. My bad. :))
Besides, for a tautology, it is entailed by a set of propositions which happens to include only one member (itself), so the original statement was technically true.
-
****e, and I've been told i need a new hobby. :p
you gotta give credit where credit is due though... the whole "hitler dead in past" thing made for a good set of games. ;)
-
"Could a cardboard box have evolved?"
one day a man was filling a paper sack, then he realised that when he put one bag inside the other they were stronger, so being a better storage container he used two bag rather than just one. after a short while, the greater sucses rate of his duble bags was copied by the other people and soon everyone was useing two bags. with this change thicker walls were found better so one day someone made bags of paper so thick it could stand on it's own, made into the shape of a cube, this new design was found to be so superior to the previus design in holding things that soon everyone was useing them insted then the guy who started this used the same trick with the boxes as he did with the bags, he put one inside the other, and low and behold it was much stronger, meanwhile someone else had found that curved boxed could soport a great weight,as the two new designes encoundered each other they were merged a cerved layer of thick paper was glued in between the two thicker sheets.
and thus cardboard was born.
now this takes the paper baised containers as being sort of a parasitic organism incapable of reproduction on it's own (much like a virus) and it isn't a very good representation of traditional evoultion, but it does fit, with something that is able to be reproduced imperfictly haveing the more sucsesful offspring haveing the larger number of progeny
it's what I like to call capitalistic or directed eveolution, were there is a system were something is guided by some sort of consus effort to be made better, but only those that truely are become sucsesful,
it is what most domesticated animals are a product of
and it is what our specise will soon (by evolutionary standards) be running under (genetic engeneering)
remember kids,
evolution is mother, evolution is father
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
"Could a cardboard box have evolved?"
one day a man was filling a paper sack, then he realised that when he put one bag inside the other they were stronger, so being a better storage container he used two bag rather than just one. after a short while, the greater sucses rate of his duble bags was copied by the other people and soon everyone was useing two bags. with this change thicker walls were found better so one day someone made bags of paper so thick it could stand on it's own, made into the shape of a cube, this new design was found to be so superior to the previus design in holding things that soon everyone was useing them insted then the guy who started this used the same trick with the boxes as he did with the bags, he put one inside the other, and low and behold it was much stronger, meanwhile someone else had found that curved boxed could soport a great weight,as the two new designes encoundered each other they were merged a cerved layer of thick paper was glued in between the two thicker sheets.
and thus cardboard was born.
Dang it, Bobboau I meant by itself with NO HUMAN INTERVENTION!
To CP: I find it very interensting that you and others try to "prove" God can't exist with math and/or "logical" thinking. But you fail in one very important area. You miss that fact that Christians believe God is all powerful, meaning he can do anything he wants, whenever He wants.
During another debate someone came up with dialog. I can't remember who or what the exact word were, but I can remember the basic idea behind it.
Christian: So what you are saying that there is no God.
Atheist: Yes I am.
Christian: How could you know that? To know that would imply that you know everything. And to know everything would imply that you are a god.
Athiest: Damn!
*Note: this dialog idea came from a christian book I read a while back. I can't remember the name.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
To CP: I find it very interensting that you and others try to "prove" God can't exist with math and/or "logical" thinking. But you fail in one very important area. You miss that fact that Christians believe God is all powerful, meaning he can do anything he wants, whenever He wants.
But we (i.e the heathens among us) don't believe that. So how can we be having this debate, when we're talking about completely different things?
I may have said this before, but my house mate is a christian. He claims to have the answer to everything, to every question I might have about the universe. I tried to explain that just saying "because God says" isn't a very good explanation, but he won't have it...
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
But we (i.e the heathens among us) don't believe that. So how can we be having this debate, when we're talking about completely different things?
So, you can't use that road to try and prove God doesn't exist. My point was not that you need to believe that God exists. My point was you are trying to disprove a fact that, to a Christian, can't be disproved because of their beliefs. :ha: eat that.
-
So I can't convince you that God doesn't exist because that would contradict your beliefs?
Very clever, Mr SnoJ. I believe you have me flumoxed...
:rolleyes:
-
Yup. I saying you can't prove that God doesn't exist by using his own creation against him.
-
OK. But then by your logic, you can't convince me that God does exist, because I don't believe in him.
And with that, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that we have reached what is technically known as an impasse.
-
on there own cardboard boxes are incapable of reproduction, and thus would be incapable of evovlving, but you see everything evolves, just not always on it's own. without any hosts there would be no viruses, in the same way that if there were no humans in need of desposable storage containers there would be no bags, boxes, or parcels.
if we just left it up to God we wouldn't have vacsens, or antibiotics, or cars, or geneticly improoved food, or indoors plumbing, or any cure for canser, or the computers/massive international network were haveing this argument thru.
name one (good) thing on par with antibiodics that religon of any kind has brought about.
in fact the religus dogma were god is the answer for everything would and has impeeded these things untill recently
and if science was wrong then none of the stuff it has made would be working
were in the Bible does it say God (or the devil) created electricity
and if you don't beleve in evolution then next time you get some bacterial infection and your doctor prescribes an antibiodic I want you to only take it untill you feel better, then quit untill you start feeling sick again, seeing as the bacteria can't evolve to face the chalenge of the medication, you have nothing to fear from them
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
...where in the Bible does it say God (or the devil) created electricity...
I'm no expert on these matters, but I'd imagine it was the red dude with the horns that did that particular one..
-
give me a book and verse!
Book and Verse, damnit !!!
:lol:
-
Hee hee. If we're quoting comedians...
...Bill Hicks
I was in Nashville, Tennesee last year. After the show I went to a Waffle House. I'm not proud of it, I was hungry. And I'm alone, I'm eating and I'm reading a book, right? Waitress walks over to me: " Hey, whatchoo readin' for?"
Isn't that the weirdest ****ing question you've ever heard? Not what am I readING, but what am I reading *for*? Well, godammit, ya stumped me! Why do I read? Well... hmmm... I dunno... I guess I read for a lot of reasons, and the main one is so I don't end up being a ****ing waffle waitress.
They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the ****ing effort. There is a difference.
You ever noticed how people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved? You ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day" Yeah, looks liked He rushed it.
I love talking about the Kennedy assasination. The reason I do is because I'm fascinated by it. I'm fascinated that our government could lie to us so blatantly, so obviously for so long, and we do absolutely nothing about it. I think that's interesting in what is ostensibly a democracy. Sarcasm - come on in. People say "Bill, quit talking about Kennedy man. It was a long time ago, just let it go, alright? It's a long time ago, just forget it." I'm like, alright, then don't bring up Jesus to me. As long as we're talking shelf life here...
Christianity has a built-in defense system: anything that questions a belief, no matter how logical the argument is, is the work of Satan by the very fact that it makes you question a belief. It's a very interesting defense mechanism and the only way to get by it -- and believe me, I was raised Southern Baptist -- is to take massive amounts of mushrooms, sit in a field, and just go, "Show me."
I've learned a lot about women. I think I've learned exactly how the fall of man occured in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, and Adam said one day, "Wow, Eve, here we are, at one with nature, at one with God, we'll never age, we'll never die, and all our dreams come true the instant that we have them." And Eve said, "Yeah... it's just not enough is it?"
I love the Pope, I love seeing him in his Pope-Mobile, his three feet of bullet proof plexi-glass. That's faith in action folks! You know he's got God on his side
Fundamentalist Christianity - fascinating. These people actually believe that the the world is 12,000 years old. Swear to God. Based on what? I asked them.
"Well we looked at all the people in the Bible and we added 'em up all the way back to Adam and Eve, their ages: 12,000 years."
Well how ****ing scientific, okay. I didn't know that you'd gone to so much trouble. That's good. You believe the world's 12,000 years old?
"That's right."
Okay, I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready?
"Uh-huh."
Dinosaurs
You know the world is 12,000 years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you'd think it would have been mentioned in the ****ing Bible at some point.
"And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus... with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin': 'What a big ****ing lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and the big lizard became his friend.
"And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch for O so many years inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat ****ing families and their fat dollar bills.
"And oh Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you Lord, thank you Lord. Thank you Lord."
-
I feel the need to quote Voltaire, and if he's already be quoted in this thread, then it was about time he was quoted again. He said that 'if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him' sor words to this effect. Discuss.
By this argument, it is shown that demanding an explanation for the existence of God is invalid.
Surely this is basically just saying that it just is, to give an example: in a court of law, the prosicutions legal team couldn't say simiply this man is guilty. Why? He just is. Again we come back to the question of evidence.
This also reminds me slightly of a science cartoon of a few years back. Basically it showed what was known about the workings of the insulin receptor. Basically it read:
Insulin -----> Binds to Receptor ------> Then something happens ------> Glucose taken up into the cell.
The relevance of this cartoon to the threat (there is one!) is that all the evidence seems to be of the 'Then something happens' variety, ie it does not explain how these thing happen.
-
Actually, I'm thinking in terms of logical causality: neither time nor quantum mechanics nor Newton have anything to do with it.
But to show you what I mean, here's a quick example in the sort of vein you are talking about. We are familiar with the time travel paradox where I go back in time and assassinate Hilter before he comes to power in Germany. If I succeed I have no reason to go back, so I don't go back, so I don't assassinate him, so I do have a reason to go back, ad infinitum. The paradox occurs when we forget that, regardless of temporality, there must be a beginning and end to the logical sequence of causation. So in quantum theory, which is the basis of your objection, an effect may well preceed its cause temporally, but in that process what brings about the cause must be something else. If it were not so, the situation would never arise in the first place. You have to distinguish between temporal sequence and logical sequence here, CP5670.
The process of "bringing about something" is a temporal thing however; the whole concept of cause and effect is completely intertwined with time, which is what QM tells us. See, in a temporal sense from our point of view, this is basically just an open-ended line, while from the logical sequence it is a circle. The process that brings about the cause is the effect itself. If time is disregarded, which is what you are attempting to do, all events are one event that causes itself. :D Nothing to do with individuals travelling back and forth in time and whatnot. :p
One more thing about the "beginning and end;" the time sequence can even be unlooped without having any such things; just have it open ended and infinite in both directions compared to our perception of passing time. This is like the open-ended real line; whatever number you take, you will have several that are higher (or lower), so that trying to find a "highest number" is a meaningless pursuit.
Sorry, your god proof fails. :D (actually, some christian philosopher, Aquinas I think, gave this exact same argument to "prove" that god exists, but it was refuted by Kant)
Fine, I'll clarify. Tautologies don't actually tell us anything about the world; they are merely language talking about itself. 2+2=4 doesn't tell me anything about whether there are two oranges on my desk or not. But when we ask whether something exists, the subject matter is a contingent a posteriori proposition.
(For the record, the original philosopher did define "existential proposition" for the purposes of his argument as refering to contingent a posteriori reality and not tautological statements prior to presenting the argument, but I didn't bother to include it. My bad.)
Besides, for a tautology, it is entailed by a set of propositions which happens to include only one member (itself), so the original statement was technically true.
That's nice, but it doesn't have anything to do with what you quoted there; so much for every proposition being tied to this particular assumption. :p These two types of propositions are really exactly the same things by the way; there is no way for humans to make propositions that lie completely in either category, and I say that no such distinction is really necessary in the first place.
What's the deal with italicizing those latin things btw? They have more or less become full parts of English. :p
To CP: I find it very interensting that you and others try to "prove" God can't exist with math and/or "logical" thinking. But you fail in one very important area. You miss that fact that Christians believe God is all powerful, meaning he can do anything he wants, whenever He wants.
Yes, but I made god, and I am thus god's god. Therefore the very fact that I am asserting this is more than sufficient proof for all of you, because I am even more powerful than all powerful. :D
Christian: How could you know that? To know that would imply that you know everything. And to know everything would imply that you are a god.
That's exactly what I am saying. There is the green dragon (aka the god), the purple dragon and myself, and we are the gods. You now go to hell! :D
I feel the need to quote Voltaire, and if he's already be quoted in this thread, then it was about time he was quoted again. He said that 'if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him' sor words to this effect. Discuss.
Incidentally, this was given for one the endings in Deus Ex. Then in another place, it is said that, "you will soon have your god, and you will make it with your own hands." ;7 :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Incidentally, this was given for one the endings in Deus Ex. Then in another place, it is said that, "you will soon have your god, and you will make it with your own hands." ;7 :D
I never completed Deus Ex, lost interest after the mission in the french chateau.
Carry on.
-
Originally posted by Tar-Palantir
Surely this is basically just saying that it just is,
Not exactly, no. What this is saying is that trying to find an explanation for what is by definition inexplicable makes no sense. This doesn't say anything about whether said inexplicable entity exists or not, but only that if it does, asking for an explanation of its existence is a nonsensical question.
Does God exist? It can't be irrefutably proven that he does, nor that he doesn't. It is a matter of seeing which make more sense given our experience of reality. I do not and will never claim that Christianity is a sure thing, and deny anyone who claims it is.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
...The process that brings about the cause is the effect itself...
I am well acquainted with quantum theory and its possibility of effect temporally preceeding cause. But it does not imply what you seem to think it does, CP. :) This aspect of QM means that the direction of causality does not necessarily have to be the same as the direction of temporality, not that the cause->effect relationship is self-recursive.
For a simple example, lets say we set up a wormhole "time machine" as in this (http://astron.berkeley.edu/~bmendez/html/time.html) article to give us the ability to do QM type effect-before-cause experiments. We have a quantum wormhole whose mouths are so arranged that an object entering one will emerge from the other a few moments earlier in the timeline. Now imagine a ball passing through the wormhole, giving us our QM type effect-before-cause situation. What will that look like? The human imagination comes up with the 3 following scenarios:
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/scroll/misc/causalityillustration1.jpg)
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/scroll/misc/causalityillustration2.jpg)
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/scroll/misc/causalityillustration3.jpg)
Option 3 gives the actual way things would work insofar as self-causation goes. Because of the collision, the ball is knocked into the wormhole, which is a logical prerequisite for the collsion to take place. But notice that the system is not self-perpetuating: it happens once, and moreover requires a prior cause (Kip Thorn throwing the ball towards his wormholes) to start the scenario at all.
The logical sequence is maintained, despite the temporal reversal of direction. That's what this aspect of quantum theory does.
Sorry, your god proof fails. :D (actually, some christian philosopher, Aquinas I think, gave this exact same argument to "prove" that god exists, but it was refuted by Kant)
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Note that this isn't a proof of God. One can choose either of the two options above. But number two comes at a subtle, but actually quite hefty, intellectual cost...
:)
That's nice, but it doesn't have anything to do with what you quoted there;
I made a statement about a posteriori, and thus non-tautological, existential propositions (ones that propose something-or-other exists) but did not explicitly state that I meant a posteriori ones. You raised an a priori tautological statement as an example for objection. I clarified my original intended meaning in the argument as a result.
The argument is concerned entirely with existential propostions about contingent reality. Your tautology is irrelevant, not my quote.
These two types of propositions are really exactly the same things by the way; there is no way for humans to make propositions that lie completely in either category, and I say that no such distinction is really necessary in the first place.
Contingent=may or may not be true, can only be known by observation. All a posteriori statements are contingent.
Necessary=must be true if true, or must be false if false, require no observation of reality to be demonstrated. Necessary existential propositions are tautological, telling us nothing about the actual world, just how words are to be defined.
Seems like a pretty big difference to me. Something of an impassable chasm, actually.
What's the deal with italicizing those latin things btw? They have more or less become full parts of English. :p
I'm a purist. :)
-
Option 3 gives the actual way things would work insofar as self-causation goes. Because of the collision, the ball is knocked into the wormhole, which is a logical prerequisite for the collsion to take place. But notice that the system is not self-perpetuating: it happens once, and moreover requires a prior cause (Kip Thorn throwing the ball towards his wormholes) to start the scenario at all.
The logical sequence is maintained, despite the temporal reversal of direction. That's what this aspect of quantum theory does.
The problem here arises from the fact that you are taking different frames of reference from which to measure the events, and both the logical and the temporal things are jumbled up if you break down the logical steps into a continuum. From any one frame of reference, you cannot really put it as you did there, since the question arises where did the "other" ball come from. In this case that is indeed what is happening, but by a causal loop, I am talking about something like the hindu "eternal cycle." (the universe as a system must be independent of "outside" things of course, but that is not a problem here)
But we are going off the subject here; as I said, even this sort of periodicity is not necessary, since you can just have a doubly open-ended line of logical causation. There cannot exist things that are not possible to explain (that is, if there exist other things that are possible to explain), in the same way that there cannot exist a number that has no numbers greater than it; that's the whole essence of infinity.
Contingent=may or may not be true, can only be known by observation. All a posteriori statements are contingent.
Necessary=must be true if true, or must be false if false, require no observation of reality to be demonstrated. Necessary existential propositions are tautological, telling us nothing about the actual world, just how words are to be defined.
Seems like a pretty big difference to me. Something of an impassable chasm, actually
"Must be true if true?" :wtf: I think that is rather obvious. :p But what I am saying is that there is neither an exclusively contingent statement or a necessary one; all statements are both. (everything requires both observation and theory) Observation itself is completely meaningless without the theory, at least in a practical sense; theory can of course exist without observation but it will not then have any bearing on the real world.
I made a statement about a posteriori, and thus non-tautological, existential propositions (ones that propose something-or-other exists) but did not explicitly state that I meant a posteriori ones. You raised an a priori tautological statement as an example for objection. I clarified my original intended meaning in the argument as a result.
The argument is concerned entirely with existential propostions about contingent reality. Your tautology is irrelevant, not my quote.
What tautology? That statement is indeed independent of others, and as I said earlier, all propositions are existential to some extent anyway by the very fact that they can be stated.
Does God exist? It can't be irrefutably proven that he does, nor that he doesn't. It is a matter of seeing which make more sense given our experience of reality.
This bit sounds good. Now we must turn to rules for forming new axioms so that we get something that does not depend so much on a single person's experience, and more importantly, eliminates other stuff. (the existence probabilities of god, the purple dragon, little green men, and shivans are currently equal, but they all cannot be true and still have things consistent, so we only want one) Also, it makes more sense to go for things that are consistent with existing knowledge first and then, if those fail, try the inconsistent things, since that could possibly save us some work as opposed to the probabilities of it turning out so for the alternative. (god in your sense would be inconsistent with science, so we first assume science and no god, and if/when we reach a dead-end, we ditch science and assume the god, and see where that gets us)
I will let you have the last word this time, as I do not have enough time to continue with this right now (SAT coming up in a week; need to study for that), but perhaps we can resume it sometime later. ;7
-
Originally posted by CP5670
The problem here arises from the fact that you are taking different frames of reference from which to measure the events, and both the logical and the temporal things are jumbled up if you break down the logical steps into a continuum. From any one frame of reference, you cannot really put it as you did there, since the question arises where did the "other" ball come from.
Either you didn't read the article referenced before the illustrations and thus misunderstood what was going on in them, or you need to reformulate the preceeding much more clearly. :wtf::)
but by a causal loop, I am talking about something like the hindu "eternal cycle." (the universe as a system must be independent of "outside" things of course, but that is not a problem here)
An eternal loop falls into much the same category as Error #2: with no initial cause, it is a logical nonsense that it should exist, and if it should exist, logic must be sacrificed. Where the one is, the other is not and cannot be.
Why must the universe be independent of outside things? The claim is not self-evident. What justification can you offer for this?
But we are going off the subject here; as I said, even this sort of periodicity is not necessary, since you can just have a doubly open-ended line of logical causation. There cannot exist things that are not possible to explain (that is, if there exist other things that are possible to explain), in the same way that there cannot exist a number that has no numbers greater than it; that's the whole essence of infinity.
Infinite regress is not logically valid either. It is antithetical to logic in the same way as the causal loop: if the logical chain is an infinite regress, it can't happen at all, and if it does, logic is removed from the scene. The infinite stack of turtles is rejected not simply because the world is round, but because it fundamentally makes no sense. Your analogy with the infinity of a number line fails, because there is no connection between -12 and 2 analogous to the connection between two elements in a logical chain. Numbers are simply denominations: no causal connection or anything like it is put between them.
"Must be true if true?" :wtf: I think that is rather obvious. :p But what I am saying is that there is neither an exclusively contingent statement or a necessary one; all statements are both. (everything requires both observation and theory) Observation itself is completely meaningless without the theory, at least in a practical sense; theory can of course exist without observation but it will not then have any bearing on the real world.
Exactly, it will not have any bearing on the real world. Likewise, "This is a true statement" is true by virtue of the meanings of the words themselves, and therefore tells us nothing about the world. "The natural realm exists" is not true by definition, but only true contingently: it is logically possible that it not be true. It is a completely different sort of statement.
What you say about observation being dependent on theory (or better, the a posteriori requiring the a priori to be intelligible) is true, but beside the point: it is given that we have our words with which to describe reality and cannot do so without them, but whether the description we posit using them is true is not a function of those words, but of reality. That is the type of statement under discussion in the argument I posted. We don't care about the words, only about whether what they are saying is true.
What tautology? That statement is indeed independent of others, and as I said earlier, all propositions are existential to some extent anyway by the very fact that they can be stated.
A tautologous (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=tautologous) statement is one true by virtue of its logical form alone. "The hockey team will either win or lose the game" is another such example. "This is a true statement" tells us nothing about the world, just as "All bachelors are unmarried men" doesn't. It is merely language defining itself.
This bit sounds good. Now we must turn to rules for forming new axioms so that we get something that does not depend so much on a single person's experience, and more importantly, eliminates other stuff. (the existence probabilities of god, the purple dragon, little green men, and shivans are currently equal, but they all cannot be true and still have things consistent, so we only want one)
And quarks, the past existence of the Roman Empire, and that Shrike is an administrator of HLP. It's all on an initial playing field.
There's a problem with your proposal though. No matter how many people's experiences we collate, they are still individual experiences. The very essence of experience dooms any attempt to go beyond individuals. No one has ever succeeded in such an attempt.
god in your sense would be inconsistent with science
Now THAT is a pretty bold claim to make. Your going to have to work pretty hard to justify that one (despite the claims of such as HotSnoJ).
I will let you have the last word this time, as I do not have enough time to continue with this right now (SAT coming up in a week; need to study for that), but perhaps we can resume it sometime later. ;7
Good luck. :)
-
Ah well, I think I can add in one more before ending this and going to bed. :D
Either you didn't read the article referenced before the illustrations and thus misunderstood what was going on in them, or you need to reformulate the preceeding much more clearly. )
An eternal loop falls into much the same category as Error #2: with no initial cause, it is a logical nonsense that it should exist, and if it should exist, logic must be sacrificed. Where the one is, the other is not and cannot be.
Infinite regress is not logically valid either. It is antithetical to logic in the same way as the causal loop: if the logical chain is an infinite regress, it can't happen at all, and if it does, logic is removed from the scene. The infinite stack of turtles is rejected not simply because the world is round, but because it fundamentally makes no sense. Your analogy with the infinity of a number line fails, because there is no connection between -12 and 2 analogous to the connection between two elements in a logical chain. Numbers are simply denominations: no causal connection or anything like it is put between them.
This is not true at all; if we exist at a time when both ends go off into infinity, things can certainly work that way from this particular perspective in time, since the whole concept of "happening" (or causing) only makes any sense from any one perspective within time. This should be obvious enough from the basic theory of real numbers. I'm just giving the real number line as an example; one connection between -12 and 2 is that 2=-12+14, so you can think of it as 14 steps ahead of -12. So if one assigns an event to each number and arranges them in order of causality, you would basically get the real number line, where there is no such thing as a first or last event. (you can rename "infinity" to "god," but infinity is not a number at all, but rather represents a large range of numbers) There is no logical problem at all because the present time is surrounded by infinity in both directions, so any one event you take, you will always have another event preceding it, since the single event is exactly nothing in comparison with any infinity of events; as I said, this is the way the whole concept of infinity works. This is possibly the single most important idea behind all of analysis.
See, you keep thinking in traditional finite terms here, and some of those fail when moving into different levels of infinity. What you are claiming is equivalent to saying that god cannot exist because he was not created (caused) by something else, or that numbers cannot exist unless there is a lowest and highest number. Use math instead! :D
Why must the universe be independent of outside things? The claim is not self-evident. What justification can you offer for this?
Because it is the universe and thus encompasses everything; I should think that this is rather obvious. :p (or set of universes, if you like; the set of everything must be independent from outside things, since there are no outside things)
Exactly, it will not have any bearing on the real world. Likewise, "This is a true statement" is true by virtue of the meanings of the words themselves, and therefore tells us nothing about the world. "The natural realm exists" is not true by definition, but only true contingently: it is logically possible that it not be true. It is a completely different sort of statement.
What you say about observation being dependent on theory (or better, the a posteriori requiring the a priori to be intelligible) is true, but beside the point: it is given that we have our words with which to describe reality and cannot do so without them, but whether the description we posit using them is true is not a function of those words, but of reality, and that is the type of statement under discussion in the argument I posted. We don't care about the words, only about whether what they are saying is true.
A tautologous (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=tautologous) statement is one true by virtue of its logical form alone. "The hockey team will either win or lose the game" is another such example. "This is a true statement" tells us nothing about the world, just as "All bachelors are unmarried men" doesn't. It is merely language defining itself.
I see; I got a different impression from the webster definition. Anyway, those statements are certainly saying something, about the definition of the word in this case. All such statements are bogged down in the confines of language, if you think about it; there is no way to escape that, and no way to really distinguish between your two types of statements.
And quarks, the past existence of the Roman Empire, and that Shrike is an administrator of HLP. It's all on an initial playing field.
There's a problem with your proposal though. No matter how many people's experiences we collate, they are still individual experiences. The very essence of experience dooms any attempt to go beyond individuals. No one has ever succeeded in such an attempt.
That sounds about right, but it's not as much of a problem as it seems in practice. We can certainly try to minimize the axioms used and use as much theorizing as possible, going only by observations that are generally agreed on. And the axioms that are absolutely necessary are already agreed on by almost everyone, and certainly both of us. There are other, much more formidable, difficulties before us in this process.
I think we need to know first if it is possible for anything in the universe to observe raw data (particle properties, if you will) and make absolutely no deductions on it. If this is possible, everything will be very easy, and if it is not, we are stuck in an existentalist-type universe and all deduction is pointless. If the quantum theory is completely true and all space is indeed discretely quantized, it would be a big step forward in this direction.
Now THAT is a pretty bold claim to make. Your going to have to work pretty hard to justify that one (despite the claims of such as HotSnoJ).
I think not. This is very simple; the concept of "creation" is meaningless for one thing ("creating" something of nothing is impossible), and if a god existed, he could defy the laws of science at his random whims, and thus they would not be laws at all. If he could not, he would not be a god. Even you have said that god is not subject to science at all. Actually, for that matter, I don't see why he should be subject to logic either, so what's the point of using logic to argue for his existence? :D
Good luck.
thanks :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
one connection between -12 and 2 is that 2=-12+14, so you can think of it as 14 steps ahead of -12.
But that is a description, not a causal relation or anything like it. "All bachelors are unmarried men" carries no causal connection, and neither does "A=A". Mathematics can be rationally indubitable precisely because it amounts merely to stating and restating definitions.
the present time is surrounded by infinity in both directions,
Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. This is begging the question. Time could very well be infinite unidirectionally, or not at all. Infinite possibility does not entail infinite actuality.
Because it is the universe and thus encompasses everything; I should think that this is rather obvious. :p (or set of universes, if you like; the set of everything must be independent from outside things, since there are no outside things)
Ah, a difference of terms then. When I say universe, I mean the run-of-the-mill definition of universe as the spatio-temporal natural realm, and not the supernatural. The set of all existent things is on its own, sure. But why bring that up in the first place? (Actually, it probably doesn't matter...)
I see; I got a different impression from the webster definition. Anyway, those statements are certainly saying something, about the definition of the word in this case. All such statements are bogged down in the confines of language, if you think about it; there is no way to escape that, and no way to really distinguish between your two types of statements.
Oh sure, they are saying something. The difference between them and the second type is this: the first only refine our knowledge, making it clearer to us, whereas the second expand our knowledge. The first only tell us things we already know, because they are necessarily true. The second are the ones that actually make a difference, because they might not be true, and whether they are or not is what we want to know.
That sounds about right, but it's not as much of a problem as it seems in practice. We can certainly try to minimize the axioms used and use as much theorizing as possible, going only by observations that are generally agreed on. And the axioms that are absolutely necessary are already agreed on by almost everyone, and certainly both of us.
I doubt you'd find nearly so much agreement between people as you suppose. One might think a basic greement on things like the existence of time and space would be certain to be agreed upon by all, but Buddhists and Jains and certain forms of Hindu religion(s) will deny that. How are you going to justify deciding against them, if you do, or for them, if you do that? Majority rules? Probably won't work too well. Considering the endless distinctions made between people, you'll only have minority groups.
I think we need to know first if it is possible for anything in the universe to observe raw data (particle properties, if you will) and make absolutely no deductions on it.
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here, though it sounds interesting. Please expand and clarify.
If the quantum theory is completely true and all space is indeed discretely quantized, it would be a big step forward in this direction.
What part of quantum theory are you getting that from? Closest I've ever read was about the quantum energy levels of electrons orbiting an atom. Quantanised space?:doubt:
"creating" something of nothing is impossible
I see no logical impossibility. Demonstrate that.
Nothing can come from nothing, but if there is already a being with aseity (techincal term for "just-there-ness"), then there is not nothing, so a further creation is entirely logically possible.
if a god existed, he could defy the laws of science at his random whims, and thus they would not be laws at all.
The laws of nature are descriptions, not prescriptions. There is nothing necessary about them. It is not valid to conclude from "Nature usually acts in this way" to "Therefore, nature must always act in this way, and if it did not that would be somehow self-contradictory." And when a miraculous even does occur, that does not invalidate the scientific law, since it remains true that this is the way nature usually behaves.
Actually, for that matter, I don't see why he should be subject to logic either, so what's the point of using logic to argue for his existence? :D
[/b]Logic is held to be a property of God himself. As such, it is not that he is subject to logic or not, but that he is the source of logic.
-
But that is a description, not a causal relation or anything like it. "All bachelors are unmarried men" carries no causal connection, and neither does "A=A". Mathematics can be rationally indubitable precisely because it amounts merely to stating and restating definitions.
Okay, that last sentence is simply ridiculous and I think you well know it. :p (or if not, go argue with a local math professor, pure or applied :D) As for the rest, just think of it as model and use to just to represent such a train of causal connections.
Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. This is begging the question. Time could very well be infinite unidirectionally, or not at all. Infinite possibility does not entail infinite actuality.
I'm just giving a possibility that works and does not involve any "first thing." Actually, this is the best explanation we have at the moment, which is why it is accepted by the majority of the scientific community today.
Ah, a difference of terms then. When I say universe, I mean the run-of-the-mill definition of universe as the spatio-temporal natural realm, and not the supernatural. The set of all existent things is on its own, sure. But why bring that up in the first place? (Actually, it probably doesn't matter...
Just bringing that up, since the causal loop cannot hold for individual particles without creating contradictions; the only way it works is if everything is in the loop and thus nothing can conflict with the system.
Oh sure, they are saying something. The difference between them and the second type is this: the first only refine our knowledge, making it clearer to us, whereas the second expand our knowledge. The first only tell us things we already know, because they are necessarily true. The second are the ones that actually make a difference, because they might not be true, and whether they are or not is what we want to know.
eh? Refining and expanding is the same thing when it comes to knowledge. If we are assuming the existence of an absolute reality, all statements are either true or false in that, and there is no such thing as "might be true." If one has not thought about it enough, it could also be said that my example might be either true or false also, so the same applies to any other statement, and it cannot be immediately said whether or not it is possible to ascertain a given statement's truth just from deduction.
I doubt you'd find nearly so much agreement between people as you suppose. One might think a basic greement on things like the existence of time and space would be certain to be agreed upon by all, but Buddhists and Jains and certain forms of Hindu religion(s) will deny that. How are you going to justify deciding against them, if you do, or for them, if you do that? Majority rules? Probably won't work too well. Considering the endless distinctions made between people, you'll only have minority groups.
:wtf: They do? I don't know of any religion that rejects the assumption of the existence of an absolute reality; the religions you mentioned above say that the visible absolute reality is a subset of a bigger one. The extentialistists would be the only ones who think like this, but there are other problems if we go by that assumption.
The alternative of course, is pure extentialism, so that there is no such thing as an absolute reality, but then there is nothing further to discuss, and we would all get bored. :D
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here, though it sounds interesting. Please expand and clarify.
Well, this point is a bit complicated and I don't have time to explain everything now, but the principal problem with the observation system today is that what is observed by individuals is not necessarily what is given as output. See, everyone may well (and probably does) observe the same things, as far as raw, pure, observation goes, but they all process and percieve that data differently. And even in the unlikely event that they do deduce the same thing, they may all say different things (simply lie) for reasons of their own. One of the main reasons for the lack of objectivity comes from grouping the sets of particles together in the mind rather than viewing the properties of each particle independently. So if it is possible to build an "observing machine" that can observe with true objectivity and perform no deductions, our problem would probably be solvable. If a true continuum exists, this is of course impossible, but if there is a fundamental unbreakable building block that is larger than a point, then it is quite possible. If the space is also quantized, the property of position would be non-continuous and therefore objectively observable (to certain degrees of error, but that's an entirely different matter).
This probably sounds like rambling, but I will elaboate on it some other time.
What part of quantum theory are you getting that from? Closest I've ever read was about the quantum energy levels of electrons orbiting an atom. Quantanised space?
Well, that much comes from its namesake, since "quantum" means discrete (as opposed to continuous); the latest version of the quantum theory says that space itself is discrete (not just the particles but also the medium they exist in), but this is not accepted by everyone the same way that the "old" quantum theory is. If this is true, it probably is possible to make truly objective observations by measuring individual particle properties. (not accurate, but objective)
I see no logical impossibility. Demonstrate that.
Nothing can come from nothing, but if there is already a being with aseity (techincal term for "just-there-ness"), then there is not nothing, so a further creation is entirely logically possible.
He would "lose" some of himself while creating it though, or it would violate the first law of thermodynamics. Also, the universal material was once part of god, so in a sense, the statement that all of us are just as much god as god himself is quite true from your assumptions. :D
The laws of nature are descriptions, not prescriptions. There is nothing necessary about them. It is not valid to conclude from "Nature usually acts in this way" to "Therefore, nature must always act in this way, and if it did not that would be somehow self-contradictory." And when a miraculous even does occur, that does not invalidate the scientific law, since it remains true that this is the way nature usually behaves.
It is "valid" as far as our purposes go; this sort of induction procedure is what science is all about, and without it there would be no science. If there is an exception, it's not a law anymore. The reason that certain special rules are called laws is exactly that; there cannot be exceptions to them, no matter what. If the god can make funky miracles happen all over the place, there would be no such laws at all, since he could randomly violate them at any time. (also, if he can, so can anything else eventually, which further means that the laws are no longer laws) You can reject science and accept religion or vice versa and still remain within the confines of conventional logic, but you cannot have both, or there would be glaring contradictions; the two are fundamentally incompatible.
Logic is held to be a property of God himself. As such, it is not that he is subject to logic or not, but that he is the source of logic.
In that case, he would be the "source" of science as well, and one would have to keep him in the confines of science when trying to determine whether or not he "exists."
This one will really be my last reply here (I would have not written this one but the subject is just irrestible, isn't it? ;)), unless you happen to reply in half an hour like last time, but that's unlikely.
-
Ther laws of man are not bound to God. Just because we say "this is law cause it always happens this way" doesnt mean there isnt a God who can break them, we are just humans still trying to find out how we tick and the world. To think we are smart enough to denounce God is purely ridiculous. You havent Disproven him, and making Laws dont make him disappear.
-
I never said that we have disproven him; I said that it is more reasonable to assume that he does not exist as opposed the other alternative for the purposes of understanding other things. But laws are laws, so you either have the science or you have the god, but not both.
Although as I said, you might as well say that he is not bound to logic either, so he simply exists even if it was possible to prove his non-existence. :D (and in fact, if someone did indeed somehow find a valid logical proof of there being no god, I bet this is exactly what the theist crowd will say against it; they are only saying this for science and not for logic because science has progressed long beyond a point where it could no longer coexist with religion, and if logic had done/will do the same, their response would be no different)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I never said that we have disproven him; I said that it is more reasonable to assume that he does not exist as opposed the other alternative for the purposes of understanding other things. But laws are laws, so you either have the science or you have the god, but not both.
Although as I said, you might as well say that he is not bound to logic either, so he simply exists even if it was possible to prove his non-existence. :D (and in fact, if someone did indeed somehow find a valid logical proof of there being no god, I bet this is exactly what the theist crowd will say against it; they are only saying this for science and not for logic because science has progressed long beyond a point where it could no longer coexist with religion, and if logic had done/will do the same, their response would be no different)
So what are you saying there (the bold part).
If I get what I think you are saying; then you mean that science has proved Christianity to be false?
-
According to Clive Barker, God is called Hapaxmendios, and he's an evil bastard....
-
So what are you saying there (the bold part).
If I get what I think you are saying; then you mean that science has proved Christianity to be false?
Of course, due to the fact that it uses certain key assumptions (existence of certain universal rules, and so on); in the science system, you cannot have arbitrary "miracles" that simply defy any laws, because everything must be bound by some laws directly from the axioms, which god is not supposed to be. You can have a religion with some kind of semi-god that would still fit in with science, but Christianity is a far cry from that with its all-powerful god. This is the same way that Christianity has proved the falsehood of science with its own set of assumptions. Now, like I said, it would still be logical to disown all science and go for religion instead, which is what some people such as yourself seem to be doing (not the most rational/efficient option for discovery purposes, but it would still be quite acceptable), but you cannot have both and expect to have any shred of consistency.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Of course, due to the fact that it uses certain key assumptions (existence of certain universal rules, and so on); in the science system, you cannot have arbitrary "miracles" that simply defy any laws, because everything must be bound by some laws directly from the axioms, which god is not supposed to be. You can have a religion with some kind of semi-god that would still fit in with science, but Christianity is a far cry from that with its all-powerful god. This is the same way that Christianity has proved the falsehood of science with its own set of assumptions. Now, like I said, it would still be logical to disown all science and go for religion instead, which is what some people such as yourself seem to be doing (not the most rational/efficient option for discovery purposes, but it would still be quite acceptable), but you cannot have both and expect to have any shred of consistency.
So let me get this straight, I can either believe in science or I can believe in God (Christianity). And I have no choice to chose to believe both can co-exist. Am I right on the money?
How come the first sciencetists did not think this? What in science makes your statments true? *Believe me these next questions are part of this.* How come evolution is more believable then Christianity/God? Isn't evolution random chance and occurrences? How can that fit in a universe that science has found to be orderly and predicable?
How can you math prove that God doesn't exist? I could come up with a math problem to say you are older or younger then you are (though I'm no math wiz). But would that make it true? Note I'd have to make a least one assumption to do this, or one mistake. You're math is based on the assumption that God doesn't exist and you know everything. How come the Bible can't be my proof like math is yours? The Bible has at least one "scientific" verse (don't know where others are). In Job it says, "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing." (Job 26). Or I can use Jesus as a base to prove that the Bible is true. I can do that because there are other writers around His time who wrote of Him. How come these are not valid arguments but you math is?
-
A religion does not rely on the fact that a god actualy exists, it depends on faith.
Now, I do not believe in a god, but everyone who is religious just because they say there is a god that controls all, knows all, does all, etc etc etc etc etc etc... Will be seen by me as "unusual" people.
But nonetheless I will respect their beliefs.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
How can you math prove that God doesn't exist? I could come up with a math problem to say you are older or younger then you are (though I'm no math wiz)
Euclid managed it. Or has he been mentioned already? Anyway, the whole things invalid anyway, since my mate Mike (who's taking a degree in Hard Sums) has managed to prove that Pi is not only exactly three, but also exactly two. At the same time. He's also proved that 2 = -1, and that "a" can never equal a prime number.
-
That proves it, then. God is Mike.
-
err.. Mike is the Archangel, IIRC.
-
So let me get this straight, I can either believe in science or I can believe in God (Christianity). And I have no choice to chose to believe both can co-exist. Am I right on the money?
you can beleve ether God made man or there was no god involved our creation, I don't see how any (sane) person could beleve both at the same time
How come the first sciencetists did not think this?
becase the exsisting, yet untested establishment of knowleg at the time was this and these people were only focusing on one small aspect of reality, no one had thought of evolution yet (and if they would have they probly would have been burned at the stake) so god was a logical nesesity to fill in the unknown gap.
.* How come evolution is more believable then Christianity/God?
becase it does not rely on 'magic'™©®,
'becase there is a mecanism that can be understud tested and manipulated,
becase it has been proven to be a system that exsists and is currently working on us, becase you can see it happen, becase you can make it happen,
becase it follows a set of simple rules that don't change
Isn't evolution random chance and occurrences?
no, it isn't,
you have now reinforced my belef that nobody who understands evolution can deny it as reality
How can that fit in a universe that science has found to be orderly and predicable?
first we understand some mecanisms, the universe is in unfathumably complex place that we don't yet fully understand, 'random' is short for small things that we don't have the capability nor desire to get specifics on.
second, becase the random changes that are a small part of evolution have results that gives an individual ether an advantage or disadvantage, then directly relaits to it's ability to pass genes on to the next generation.
I could come up with a math problem to say you are older or younger then you are
I'd like to see that
How come the Bible can't be my proof like math is yours?
becase his math is not soley dependent on his math book to be proven,
1+1=2
you see scientific things are determined by observing the world trying to figure out why something is the way it is, then testing that assumption and changeing it when ever a better idea comes around.
religion stops before the test phase
the only proof you have that would give you the world veiw you have comes from you're holy book,
example: you say that us being alive is proof of God, becase if there wasn't a god we wouldn't be here.
but were did you come up with god, why is it a necsesity?
it is added with out any further proof.
were here, so it is logical to assume we were some how created, but it is not logical to say a magical invisable man in the sky scooped mud out of a river bank and breathed life into it wich then became us. unless that is you have some sort of evedence that makes such a senario more likey than, a giant space goat takeing a crap on the planetwich then sat in the sun untill it became human, or the magic red dragon forged us from a lake of molten fire.
evolution has physical, tangable, "hold in you're hand an look at it", evedence, that makes it more likely a senario than any of the previusly mentioned posabilities.
now go find us something that gives the creation story some creedance, that does not require you looking for something out of the book, or major interpetation to fit it in.
-
Originally posted by Alikchi
That proves it, then. God is Mike.
It being a Sunday lunch time, he's currently asleep on the sofa, but I shall tell him this when he wakes up. I'm sure he'll be pleased :)
-
One question. Did you even read the whole post? Or for that matter know any history?
For instance you quoted
How come the first sciencetists did not think this?
Your reply.
becase the exsisting, yet untested establishment of knowleg at the time was this and these people were only focusing on one small aspect of reality, no one had thought of evolution yet (and if they would have they probly would have been burned at the stake) so god was a logical nesesity to fill in the unknown gap.
Evolution had been suggested before. Just no possible means of how it could be done.
Me
---------
How come evolution is more believable then Christianity/God?
You
---------
becase it does not rely on 'magic'™©®,
'becase there is a mecanism that can be understud tested and manipulated,
becase it has been proven to be a system that exsists and is currently working on us, becase you can see it happen, becase you can make it happen,
becase it follows a set of simple rules that don't change
Where is the proof that evolution is happening and has happend? If you go for the bones then you are use bad evidence. #1 the bones don't prove a thing #2 The flood could have done the samething by burying them. Any "evidence" (e.g. Bones and rock) for evolution is circumstantial, that goes for the creation model too.
Me
---------
Isn't evolution random chance and occurrences?
You
---------
no, it isn't,
you have now reinforced my belef that nobody who understands evolution can deny it as reality
Yes it is random chance/change and chance. I do understand it but unlike you I don't believe it. Duh.
Me
---------
How can that fit in a universe that science has found to be orderly and predicable?
You
---------
first we understand some mecanisms, the universe is in unfathumably complex place that we don't yet fully understand, 'random' is short for small things that we don't have the capability nor desire to get specifics on.
second, becase the random changes that are a small part of evolution have results that gives an individual ether an advantage or disadvantage, then directly relaits to it's ability to pass genes on to the next generation.
:wtf: Are you agreeing with me? Random is something you can't calculate will happen. You can predict what the chances are for a di to land on 4 but not that it will. We can calculate where the planets, moons, and other bodies in space where they will be decades or centurys from now. Infact we can tell where they were in the past. That my friend is not random chance. We can even predict what flowers will look like.
Me
---------
I could come up with a math problem to say you are older or younger then you are
You
---------
I'd like to see that
You forgot the important part, the next two sentences. "But would that make it true? Note I'd have to make a least one assumption to do this, or one mistake."
Me
---------
How come the Bible can't be my proof like math is yours?
You
---------
becase his math is not soley dependent on his math book to be proven,
1+1=2
you see scientific things are determined by observing the world trying to figure out why something is the way it is, then testing that assumption and changeing it when ever a better idea comes around.
religion stops before the test phase
the only proof you have that would give you the world veiw you have comes from you're holy book,
example: you say that us being alive is proof of God, becase if there wasn't a god we wouldn't be here.
but were did you come up with god, why is it a necsesity?
it is added with out any further proof.
were here, so it is logical to assume we were some how created, but it is not logical to say a magical invisable man in the sky scooped mud out of a river bank and breathed life into it wich then became us. unless that is you have some sort of evedence that makes such a senario more likey than, a giant space goat takeing a crap on the planetwich then sat in the sun untill it became human, or the magic red dragon forged us from a lake of molten fire.
evolution has physical, tangable, "hold in you're hand an look at it", evedence, that makes it more likely a senario than any of the previusly mentioned posabilities.
You are again forgetting parts of my post. I know you can go to the store and find that 1+1=2 with apples. I posted a verses from Job and about other writers from around Jesus' time that wrote about Him. To establish at least some crediblity to the Bible. Now since we have no other evidence that Christ didn't do the things He did then "Innocent until proven guilty." the same with evolution.
Evolution is a belief just like Christianity is. Since we weren't there we have to rely on others that were or in the case of evolution thought it up.
That's all for now. I'm sure to think up something else.
BTW diamondgeezer are you talking to me?
-
Satan... his name is satan... good and evil are all the same...
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
BTW diamondgeezer are you talking to me?
Err... to which bit are you refering?
Originally posted by Reaper
Satan... his name is satan... good and evil are all the same...
No, that's the light and dark side of the Force you're thinking of there :)
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Err... to which bit are you refering?
The post just before my last one.
-
Where is the proof that evolution is happening
I get sick, I take antibiodics to get better, I feel better, but I don't take the full dose, some of the bacteria survive as something about them made them less suseptable to the drug, they grow and multiply, I get sick again...
this cycle repetes its self untill I die becase my medication no longer henders them.
dog breeders, look for a trait, when theyfind it they breed it with onother with that trait, thus that trait becomes more promonant
Yes it is random chance/change and chance
no it isn't
it is only a part of mutation, wich is a small part of the system overall
it is not all there is to evolution
random is something that is so small and obscure that were neither care to nor could calculate them with acuracy, stuff that is way beond the scope of us careing about them, in reality if the universe were to restart with all the values being 'exactly' the same, all of the "random" events in the universe would play out exactly the same way as it did last time.
but in order to predict random events you'd have to figure in the effects of every subatomic paricle on every other subatomic particle in the univers for everyzilianth of a second
you still don't seem to understand the diference between thinking something is the way it is becase you've looked at it and becase someone told you that was the way,
note science has splits on what things realy are on nearly every aspect of the universe,
religion excomunicates thouse who think diferently
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
The post just before my last one.
Er... no. I was talking to Alikchi, it being that I quoted his post, see?
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Yes it is random chance/change and chance. I do understand it but unlike you I don't believe it. Duh.
The mutations are 'random' however the method in which the mutation is carried on is not. (good mutation is found, said specimen lives and manages to spread it's mutated genes, good traits are passed on -that's not "random")
By the way, why don't you believe it? there's plenty of evidence to show it....
(and what exactly is wrong with what Bobbau is saying?)
:wtf: Are you agreeing with me? Random is something you can't calculate will happen. You can predict what the chances are for a di to land on 4 but not that it will. We can calculate where the planets, moons, and other bodies in space where they will be decades or centurys from now. Infact we can tell where they were in the past. That my friend is not random chance. We can even predict what flowers will look like.
this prediction is not entirely accurate though. THe world is immeasurably complex and you can't simply dictate an absolute for something even if you calculate it with observed data. This is randomness... (if you drop a little bit of water on your hand can you calculate exactly how it will react? no because there are an infinite [or for all practical purposes infinite] numbers of factors affecting that drop of water)
You are again forgetting parts of my post. I know you can go to the store and find that 1+1=2 with apples. I posted a verses from Job and about other writers from around Jesus' time that wrote about Him. To establish at least some crediblity to the Bible. Now since we have no other evidence that Christ didn't do the things He did then "Innocent until proven guilty." the same with evolution.
inability to disprove does not make it true...
Evolution is a belief just like Christianity is. Since we weren't there we have to rely on others that were or in the case of evolution thought it up.
so? evolution is a more sensible belief because it is based on observed information rather than a bunch of supposed content from a book...
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I get sick, I take antibiodics to get better, I feel better, but I don't take the full dose, some of the bacteria survive as something about them made them less suseptable to the drug, they grow and multiply, I get sick again...
this cycle repetes its self untill I die becase my medication no longer henders them.
dog breeders, look for a trait, when they find it they breed it with onother with that trait, thus that trait becomes more promonant
The bacteria has evolved but not in the sense that you think. This kind of evolution is micro-evolution. It may have a new immunity to the antibiodics but it doesn't make a new kind of bacteria. This happens to everything that lives. But it doesn't make new kinds.
When you breed dogs (or anything else) you are propagating traits hidden and seen. These traits are in the dogs DNA already.
If you don't get it find a christian scientist.
-
You cant prove God nor Evolution, so dont talk of evolution as though its fact and don't speak of God as though its fact.
Its all speculation and heresay!
-
Evolution can be seen in many ways. One way can be proven at least: Through costums, ways of life, art, books, etc etc etc we evolve (and sometimes devolve). We "learn" from experiences like war (well I hope). This is also evolving. It isn't just DNA.
We evolve in the simplest of things. Once you fall over something you'll watch out next time. Even that is a small example of evolving. And this is tought to the children who will learn more things then their parents. Evolving does not always involve DNA and stuff.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
The bacteria has evolved but not in the sense that you think. This kind of evolution is micro-evolution. It may have a new immunity to the antibiodics but it doesn't make a new kind of bacteria. This happens to everything that lives. But it doesn't make new kinds.
When you breed dogs (or anything else) you are propagating traits hidden and seen. These traits are in the dogs DNA already.
So what? It is still spreading traits that a certain animal has so as to increase the number of animals with said trait. artificial selection right there, a part of evolution
If you don't get it find a christian scientist.
As CP has said before (IIRC) there is no clear line between "kinds" as you say. The only reason we use our dividing system (to separate animal species and such) is for practicality, we are obsessed with finding ways to identify things but don't want to create too many names and such.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
As CP has said before (IIRC) there is no clear line between "kinds" as you say.
If by kinds you mean species, do yourself a favor and grab a biology book.
-
When you breed dogs (or anything else) you are propagating traits hidden and seen. These traits are in the dogs DNA already.
so are you asserting that this sort of thing is imposable in nature useing only the animals uniqe colection of traits vs the hardships of the world rather than a human looking for poofy fur?
-
Originally posted by Levyathan
If by kinds you mean species, do yourself a favor and grab a biology book.
I don't mean species... not sure what hotsnoj wanted to mean.
Anyway hotsnoj do you recognize the existence of 'micro-evolution' then? Then you surely must accept evolution because evolution is essentially lots of micro-evolution which piled up to actually be detectably different (Of course I've heard claims that certain mutations aren't beneficial without other mutations and that simultaneous mutation is not possible/probably/practical/something and therefore said mutation must have been incited by god or something like that... anyone know the scientific explanation for simultaneous development of symbiotic traits??)
-
You guys eem to be sticking to the idea that evolution is merely DNA related. But let me say this one more time:
Evolution is not confined by DNA, it goes much further (see my previous post).
-
Originally posted by Tiara
You guys eem to be sticking to the idea that evolution is merely DNA related. But let me say this one more time:
Evolution is not confined by DNA, it goes much further (see my previous post).
But I'm talking about physical change, not behaviorial evolution of whatnot... (it is largely physical change that creationists resist)
-
anyone know the scientific explanation for simultaneous development of symbiotic traits?
you mean things like moles and mole circkets both haveing big front legs, and many cave animals haveing nearly no eyes.
seems logical to me that if there is a simple easy adaptation to be made to an environment by one animal then a similar adaptation would be likely to ocur in other animals, if aplicable.
Tiara , were discusing evolution of organisms, wich is an undirected system. the word evolution is used for many diferent things, most generaly haveing to do with altering or adapting to fit new situations. but this is not exactly the context we are currently discusing,
but you are corect in that things other than DNA are to be consitered, it is mearly the most obvius factor, things like experience and (in socal animals) culture also play into exolution
the only definition of evolution that needs to be proven is that one group of animals can be seperated into two, and then one of these groupes be made geneticaly incompatable (breeding two of them (male and female :doubt: ) will not result in a animal capable of reproduction) with the other after an extended peroid of time, measured in generations,
usualy many thousands of generations in very diferent environments are needed to cause a new species
and lonestar evolution is much more factual than creationism, if one must be refered to as fact then evolution is the better choice.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
I don't mean species... not sure what hotsnoj wanted to mean.
Anyway hotsnoj do you recognize the existence of 'micro-evolution' then? Then you surely must accept evolution because evolution is essentially lots of micro-evolution which piled up to actually be detectably different (Of course I've heard claims that certain mutations aren't beneficial without other mutations and that simultaneous mutation is not possible/probably/practical/something and therefore said mutation must have been incited by god or something like that... anyone know the scientific explanation for simultaneous development of symbiotic traits??)
How do I put this. "Kind" is a broader term then species is. Species is a sub-set of kind. For instance canine is a kind, wolves are a species of canie (I can't remember it's scientific name).
I believe the evolution within kinds. For instance the wolf could change (though breeding) to the domestic dog we know today. They could alse change into another speacies of wolf or canine (kind). But never into another kind (eg cats, birds, of something completely new).
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
But I'm talking about physical change, not behaviorial evolution of whatnot... (it is largely physical change that creationists resist)
But behaviorial evolution sometimes leads to physical change and inadvertently affecting DNA. For example:
This century humans have become taller due to eating lotsa meat with steroids and other things (this is just an example). Now this has become sort of a "costum" amongst people and has been past on. Wether it is by capitalistic influence or your next door neighbour. It has become part of us.
And because of this behaviorial evolution the human DNA has changed. Human are born bigger, grow taller, etc then they used to.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
But behaviorial evolution sometimes leads to physical change and inadvertently affecting DNA. For example:
This century humans have become taller due to eating lotsa meat with steroids and other things (this is just an example). Now this has become sort of a "costum" amongst people and has been past on. Wether it is by capitalistic influence or your next door neighbour. It has become part of us.
And because of this behaviorial evolution the human DNA has changed. Human are born bigger, grow taller, etc then they used to.
Could I ask why then people in Africa and Asia are smaller? Are you saying they are't quite human yet? ('cuz their not as tall as the people in the USA normaly are)
Don't you think better nutrition is more a part of it?
-
She did say it was an EXAMPLE not an "over all proven to effect every human on the planet" fact.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Could I ask why then people in Africa and Asia are smaller? Are you saying they are't quite human yet? ('cuz their not as tall as the people in the USA normaly are)
Don't you think better nutrition is more a part of it?
First of all it was an example.
Second of all, you just gave a second example:
Better nutrition. It does affect physical appearances throughout the generations. If two parents are living of rice and fish only their baby will most likely have less "healthy" DNA.
-
You're confusing nature with nurture. A baby with tall genes (or "tall" DNA) that is malnourished throughout its life is going to be a short adult. It has nothing to do with DNA being "changed" to "short" DNA (which doesn't happen anyway).
Breeding or "microevolution" is established as fact - the interaction and recombination of genes through two-parent reproduction. What Christians have issue with is macroevolution - that random chance alone is responsible for the emergence of whole new species. We accept microevolution as fact - we do not accept macroevolution, as governed by random chance, as fact.
-
They are the same thing though. We just call lots of microevolution in series macroevolution.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
First of all it was an example.
Second of all, you just gave a second example:
Better nutrition. It does affect physical appearances throughout the generations. If two parents are living of rice and fish only their baby will most likely have less "healthy" DNA.
no no no no. That's not what I meant. The only less "healthy" thing about the baby is that it didn't get the right nutrition while in the womb. While the parents not getting them it does not effect the genes in that way.
-
OK, here's a question for the christians: in Januray, the world's first cloned human will be born. This embryo has grown from an egg 'tricked' into to thinking it had been fertilised. No sperm cells were involved, and yet the child is growing perfectly naturally in all other respects.
So basically, we're pretty much on a par with God now, right? I mean, is there anything else he can do that we can't?
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
OK, here's a question for the christians: in Januray, the world's first cloned human will be born. This embryo has grown from an egg 'tricked' into to thinking it had been fertilised. No sperm cells were involved, and yet the child is growing perfectly naturally in all other respects.
So basically, we're pretty much on a par with God now, right? I mean, is there anything else he can do that we can't?
Dance the funky chicken and not look like an idiot.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
OK, here's a question for the christians: in Januray, the world's first cloned human will be born. This embryo has grown from an egg 'tricked' into to thinking it had been fertilised. No sperm cells were involved, and yet the child is growing perfectly naturally in all other respects.
"tricked"
well, i'll believe it when i see it on the news
... in January
... when it's hatched
-
Originally posted by Tiara
We evolve in the simplest of things. Once you fall over something you'll watch out next time. Even that is a small example of evolving. And this is tought to the children who will learn more things then their parents. Evolving does not always involve DNA and stuff.
that's learning from mistakes, it's common sense, not evolution
:rolleyes:
so if some horny guy masturbates, he "evolves"
... oh, but what about when he's done... does he "devolve"!?
(sorry to use such an example, but it's the only example i could think of)
they say that you're always taller in the morning... so in the morning you're tall, and over the day you "devolve" slightly smaller... then overnight you "evolve" taller again.
... remember there's a difference between learning something, and evolving.
"knowing" not to put my hand on a hot stove... i didn't "evolve" that, i "learned" it... from experience
it's stupid, it's common sense.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
So basically, we're pretty much on a par with God now, right? I mean, is there anything else he can do that we can't?
I think he'll be Santa Claus...THE santa claus :D
-
Originally posted by Stealth
well, i'll believe it when i see it on the news
... in January
... when it's hatched
*shrugs*
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2517351.stm
-
Originally posted by CP5670
They are the same thing though. We just call lots of microevolution in series macroevolution.
No, they aren't. Microevolution is defined as combining genes from different parents in different combinations to produce variety in offspring. With selective combination, some varieties become more distinct from others over time. This is why we have so many breeds of dogs, but they are all the same species.
Macroevolution, on the other hand, is defined as genetic mutation to produce entirely new species over time. Keep in mind that different species cannot mate with each other and produce fertile offspring. For a new species to be viable, it must have enough members to allow sufficient variety in genetic selection. For a specific organism to be considered a new species, it must be different enough that existing species cannot mate with it and produce fertile offspring. As you can see, we start running in circles here. New species don't appear by themselves; they are introduced by God (or, if you prefer, some other intelligent designer...perhaps even humans will be able to create new species one day).
-
hmmm little hands from the sky placing new animals and plants on the planet.........COOL!
:rolleyes:
-
Not currently. Remember, God rested on the seventh "day". No new species have been introduced since then.
-
So I guess dinosaurs were day 3 eh ? Cromags and such day 4 ?
Those are some long ass days ya know
-
The days don't have to be 24-hour periods, just "stages" of creation. With this interpretation, dinosaurs, Cro-Magnons, and modern humans were all created on the sixth day.
-
*decides to stick his head into the thread again, hoping against all hope it hasn't devolved into another "Creationists" vs. "Evolutionists" debacle*
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/scroll/misc/banghead.gif)
"Creationists": The Bible tells you nothing about how the creation was accomplished. Literalism is not valid here. The Church has always understood parts of the Bible to be non-literal, Genesis 1 and 2 especially included. Origen, in the 2nd century, explicitly cites Genesis 1 and 2 in discussion of the non-literal interpretation of Scripture. Augustine, the biggest name in Church history between Paul and the Reformation, was only converted after he learned of the allegorical method on understanding Scripture from Ambrose. The New Testament writers used the Old Testament in re-interpretive, non-literal ways all the time. The Old Testament never refers back to the Genesis account even once as a factual description. The dogged literalism that has grasped right-wing churches in its clutches is the aberration of the Church's history, the unfortunate spin-off of the Enlightenment's stupid and narrow restriction of truth to residing only in literal statements of fact. Truth is bigger than mere facts. Grasp on to the much broader and deeper understanding of the Bible's truth that the Church has had all through it's long history.
"Evolutionists": Christianity is not tied to any particular scientific theory. Just because evolution may indeed be the case does not mean that Christianity has been disproven. Christianity is indifferent on such issues, because the Bible says nothing about how it all happened. It has always been so. Non-literalism isn't a recent invention of the Church to "deal with science," it's been around from the beginning. Literalism is the odd one out. If anyone wants to try to disprove Christianity, you'll need to find a better argument than this (despite the opinions of certain individuals around here). Christianity is as compatible with Aristotelean spheres as with quantum mechanics, evolution or any theory that may come after, because it says nothing about them, it doesn't care.
-
Well if Christians (in general) are indifferent to science, that's cool. But you must realize most christians are against evolution for some odd reason or another, so I argue and say "you're talking bull****" to these people.
-
Actually, Christianity is at its core incompatible with science of any sort because the first and most fundamental assumption of science is already the exact opposite of Christianity, and the same goes for judging science given one of the major Christian axioms. Science assumes that all of reality operates on precise laws and rules, but god is not supposed to have any rules by which to act and has an entirely "free" will, which is why he is called god. Christianity (or at least the version of it being discussed here) assumes that there exists a god whose capabilities are absolute and who can defy any "laws" at a random will, which means that no such laws exist. If you have the god also bound by science laws, then it would be consistent, but then he would not be the god in the same sense spoken of here. So putting the two theories together creates a direct and blatant contradiction, which is why I said earlier that you can accept one or the other but not both.
No, they aren't. Microevolution is defined as combining genes from different parents in different combinations to produce variety in offspring. With selective combination, some varieties become more distinct from others over time. This is why we have so many breeds of dogs, but they are all the same species.
I know very little biology so you could be right here, but I think these differences in the parents' genes, however minute, are originally established in more or less the same way: the mutations are used by both processes of evolution. Once the different varieties have reached some certain level of diversity from the original and can still reproduce, they are called a new species.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, Christianity is at its core incompatible with science of any sort because the first and most fundamental assumption of science is already the exact opposite of Christianity, and the same goes for judging science given one of the major Christian axioms. Science assumes that all of reality operates on precise laws and rules, but god is not supposed to have any rules by which to act and has an entirely "free" will, which is why he is called god. Christianity (or at least the version of it being discussed here) assumes that there exists a god whose capabilities are absolute and who can defy any "laws" at a random will, which means that no such laws exist. If you have the god also bound by science laws, then it would be consistent, but then he would not be the god in the same sense spoken of here. So putting the two theories together creates a direct and blatant contradiction, which is why I said earlier that you can accept one or the other but not both.
I wondered if you might come back in here if I were to post again. ;)
Anyway, bollocks to the above.
1) Scientific investigation seeks to determine the patterns of behaviour of nature. The laws it finds are descriptions thereof. If there is a being outside of nature who is able to reach into nature and mess about a little enevy once in a while, that does not negate the descriptions of the usual patterns of behaviour. The assumption that the laws must be inviolable only makes sense if we have already excluded the possibility that a supernatural being exists who could do so. "The laws of nature are inviolable, therefore God couldn't do anything miraculous," is begging the question in a most blatant way, and inviolability of scientific law is not a necessary assumption to begin with. In fact, the laws themselves are always understood to mean "Given this situation, and barring any outside interference, such and such will happen." Nothing in that specifies whether the interference in question comes from another natural source or a supernatural one.
2) As I pointed out in the old religion thread, there is nothing to say that miracles have to be violations of the laws of nature per se, anyway. If we have a billiard table with balls on it, we can use the laws to predict how the balls will move when hit by the cue. But what if someone outside of the system suddenly drops another ball onto the table? The results will be different than otherwise expected. Likewise, if a supernatural being outside the system of nature has the power to create out of nothing, he could add (or subtract) stuff from nature in such a way as to change the results without breaking the laws at all.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Well if Christians (in general) are indifferent to science, that's cool. But you must realize most christians are against evolution for some odd reason or another, so I argue and say "you're talking bull****" to these people.
Well, fair enough. I think so too, to be honest. I'd say evolutionary theory is fairly credible (though I do have a few questions about it on the purely scientific level that I want to look into sometime, and am not going to fully grant it credence until they are answered).
-
I wondered if you might come back in here if I were to post again. ;)
I happen to have a little extra free time tonight. :D
1) Scientific investigation seeks to determine the patterns of behaviour of nature. The laws it finds are descriptions thereof. If there is a being outside of nature who is able to reach into nature and mess about a little enevy once in a while, that does not negate the descriptions of the usual patterns of behaviour. The assumption that the laws must be inviolable only makes sense if we have already excluded the possibility that a supernatural being exists who could do so. "The laws of nature are inviolable, therefore God couldn't do anything miraculous," is begging the question in a most blatant way, and inviolability of scientific law is not a necessary assumption to begin with. In fact, the laws themselves are always understood to mean "Given this situation, and barring any outside interference, such and such will happen." Nothing in that specifies whether the interference in question comes from another natural source or a supernatural one.
Yes it does. As I said before, the reason it is called a law is that there can be absolutely no exceptions to it, no matter what; this is the defining characteristic of a law in the scientific sense. Science says that such laws exist and that events in the universe are not completely random. We are not interested in how often the god violates the laws, but simply whether or not he does it; the very fact that he does it means that the "law" is not a law at all. Also, if he can do it "once in a while," he can just as easily do it all the time if he feels like it, so even that cannot hold. (and if he cannot do it all the time, then he is still bound by laws, which you have said he is not) The true laws of nature are indeed are absolutely inviolable, or they would not be laws, and such laws exist in the science system.
2) As I pointed out in the old religion thread, there is nothing to say that miracles have to be violations of the laws of nature per se, anyway. If we have a billiard table with balls on it, we can use the laws to predict how the balls will move when hit by the cue. But what if someone outside of the system suddenly drops another ball onto the table? The results will be different than otherwise expected. Likewise, if a supernatural being outside the system of nature has the power to create out of nothing, he could add (or subtract) stuff from nature in such a way as to change the results without breaking the laws at all.
We are not talking about these particular laws that we have right now, but rather laws in general. Science postulates that there exist some laws that describe everything (what these laws actually are and whether or not we can/have discovered them is entirely another issue; we only care about their existence here) but if the god's actions could be fully predicted by the laws, he would not be much of a god.You have said that the god cannot be bound by any laws, natural or supernatural, but then he falls out of science.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
As I said before, the reason it is called a law is that there can be absolutely no exceptions to it, no matter what; this is the defining characteristic of a law in the scientific sense.
No, that would be a mathematical law, perhaps, given that they are logically necessary, but not a scientific one. I again remind you that the assumption that nature's patterns of behaviour are inviolable depends upon the assumption that there is no supernatural reality. There is no logical necessity that nature should be inviolable, so anyone who assumes that it is must base that assumption on the belief that there is no supernature. But that is a religious belief, not a scientific one (see below).
We are not talking about these particular laws that we have right now, but rather laws in general. Science postulates that there exist some laws that describe everything (what these laws actually are and whether or not we can/have discovered them is entirely another issue; we only care about their existence here) but if the god's actions could be fully predicted by the laws, he would not be much of a god.You have said that the god cannot be bound by any laws, natural or supernatural, but then he falls out of science.
Science describes the patterns of nature's behaviour. It says nothing about supernature at all, so what's your point?
Also, what does this have to do with what I posted under #2, anyway?
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/scroll/misc/banghead.gif)
-
No, that would be a mathematical law, perhaps, given that they are logically necessary, but not a scientific one. I again remind you that the assumption that nature's patterns of behaviour are inviolable depends upon the assumption that there is no supernatural reality.
A scientific law in the abstract sense I am talking about is basically a mathematical/logical law. Nature by definition must include everything in it, so if there is a "supernatural" world that exists in the same system as the natural one, it is merely a part of the natural one and might as well be called natural.
Science describes the patterns of nature's behaviour. It says nothing about supernature at all, so what's your point?
Such a supernature is a subset of nature as far as our discussion here goes; its existence is a necessary and sufficient condition for its being a part of nature also.
Also, what does this have to do with what I posted under #2, anyway?
eh? It seemed to me that you were giving the "known" natural laws as examples there, with all the stuff about natural systems, so I put in some stuff to contest that. Should have added in that these sub-systems are not necessary distinctions for nature as a whole, though.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/scroll/misc/banghead.gif)
----------------------------------------------------------
I assume that was posted at CP and I? :)
Well, at least our conversation makes sense... ;)
-
hey, it's always fun to have a little fight around here... :D
-
It looks like you guys are primarily arguing over what exactly is nature and what laws apply to it. Define your terms so that you can frame the debate properly. You two seem to have different definitions of terms, and you can't argue well unless you agree on exactly what you're arguing.
Sesquipedalian's position seems to be that "nature" constitutes the space-time continuum - the universe as we know it. The universe is a closed system and has a definite beginning in both time and space. The "supernatural" realm is outside of the universe, is not a closed system, and can influence the "natural" realm without being bound by the "natural" realm's laws. Here, God exists in the supernatural realm and is not subject to any outside constraints.
CP5670's position seems to be that "nature" constitutes absolutely everything, including what Sesquipedalian calls the "supernatural" realm. In this case, even the supernatural realm is a closed system (since it is not a separate realm at all and is in fact part of the "natural" realm) and is subject to certain laws. Here, "God" is part of "everything" and thus is subject to some kind of constraint.
With CP5670's definition of terms, no god can exist outside of nature, so it must be bound by some kind of constraint, which disqualifies it from being God in the Christian sense.
Agree on exactly which terms mean which definitions, and then you can perhaps make some headway. It seems that you currently are engaged in circular arguments because of inconsistent definitions of terms.
Am I accurate in my observations? :) Am I making any sense? ;)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
A scientific law in the abstract sense I am talking about is basically a mathematical/logical law.
Scientific laws aren't abstract in that sense. They deal with concrete reality. Logical necessities are all well and good, but not the issue: gravity working as it does (or even existing at all) is not a logical necessity, nor are the laws of thermodynamics, nor the laws of relativity, nor anything else. They are all contingent, may well have been otherwise, therefore carry no necessity, and therefore could possibly be violated.
Nature by definition must include everything in it, so if there is a "supernatural" world that exists in the same system as the natural one, it is merely a part of the natural one and might as well be called natural.
Ah, a difference of terms again. Nature: the realm of matter and energy interacting in space and time. Supernature: a realm of existence not comprised of matter and energy interacting in space and time. Science deals with matter and energy interacting in space and time, it does not deal with forms of existence outside of matter and energy interacting in space and time
eh? It seemed to me that you were giving the "known" natural laws as examples there, with all the stuff about natural systems, so I put in some stuff to contest that. Should have added in that these sub-systems are not necessary distinctions for nature as a whole, though.
Nope, I was saying that if a being exists in the supernatural realm (see above for definitions), and able to create from nothing the contents of the natural realm, he could engage in creations of things (or removals of them, for that matter) in the natural realm without affecting in any way the usual patterns of behaviour of things already existing in the natural realm. It doesn't matter what the actual patterns are, so far as this goes.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Am I accurate in my observations? :) Am I making any sense? ;)
Very accurate. I'd just come to the same realisation as you can see. Thanks for the imput. :)
-
Goober: sounds good to me. :D
Scientific laws aren't abstract in that sense. They deal with concrete reality. Logical necessities are all well and good, but not the issue: gravity working as it does (or even existing at all) is not a logical necessity, nor are the laws of thermodynamics, nor the laws of relativity, nor anything else. They are all contingent, may well have been otherwise, therefore carry no necessity, and therefore could possibly be violated.
The theory of science still holds fine though; the general idea of the scientific law (rather than specific laws) is abstract. Also, the fact that the universe is a tight system with everything connected to everything else possibly implies that none of those laws are contingent and the universe would be inconsistent if they were otherwise, since it could mean that reason that the laws are so is to have things consistent. (we just might not have discovered the inconsistency yet) This bit I will not argue on just yet since I am still in the process of discovery myself here.
Ah, a difference of terms again. Nature: the realm of matter and energy interacting in space and time. Supernature: a realm of existence not comprised of matter and energy interacting in space and time. Science deals with matter and energy interacting in space and time, it does not deal with forms of existence outside of matter and energy interacting in space and time.
There is nothing in science that says that it will only deal with matter and energy interacting in space and time. On the contrary, the modern physics of today is attempting to deal with everything, all of the absolute reality and objective existence, in an attempt to find a theory explaining truly everything.
If you don't like the word "nature," just substitute "everything" for it in my posts. :D
Nope, I was saying that if a being exists in the supernatural realm (see above for definitions), and able to create from nothing the contents of the natural realm, he could engage in creations of things (or removals of them, for that matter) in the natural realm without affecting in any way the usual patterns of behaviour of things already existing in the natural realm. It doesn't matter what the actual patterns are, so far as this goes.
Exactly, which is why I said that I should have put in an extra statement there.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
I assume that was posted at CP and I? :)
Well, at least our conversation makes sense... ;)
No just the general feeling this thread gives me at times :D lol
-
Originally posted by CP5670
The theory of science still holds fine though; the general idea of the scientific law (rather than specific laws) is abstract. Also, the fact that the universe is a tight system with everything connected to everything else possibly implies that none of those laws are contingent and the universe would be inconsistent if they were otherwise, since it could mean that reason that the laws are so is to have things consistent. (we just might not have discovered the inconsistency yet) This bit I will not argue on just yet since I am still in the process of discovery myself here.
Contingently necessary scientific laws, eh? I say your wise to leave it at that. No one has ever suceeded in making an argument for necessary scientific laws, at least not that I know of. And lacking one, miracles do remain a logical possibility.
There is nothing in science that says that it will only deal with matter and energy interacting in space and time. On the contrary, the modern physics of today is attempting to deal with everything, all of the absolute reality and objective existence, in an attempt to find a theory explaining truly everything.
How then do you propose to have science deal with the supernatural? I'd be interested to see that. In the meantime, that is all that science deals with. Those who say science is trying to deal with everything are either 1) no bothering to make explicit that they mean everything in the natural realm, or 2) are assuming that there is no supernatural andthus the natural is all there is, which is not a scientific assumption, but a religious one.
Making descriptions of how natural objects usually behave (that is, without any outside interference) is great, but the set of natural objects is one thing, and the set of everything is another. There is no reason to assume the laws (i.e. patterns of behaviour) that govern natural objects apply to that which is not natural.
Exactly, which is why I said that I should have put in an extra statement there.
Ah. But that accomplishes little. As said, a creation from nothing does not need to change the patterns of behaviour of natural (in my sense) objects, it just adds another element into the mix. The patterns of behaviour of natural objects (in my sense) do not tell us anything about the supernatural (not scientifically, anyway), since the supernatural is a whole other thing.
Anyway, I'll be back maybe tomorrow, or if not than another day soon. :)
-
I think I understand the general gist of your arguments... but a question: "is it reasonable to assume there is a supernatural when we can't even perceive it?"
Isn't is much more reasonable to use what we can perceive as our basis for study and developement rather than what we have no way of knowing, sensing, being? (if a christian god really exists we cannot know, sense or be this properly -though that assumes there is a god in the first place to have a non-detectable supernatural :p) Or am I missing somehting here?
Of course assuming there absolutely isn't a supernatural isn't reasonable either, but I don't think a 'supernatural' should be taken into account for science. (though we can't 'see' electrons we know they exist by using various tools. However can we ever detect a god? detect the supernatural? No, because they are supernatural. -seems to me almost as a way of execusing non-detectability of god)
/me still thinks agnostism is the only reasonable belief
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
I think I understand the general gist of your arguments... but a question: "is it reasonable to assume there is a supernatural when we can't even perceive it?"
Isn't is much more reasonable to use what we can perceive as our basis for study and developement rather than what we have no way of knowing, sensing, being? (if a christian god really exists we cannot know, sense or be this properly -though that assumes there is a god in the first place to have a non-detectable supernatural :p) Or am I missing somehting here?
Of course assuming there absolutely isn't a supernatural isn't reasonable either, but I don't think a 'supernatural' should be taken into account for science. (though we can't 'see' electrons we know they exist by using various tools. However can we ever detect a god? detect the supernatural? No, because they are supernatural. -seems to me almost as a way of execusing non-detectability of god)
/me still thinks agnostism is the only reasonable belief
I think agnosticism is reasonable, too. I certainly have muchmore respect for it that atheism, logically speaking. I'd even say I'm an agnostic in the absolute sense, though one who's seen too much not think Christianity has a pretty strong case. I've thrown in with it because it made less sense not too, rather than because I am utterly certain about it. The demand for utter certainty is not a reasonable one for human beings to make about anything at all.
But I wouldn't say we have no experience of the supernatural.
First, there is the possibility of spiritual experiences (I'd say the reality of them, given my experience). Little can be proven from these, however, so the discussion of them might not be very fruitful save within a group who already have a basic religious agreement.
Second, and much more importantly, there are the instances where the supernatural "invades" the natural. Miracles are one such type of instance, though not the only. I usually pull out the story of my little brother's having his ruptured spleen spontaneously healed in front of a bunch of doctors and medical technicians while he lay on the table in front of them as an example of this, since it happened in front of knowledgable, non-Christian witnesses who can offer no explanation whatsoever. But that's not the only miracle I've seen, and it's not the only sort of supernatural intervention in the natural that happens. Many Christians will tell you that God still actively does things through his people like prophecy and such, and I'm one of them.
If we confine our sphere of knowledge to merely the natural, I find that we cannot account for everything that happens. What I've encountered, and many many others too, is that just looking at the natural does not explain enough.
Anyway, I really am off now. G'night.
-
The Bible tells you nothing about how the creation was accomplished.
Oh yes it does.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day.
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:3-25)
Science deals with the realm that we can see, observe, and test to find out if it is true. Since it cannot see, observe, and test the supernatural then it [science] can't say if it exists or not.
Can you see my thoughts? Can you observe my thoughts? Can you test to see if it is there (I know of MRI's but that doesn't let you see my thoughts)? The answer is a resounding NO! So by CP's views it [thoughts] can't possibly exist.
We know life had to start somehow. We have tested to see if spontanous generation could have happend. But so far it has been seen, obsevered, and tested that it can't. And just because something could have happend doesn't mean it did.
-
"Oh yes it does"
oh, no it doesn't, none of those bolded statments say how god did any of those things, it only says that god made them happen some how.
"Can you see my thoughts?"
I'm not sure about your's :p
but, were working on it.
"We know life had to start somehow"
evolution :), I'm sure you've heard my molecular evolution theory, where you only need a simple self replecateing molicule (wich have been found to form from non replicative matter) for life to start
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
"Oh yes it does"
oh, no it doesn't, none of those bolded statments say how god did any of those things, it only says that god made them happen some how.
He said, "Let there be (fill in here)" And it happend. There is my answer.
"Can you see my thoughts?"
I'm not sure about your's :p
but, were working on it.
:rolleyes:
"We know life had to start somehow"
evolution :), I'm sure you've heard my molecular evolution theory, where you only need a simple self replecateing molicule (wich have been found to form from non replicative matter) for life to start [/B]
If it's so simple then how come it has been done yet in a lab?
-
It has been done. Bacteria and viruses (virii?) are exposed to destructive stimuli, such as antibodies, and if by some freak chance some of the organisms have the characteristics required to survive, they do so, and replace the previous 'versions'. Thus, the bacteria or virus has evolved to better cope with its environment. This is why doctors are so terrified of 'super bugs' getting a grip in hospitals - we've spent so long using a limited number of inoculents that sooner or later a disease resistant to all our medical sicence is bound to evolve.
-
Contingently necessary scientific laws, eh? I say your wise to leave it at that. No one has ever suceeded in making an argument for necessary scientific laws, at least not that I know of. And lacking one, miracles do remain a logical possibility.
Like I said, I'm not sure of that, but there is a significant amount of evidence pointing in that direction. But there is also evidence pointing in the opposite direction. We will see what it comes to.
How then do you propose to have science deal with the supernatural? I'd be interested to see that. In the meantime, that is all that science deals with. Those who say science is trying to deal with everything are either 1) no bothering to make explicit that they mean everything in the natural realm, or 2) are assuming that there is no supernatural andthus the natural is all there is, which is not a scientific assumption, but a religious one.
Exactly the same way that it deals with the natural. Since by your definition, anything that exists but is not matter and energy interacting in space and time is supernatural, physics is working on and understanding the supernatural world even today. There is really no point in making this ridiculous distinction between "natural" and "supernatural;" if they both exist, that's all we care about here. This is like saying that mathematics is only allowed to deal with prime numbers and not the rest of the numbers. :p :D
Making descriptions of how natural objects usually behave (that is, without any outside interference) is great, but the set of natural objects is one thing, and the set of everything is another. There is no reason to assume the laws (i.e. patterns of behaviour) that govern natural objects apply to that which is not natural.
Ah. But that accomplishes little. As said, a creation from nothing does not need to change the patterns of behaviour of natural (in my sense) objects, it just adds another element into the mix. The patterns of behaviour of natural objects (in my sense) do not tell us anything about the supernatural (not scientifically, anyway), since the supernatural is a whole other thing.
I never said they did. All I am saying is that patterns exist that fully determine the behavior of everything, including the supernatural. I am not saying anything about god being inconsistent with science because he does not obey our known science laws of today, but rather that god is inconsistent because he does not obey laws period. This has nothing to do with local laws and such.
-
Something to think about :
Ever wonder why humankind's one driving goal above all else in history is understanding and knowledge ? By nature we (as a whole not as individuals) have to understand everything. That alone is why there will NEVER be a time when EVERYone believes in the '"insert worshiped entity here" just made it so' theory.
If not for science none of us would be having this discussion right now.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
He said, "Let there be (fill in here)" And it happend. There is my answer.
explain how the "and it happend" part works,
more over explain how that is linked to god saying "let there be",
this is a perfict example of people useing relgion as a replacment for thinking
If it's so simple then how come it has been done yet in a lab?
well, if you just want a lab growen one look here (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html)
5 seconds + google = :)
note that article is over a decade old, so this isn't exactly cutting edge
-
True that Warlock.
Despite many negative attributes, humans do have the noble aspiration of seeking more and more knowledge (and that could be both religious knowledge and scientific knowledge) both individually and in groups. On the whole, it seems that we want to understand everything...one way or another.
I don't get this "natural" VS "supernatural" thing at all. Are we saying that if our current laws of science don't explain something that its not natural?
I am always drawn to information about strange events. Ghost sightings, ball lightning, UFO sightings, crop circles....sure lots of this stuff is fake and contrived....but some of it isn't. I think it comes down to one simple fact, there is plenty of mystery left in the universe for us to solve...I think that our current understanding of how the universe works and how our own world is like an iceberg. We can experience and understand perhaps a small fraction of the whole. Thats alot of room...for many many other elements that we have not yet considered....or may never consider.
-
Yup. Alot of things taken currently as supernatural/mythical.etc later turn out to just be normal everyday things not clearly understood at first.
Panda,........funny cute looking bear right ? It was a myth until what 50 years ago (not sure on the time it was finally discovered) and now any zoo with 4 nickles has one.
Man are you guys ever gonna freak when you find out that it was really an alien culture that placed life here on Earth as a science fair exhibit! :LOL:
:nervous:
What ? I was kidding :D
-
People dont fake crop circles, they just do them. You cant fake something humans did and that other people placed a label on.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
He said, "Let there be (fill in here)" And it happend. There is my answer
Bobboau's quite right. This is a rather lame argument, Snoj. My christian house mate says this (as I have mentioned before) whenever we get discussing religion. Annoys the hell out of me :)
Originally posted by Warlock
Man are you guys ever gonna freak when you find out that it was really an alien culture that placed life here on Earth as a science fair exhibit!
See, the sad thing is, is that I believe this to be quite likely. Frankly, if Snoj and his lot can believe in the invisible beardy dude in the sky, I can believe in aliens kick starting the evolution of our intelligence...
Actually, here's a question for Snoj - if aliens land on the lawn of the Whitehouse tomorrow, did God make them as well? And will they worship him, do you think? And another question that came to me today - why, exactly, did God make the Moon? Or the other planets, for that matter. I mean... what purpose do they serve? And frankly, if you just claim that we mere mortals can't begin to understand his divine plan, than I'll just laugh at you :nod:
-
:wtf: God created the universe by starting the big bang and defining the laws by which things are governed. Its the best way to explains the laughable big bang theory which is in a nutshell "there was nothing and then there was something". Still i'd recommend respecting other peoples religions :p
-
The cropcircle thing I'm sure meant faking that they where done by ET or something,....those guys took ALOT of effort to make it all look like they just "happened"
And Diamond,...without a doubt I agree there HAS to be life somewhere else in the galaxy. Nearly infinite numbers of other planets out there make it highly improbable that Earth was the only one to have all the needed 'settings' for life to accure.
-
Ever wonder why humankind's one driving goal above all else in history is understanding and knowledge ? By nature we (as a whole not as individuals) have to understand everything. That alone is why there will NEVER be a time when EVERYone believes in the '"insert worshiped entity here" just made it so' theory.
If not for science none of us would be having this discussion right now.
Good point. We aren't really understanding anything by saying "it is so because god did it," since the link there is too vague (there is no description of the exact processes) and almost no further deductions can be drawn from it.
I don't get this "natural" VS "supernatural" thing at all. Are we saying that if our current laws of science don't explain something that its not natural?
I dunno, that's what he seems to be saying... :p (the two are the same as far as I am concerned)
God created the universe by starting the big bang and defining the laws by which things are governed. Its the best way to explains the laughable big bang theory which is in a nutshell "there was nothing and then there was something". Still i'd recommend respecting other peoples religions
I don't think that theory is complete in that state either; to trigger the big bang in the first place, you would need another event, which is why I posted all that stuff about an open timeline at the beginning of the thread. I am not going respect the religion itself (the ideas) any more than I respect stuff like the Flat Earth Society, but I will respect the people themselves and their right to believe it (for now, at least). :nod: Still, what would this place be without a little arguing? :D
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
...why, exactly, did God make the Moon? Or the other planets, for that matter. I mean... what purpose do they serve?
Jupiter's gravity stabilizes the solar system and prevents most destructive comets from reaching Earth; the moon also shields Earth from meteors. If there was no shield, meteors would quickly wipe out life before it had a chance to develop. (You need a certain amount of cometary bombardment to deposit water and other needed materials, but after a certain point bombardment becomes more destructive than constructive.)
As for the rest of the universe - it's not just for us. God made it, apparently, to show off. "The heavens declare the glory of God" - Psalm something or other. The universe is an expression of his artistic nature. It also gives us pretty things to look at through telescopes. ;)
-
So god created the universe because he's got a huge ego ?
mmmmmmmmmmmmmK
I swear you get some funny things in this thread :D
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
The moon also shields Earth from meteors. If there was no shield, meteors would quickly wipe out life before it had a chance to develop
[/b]
Uh-huh. Well, that raises two questions: 1. You think that life developed, or that it was placed here, fully formed? And 2. Why did God (in his infinite wisdom) make the destructive comets? Was that a mistake on his part, or did he perhaps feel that having millions of tonnes of ice and rock raining down on us each year would help to keep us on our toes? Ah, but then there's this:
You need a certain amount of cometary bombardment to deposit water and other needed materials
But not the organic molecules which might have sparked life on Earth. Because, of course, The Man put that there.
Goober mate, you have a very different approach to your religion then most other guys around here. Good effort :)
-
I see nothing wrong with having comets flying around. They can help us by depositing water and iridium. They're also cool to watch in the night sky. :)
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
1. You think that life developed, or that it was placed here, fully formed?
Yes. I believe that The Man (good term :)) fostered life's development on Earth, and without his influence, life could not have developed. I note that, so far, scientists have still not been able to "create" DNA/life from simple chemical compounds in the laboratory by zapping stuff with electricity - I think so far they've only been able to make one amino acid. :)
I see no contradiction between Christianity and science. Christian faith is essentially trust based on prior knowledge. Science is the process of discovering knowledge. And contrary to the "blind faith" impression that some people have, God actually encourages us to question him and our environment if our objective is to learn. :)
Goober mate, you have a very different approach to your religion then most other guys around here. Good effort :)
Thanks. :)
-
After everything I've done I've come up with this:
"There is a God, and I'm not him."
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Bobboau's quite right. This is a rather lame argument, Snoj. My christian house mate says this (as I have mentioned before) whenever we get discussing religion. Annoys the hell out of me :)
That was not my point. I was pointing out to him that the Bible does say how it happend.
See, the sad thing is, is that I believe this to be quite likely. Frankly, if Snoj and his lot can believe in the invisible beardy dude in the sky, I can believe in aliens kick starting the evolution of our intelligence...
You sure can. Seems like a pretty stupid belief, but you can believe it non the less.
Actually, here's a question for Snoj - if aliens land on the lawn of the Whitehouse tomorrow, did God make them as well? And will they worship him, do you think? And another question that came to me today - why, exactly, did God make the Moon? Or the other planets, for that matter. I mean... what purpose do they serve? And frankly, if you just claim that we mere mortals can't begin to understand his divine plan, than I'll just laugh at you :nod:
I think if, and thats a really big if, God made them, I won't believe they are like us, in the sense they worship God like us. I believe they'd be something like a house pet or sheep (maybe not intelligence but not human either). Never the less I don't believe there is intelligent life out there.
Someone said something about the sun and moon. Here is my response.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.
Bobboau that article on those Self-Reproducing Molecules. The article doesn't tell us if they made them [the molecules] in the conditions that were like at the beginning (the evolutionist one). And they are molecules not cells. That project doesn't prove anything other then that you can make self-reproducing molecules in a lab.
-
Hey look.........fasisim at it's best (or worse I guess)
With all due dude ........you're truely coming off as "if it's not what my priest told me then it's not true,...never will be, even if you slap me in the face with an example I won't believe it." type.
I mean ,....you're an example of ppl taking it just a bit TOO seriously,...it's almost like your faith makes you feel special,...like just being who you are isn't good enough for you so you must believe that you were created by some master divine being as part of some grand race,...and you'll defend that no matter what.
I mean damn ... religion and faith are great things,....but read what the hell you've been saying.
-
Here's an interesting question: If an old bearded man came out of the sky, did miracles, created planets and revived people and claimed he's god.... would you believe him?
Would you have faith in him? Isn't his claim as credible as everyone elses claim to the existence of some grand god? If you don't, what makes you get that conclusion?
And Hotsnoj please explain to me why aliens couldn't have come to earth with miraculous technology (though no 'supernatural') and created humans and done all the things god supposedly did. Why couldn't this be the case? (and please don't reply with dogmatic bull****)
-
I'd believe there was a supernatural realm. Whether I'd believe he was God is another story. Now Jesus did essentially that, except he was born and lived like any human - he didn't descend out of the sky with flashing thunderbolts. In fact, the devil can use miracles occasionally to try to deceive us.
I'd have to have more information - like his record of living, the state of his character, and other stuff.
-
What if he let you depend on faith?
-
He does. Not everyone accepted the divinity of Jesus at the time, either. This is because he was living as a man, and not coming out of the sky as you say.
-
Well I meant, what if he only told you he's god but nothing else? To let your faith decide...
-
If he said he was God and didn't give any evidence, I wouldn't have any reason to believe him. Christian faith is not blind faith, it is founded upon evidence. In the same way, Jesus confirmed his divinity with miracles and wisdom - he didn't ask people to believe on blind faith.
Acts 17:11 (NIV) Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
The Bible calls the Bereans noble, because they double-checked Paul's message with established sources - they didn't blindly accept the new teaching.
-
So if hte man showed wisdom and did miracles you'd believe him?
-
this is going good... best a religion thread has ever gone... no flaming, just a good discussion.
keep it up guys! :yes:
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Exactly the same way that it deals with the natural. Since by your definition, anything that exists but is not matter and energy interacting in space and time is supernatural, physics is working on and understanding the supernatural world even today. There is really no point in making this ridiculous distinction between "natural" and "supernatural;" if they both exist, that's all we care about here. This is like saying that mathematics is only allowed to deal with prime numbers and not the rest of the numbers. :p :D
...
I never said they did. All I am saying is that patterns exist that fully determine the behavior of everything, including the supernatural. I am not saying anything about god being inconsistent with science because he does not obey our known science laws of today, but rather that god is inconsistent because he does not obey laws period. This has nothing to do with local laws and such.
True enough, there are more possible dimensions than just the four (though they remain merely theoretical at this stage, but that irrelevant), but that doesn't change my point. Supernature is an "other" realm. It may be more than one other realm. The point is that supernatural existence is not subject to the laws of this existence, or not necessarily, anyway. As just said, there may be more than one such supernatural realm (indeed there appears to be). The realm of existence inhabited by angelic and demonic beings seems to be different from ours, but again some sort of "world." Presumably there are indeed law at work in that realm, too (what few, dim adumbrations we are given would seem to indicate so). But God is removed beyond that again, too, for he is pure being, existing in no realm, but the source of any and every possible world.
I think the fundamental difference between you and I here is not the possibility of realms of existence that are other than this one. It seems to be that whereas you assume that there is no such thing as independent personal agency (a.k.a. free will), I explicitly do. For me, not all things in even the natural realm are determined by mathematical laws, for human beings and (it seems) animals have the ability to choose without any prior complusion. Essentially, when one asks why I did something, the buck stops here in my choice, and doesn't go back beyond that to precedent causes. God's actions are not compelled by mathematical laws because he is a personal being, with a will of his own.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
So if hte man showed wisdom and did miracles you'd believe him?
Well, it would be good of us to point out something that hasn't come up yet. We believe not just on merely rationalistic bases. There is also the vitally necessary act of the Holy Spirit in leading us to faith. The old-fashioned word for it is "illumination." Basically, God shines the light of truth into our hearts and minds, showing us the truth. We are brought to faith (which we can then choose or reject) by the action of the Holy Spirit's speaking to us and bringing the truth into our hearts. This isn't to say that it is an irrational process, as in negating the rational, but instead it is to say that reason by itself cannot bring us to faith (in anything, for that matter). Reason always flops around in the possible but can never find the truth. As we talked about before, Kamikaze, even believing in our senses is a matter of faith, not reason.
Reason can work on the truth it is shown, but for us to know God at all, he has to show himself to us first, or reason has nothing to work with. We know God because he reveals himself to us, and so whether I'd believe that man would depend on whether the Holy Spirit did work in my mind and heart to show me that this was indeed God.
(NB: I'd be inclined to doubt this if it ever happened because it would be a direct contradiction of Jesus' own words to us, and thus I have very good reason to belive the Holy Spirit will never do such a thing if such an event were to occur. Indeed, the Bible warns that many false Christ's would come claiming to be him, but that we should not believe any of them, for his return will be unmistakeable, the "end of the world," though "renewing and fixing of the world" might be a better description)
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
You sure can. Seems like a pretty stupid belief, but you can believe it non the less.
You are aware that to non-Christians, God usually seems like a pretty stupid belief, right? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
For future reference, name-calling isn't a good methodology for convincing people. You might have done better to ask "If aliens started the whole thing, where did they came from?" and pointed out that the alien origin hypothesis only pushes the question back one step.
-
SnoJ - why are you a Christian and not a Muslim? I mean, they love and worship God, right? The same God, supposedly, even if he has a different name. OK, so they don't believe that Jesus was the actual son of God, but then Christian don't believe that Mohammed was a prophet, right?
Anyway, my point is - if you had been brought up in an Islamic family, or a Jewish or Hindu family, would you still be a Christian?
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
You are aware that to non-Christians, God usually seems like a pretty stupid belief, right? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
For future reference, name-calling isn't a good methodology for convincing people. You might have done better to ask "If aliens started the whole thing, where did they came from?" and pointed out that the alien origin hypothesis only pushes the question back one step.
Did I call anyone a name? No I said that belief seems stupid. It is a matter of faith, just like any other religion (that includes the evolution theory).
SnoJ - why are you a Christian and not a Muslim? I mean, they love and worship God, right? The same God, supposedly, even if he has a different name. OK, so they don't believe that Jesus was the actual son of God, but then Christian don't believe that Mohammed was a prophet, right?
Not all religions are the same. Islam tells you to send your son to die for Allah. Where as Christianity tells you God sent His son to die for you. Now where do you think the love is?
Anyway, my point is - if you had been brought up in an Islamic family, or a Jewish or Hindu family, would you still be a Christian?
I'd probibly be one of those if I was raised like that. I cannot say what I would do once told about God. I might be sceptical (like anyone would be). I might also reject it all together. But for this I'm glad I was raised in a christian home.
-
So, you're a Christian and not a follower of any other religion because... you got lucky?
-
That and what I've heard and read about others.
-
So people who follow other religions - you think they're what, misguided? Wrong? Blasphemous, perhaps? Exaplain your thoughts, if you will.
And while you're at it, please explain why my believing that aliens began intelligent life on Earth is any more stupid than your belief in an invisible dude in the sky who you reckon loves you...
-
True enough, there are more possible dimensions than just the four (though they remain merely theoretical at this stage, but that irrelevant), but that doesn't change my point. Supernature is an "other" realm. It may be more than one other realm. The point is that supernatural existence is not subject to the laws of this existence, or not necessarily, anyway. As just said, there may be more than one such supernatural realm (indeed there appears to be). The realm of existence inhabited by angelic and demonic beings seems to be different from ours, but again some sort of "world." Presumably there are indeed law at work in that realm, too (what few, dim adumbrations we are given would seem to indicate so). But God is removed beyond that again, too, for he is pure being, existing in no realm, but the source of any and every possible world.
That sounds about right, but then you see, it's not science anymore. It does not have to be subject to our laws; it just has to be subject to some laws. In the science system, if it is an "other" realm, it does not have the property of absolute existence, because if it did then it would be the same realm as this one (all the "realms" are united by the property of existence, and are thus one realm). Also, if god exists in no realm, is he a realm himself? Or is he all realms? (in which case we would be parts of god) Either way, in the science system there must exist laws that determine his behavior completely, or he is not compatible with science.
I think the fundamental difference between you and I here is not the possibility of realms of existence that are other than this one. It seems to be that whereas you assume that there is no such thing as independent personal agency (a.k.a. free will), I explicitly do. For me, not all things in even the natural realm are determined by mathematical laws, for human beings and (it seems) animals have the ability to choose without any prior complusion. Essentially, when one asks why I did something, the buck stops here in my choice, and doesn't go back beyond that to precedent causes. God's actions are not compelled by mathematical laws because he is a personal being, with a will of his own.
Exactly; I am not saying that anything is wrong with your thing (as far as this topic goes, anyway), but that it is not scientific. That is the whole point of this argument.
By the way, what about objects that are usually considered nonliving? For example, does a table have a will of its own that is fully independent of reality, but just no capability to put its will into practical effect? Does every particle have its own will, so that everything is 100% random? Also, is the god capable of altering other wills to suit his purposes? (in which case the only will would be his)
-
Here y'are, SnoJ mate:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2541393.stm
Happy reading :)
-
"By the way, what about objects that are usually considered nonliving? For example, does a table have a will of its own that is fully independent of reality, but just no capability to put its will into practical effect? Does every particle have its own will, so that everything is 100% random? Also, is the god capable of altering other wills to suit his purposes? (in which case the only will would be his)"
and then by defying our will that you think rationaly,
you are defying the will of God!!!
ou will burn in the darkes pit of hell for defying his will!!!
-
His name is... GOD!!! Really its God Jacobs I've seen him down the street.:nervous:
-
This thread still going? Bloody hell.
Seems to be treading the same ground as when I left though.
hmmm
-
There's only 18 shopping days left until xmas.
-
Great Frolicking Llamas! I wish I had the time to get past page 9, but I don't, so I'll just post my replies up to then and be done with it. Blah.
Originally posted by Bobboau
what is the proof of the great flood??
A great flood has been mentioned in multiple ancient texts from all around the world, geographically.
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Regarding hell:
Contrary to popular opinion, the actual biblical teaching on the final fate of those who choose to reject God is eternal destruction, not eternal torture. That idea is an inheritance from our pre-Christian past, not from the Bible. No one will be sitting around in misery, or talking with their fellow inmates or whatever. They will have of their own free choice decided that death is better than God, God will have granted them their choice, and they will have ceased to exist.
Thank you! Another common misconception, just like the one about one of the Ten Commandments being "Thou shalt not kill." That one drives me nuts, especially reading about all the Christian pacifists, pacifists solely because of that mistranslation, who were put to death for refusing to take up arms to defend the country they resided in.
The accurate translation is "Thou shalt not murder." A world of difference there, also eliminating one of the Bible's supposed self-contradictions where God says not to kill, and then has the people of Israel war on all the idol-worshipping nations residing in the Promised Land.
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
3) Does archeology support or go against material in the document?
Should be obvious what this does, eh?
....
External #3: Well, archeology doesn't shed a whole lot of light here, given the nature of the texts, their short timelime and the fact that they primarily deal with the doings of a man, and not archological sorts of things. What light there is to be shone by archeology is concurrent with the Gospel acconts. It should suffice to say that the historical existence of Jesus where and when he is supposed to have existed is held as beyond doubt.
Actually, there is archaeological evidence that the Gospels are true. Until semi-recently (the past 50-100 years, I believe), there was no evidence of Pontus Pilate in any historical records. But then an ancient coin was found with his name on it, confirming that he did indeed exist.
(Note: I'm a bit fuzzy on this - it may have been someone else, but I do know that there was a historical person of importance mentioned solely in the Bible, whose existance was not confirmed by any other means, until his name was found inscribed on an archaeological artifact of some kind. But I think I got it right above. :p )
Also, there's the much more recent issue of that urn of ashes with the name of Jesus' brother on it. I think a recent Time or Newsweek had that as the front cover article.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
That sounds about right, but then you see, it's not science anymore.
And that's a problem because...?
It does not have to be subject to our laws; it just has to be subject to some laws. In the science system, if it is an "other" realm, it does not have the property of absolute existence, because if it did then it would be the same realm as this one (all the "realms" are united by the property of existence, and are thus one realm).[/b]
Difference in terminology here again. All realms would be members of the set of all things, but that doesn't make them all one realm. Science investigates the functioning of non-willed matter, energy, forces, etc. (biology gets a bit different, but there they rightly drop talk of "laws" anyway) in this realm.
Also, if god exists in no realm, is he a realm himself? Or is he all realms? (in which case we would be parts of god)[/b]
A bit of a non-sensical question, I think. "Realm" implies an arena for multiple entities to interact. God is God is God. There is no other entity for him to be interacting with so long as we are talking about him in himself.
Either way, in the science system there must exist laws that determine his behavior completely, or he is not compatible with science.[/b]
No, that would make him incompatible with atheisitic determinism, not science. Science can and does go happily about its business without assuming your sort of determinism, CP5670.
Exactly; I am not saying that anything is wrong with your thing (as far as this topic goes, anyway), but that it is not scientific. That is the whole point of this argument.[/b]
But who on earth ever said science has to know everything? :):lol: Let science do what it does, don't try to force it into roles it has no equipment to fulfill.
By the way, what about objects that are usually considered nonliving? For example, does a table have a will of its own that is fully independent of reality, but just no capability to put its will into practical effect? Does every particle have its own will, so that everything is 100% random? Also, is the god capable of altering other wills to suit his purposes? (in which case the only will would be his) [/B]
Non-living things don't appear to have a will of their own, no. I can't even say for sure that a dog has a will of his own--I'm not a dog. But given my own experience, dogs appear to. Plants don't appear to have a will, at least not one anything like ours. There is obviously some sort of active impulse there, but i don't think applying the term "will" to it is helpful. Will indictates the power of non-predetermined choice.
Regarding the second, whether God is capable of altering other wills, there is a distinction to be made between wnat one can do and what one will do. God does appear to have the brute power to alter wills if he so chose, but given that his purpose in creating us was to make beings who would have free choice, he has by his own decision restrained himself from forcing our wills in this way. To do so would negate the purpose of making us in the first place.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Actually, there is archaeological evidence that the Gospels are true. Until semi-recently (the past 50-100 years, I believe), there was no evidence of Pontus Pilate in any historical records. But then an ancient coin was found with his name on it, confirming that he did indeed exist.
Cool, didn't know that one. :)
Also, there's the much more recent issue of that urn of ashes with the name of Jesus' brother on it. I think a recent Time or Newsweek had that as the front cover article. [/B]
That is an interesting thing indeed. It's on display in Toronto right now. If I weren't a couple thousand kilometers away, I'd go see it.
But all this is what I meant when I said "What light there is to be shone by archeology is concurrent with the Gospel acconts." It all indicates that the Gospels are thoroughly based in historicity. It doesn't prove per se that Jesus was resurrected, but does lend a weight to the Gospels claim to be history and not some silly fanatsies.
Good to see you back, Sandwich! :D
-
And that's a problem because...?
Because that contradicts your original argument. :p There are other issues as well, but I won't bring them up just now.
A bit of a non-sensical question, I think. "Realm" implies an arena for multiple entities to interact. God is God is God. There is no other entity for him to be interacting with so long as we are talking about him in himself.
So he is a realm I suppose, except that he is the only one in his realm, right?
No, that would make him incompatible with atheisitic determinism, not science. Science can and does go happily about its business without assuming your sort of determinism, CP5670.
Alright, you have obviously run out of arguments here; the hard fact remains that science and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible due to their most basic axioms, and it has more has less been firmly established a while ago in this thread. (free will is the exact opposite of science) But why don't you abandon the consistency axiom itself? Then you can go for both at the same time... ;7
But who on earth ever said science has to know everything? Let science do what it does, don't try to force it into roles it has no equipment to fulfill.
um, that's what science is all about; just stopping with what you call "natural" for no reason is stupid. Once again, this is like saying that mathematics must only work with prime numbers and not the other numbers, or that science must only work with that which is not related to to the shape of the Earth because it has no equipment to fulfil this role (this task should be left to the Flat Earth Society). :D
Non-living things don't appear to have a will of their own, no. I can't even say for sure that a dog has a will of his own--I'm not a dog. But given my own experience, dogs appear to. Plants don't appear to have a will, at least not one anything like ours. There is obviously some sort of active impulse there, but i don't think applying the term "will" to it is helpful. Will indictates the power of non-predetermined choice.
so...why does every particle not have it also? No reason why only humans (collections of particles) have it while nothing else does...
Regarding the second, whether God is capable of altering other wills, there is a distinction to be made between wnat one can do and what one will do. God does appear to have the brute power to alter wills if he so chose, but given that his purpose in creating us was to make beings who would have free choice, he has by his own decision restrained himself from forcing our wills in this way. To do so would negate the purpose of making us in the first place.
Well, if he can do it, he will, since that's the only way to measure whether or not he can, eh? :D But perhaps his purpose in making us was simply that he was getting bored with nothing else around, so he went ahead and made a universe for his entertainment; can't really blame him for that, since I would be pretty bored too with absolutely nothing around... :D
-
Interesting topic! I’ve resisted the urge to post about as long as I can.
I’ll state for the record that I am a Christian and believe firmly in the existence of God. I personally accept ‘I am that I am’ as an acceptable name for Him. I think the trouble most of us have is with our concept of who and what God is. In my experience it hasn’t been a process of learning more about God but erasing the boxes I’ve drawn around him and revealing who he is. Most people have put so many boxes around their concept of God that all they can picture is a grey bearded old man playing games with peoples lives. The thought that most of the messes in this world are of our own doing is almost inconceivable. God forbid that we reap what we sow. What do you mean burning the Amazon is causing flooding in Asia! That’s an act of God!
With all due respect to CP5670, I don’t believe science will ever prove the existence of God. I believe by placing your total faith in science, you will completely miss the existance of God. I read recently that scientists managed to make some of the basic building blocks of life in the lab. Science proving that God exists would be like those amino acids (assume for a second they had our intelligence) being able to prove the existence of the scientists that made them. There is no way they could do it unless the scientists revealed themselves to the amino acids. Second, IMO, science is very limited in what it can reveal since it is a part of the environment it is observing. There is no way for science to make a truly outside scientific observation of God or even our universe. The only way for us to learn anything about God is if he tells us. I’m convinced he’s done so in the Bible. Everyone else is welcome to disagree.
The Bible does say that the universe declares the existence of God. In fact it was Chemistry and not the Bible that solidified my belief in the existence of God. We were studying the basic structure of the atom. I realized that my hand was made up of billions atoms. Those atoms made up the molecules. Those molecules made up the cells, and those cells made up the tissues, and bones of my hand. Not only that, those atoms make up everything I could see around me. All working together to perform some specific purpose and yet made up of the SAME basic building blocks just rearranged to make whatever was required. At that moment I came to the conclusion that there was NO WAY this universe just happened. There is a design and there is a purpose to everything around us. Someone had to create it.
As to those that profess there is no God? Atheism takes a lot of faith IMO, more faith than I’ve got. In order to say there is no God, you would have to be able to say you know everything there is to know in the universe. How can I say that? Of ALL knowledge in the universe, how much of it do you know? Better yet, of everything there is to know in our universe, how much does all of humanity know? 10%? 5%? 0.1%? I think probably far less than that. I definitely know far less than that. Life proves it to me everyday! How can anyone say with any amount of certainty that God does not exist in that 99.9% (or 100 – whatever number you came up with) part of the universe that the human race does not even know about yet? The fact is no one can. Now agnostics I can respect. They can at minimum admit they don’t know. They’re just waiting for God to reveal himself and prove his existence to them. At least there room for discussion there.
All of the above is purely my opinion. Feel free to disagree
-
With all due respect to CP5670, I don’t believe science will ever prove the existence of God.
It won't because it can't and doesn't need to... anyway noone can prove the exitence of a god right? so it's a nice tie between religion and science.... (i.e. this argument can be flung right back at you so it's pointless)
The Bible does say that the universe declares the existence of God. In fact it was Chemistry and not the Bible that solidified my belief in the existence of God. We were studying the basic structure of the atom. I realized that my hand was made up of billions atoms. Those atoms made up the molecules. Those molecules made up the cells, and those cells made up the tissues, and bones of my hand. Not only that, those atoms make up everything I could see around me. All working together to perform some specific purpose and yet made up of the SAME basic building blocks just rearranged to make whatever was required. At that moment I came to the conclusion that there was NO WAY this universe just happened. There is a design and there is a purpose to everything around us. Someone had to create it.
but that's just your humanly-limited mind trying to simplify the world... (no offense intended, we're just humans after all) Why can't the world be randomly made? tell me...
I'll give you an example to work with
If you had a universe filled with letters in all directions (up, down, sides) with the letters being a nanometer in width, length, height what is the chance it'll form coherent words/sentences/paragraphs and even books? Quite possible I think.
As to those that profess there is no God? Atheism takes a lot of faith IMO, more faith than I’ve got. In order to say there is no God, you would have to be able to say you know everything there is to know in the universe. How can I say that? Of ALL knowledge in the universe, how much of it do you know? Better yet, of everything there is to know in our universe, how much does all of humanity know? 10%? 5%? 0.1%? I think probably far less than that. I definitely know far less than that. Life proves it to me everyday! How can anyone say with any amount of certainty that God does not exist in that 99.9% (or 100 – whatever number you came up with) part of the universe that the human race does not even know about yet? The fact is no one can. Now agnostics I can respect. They can at minimum admit they don’t know. They’re just waiting for God to reveal himself and prove his existence to them. At least there room for discussion there.
All of the above is purely my opinion. Feel free to disagree [/B]
If that's what you think agnostism is a much more sensible religion for you... not christianity. Anyway, no-one needs to PROVE it... that's trying to evade a conclusion.. you just need to show it's more sensible/reasonable.
Oh here's a question: do you think if humans were grown without religious bias (not told about it at all) and were taught things with little dogmatic bias (i.e. never establishing science as an ultimate truth but as something that some people use for practical observation) do you think the persons would believe christianity? do you think they'd invent it? Do you think they'd even create a concept of god?
And another: if we burned every bible/koran whatnot in the world and banished all knowledge of religion would god englighten us and make us believe him WITHOUT all the passing down that we have now?
-
Ah, good to see you arguing in here too... :D
Well, science has already disproved the existence of this omnipotent-type god, just as many religions have disproved science, because for any proof you need the assumptions; science simply uses a set of axioms from which such a god can be disproved. Now why the science assumptions are in a sense more efficient is a different issue, but my whole point here is that the two are logically incompatible, not that one or the other is "right." So you can take one or other, but not both.
I am technically more or less just a hard-line agnostic, but I am not going to take into account something that will only serve to complicate matters immensely, since we would have to ditch quite a bit of knowledge and start over from scratch if a god exists. If I take into account the existence of a god for nothing and say, drop that into the physics equations, I might as well do the same for shivans, green men, and whatever else, so that's going to make things very messy. If we reach a dead end with the no god route, we can trash that and assume the god, but at the moment this has a higher probability of allowing us to do the least possible work.
Everything of course takes faith, including science, but I say that there need to be a set of additional rules of rationality for deciding what and what not to take as assumptions, not just for deductions; the purpose of this is so we can rule out as much stuff as possible. (without these rules, the Flat Earth Society is just as correct as god, science, or whatever else) My contention is not that god does not exist, but rather that it is better to assume that he does not so that it keeps our existing framework as simple as possible. (there can be a different kind of god that is not all-powerful and still be consistent with science, but the existence of a Christian-type god means that the most fundamental axiom of science must be thrown out)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Because that contradicts your original argument. :p
How so? I've been arguing that Christianity is not tied to any particular scientific opinion, not that it is one. History isn't tied to any particular scientific opinion either: Oh look, Newton's discovered his laws, does that mean anything for the history of Charlemagne's reign? No. Oh look, Einstein has developed relativity theor(ies), does that mean anything for the history of Charlemagne's reign? Nope. Oh look, quantum mechanics, how about that one? Not that either. Same thing goes for Christianity. I don't know where you got the idea that I was arguing Christianity is science.
So he is a realm I suppose, except that he is the only one in his realm, right?
Well, it doesn't really make sense to say that. Entity, not realm. Realm means an arena where multiple entities interact, but when we are talking about just God, he's an entity. He can reach down into realms and interact with entities in them, but by himself he is an entity, not a realm.
Alright, you have obviously run out of arguments here; the hard fact remains that science and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible due to their most basic axioms, and it has more has less been firmly established a while ago in this thread. (free will is the exact opposite of science) But why don't you abandon the consistency axiom itself? Then you can go for both at the same time... ;7
No, no, no, no, and because I have no need to. Sounds to me more like you've run out of arguments, there is no such "hard fact," it most certainly has not been established here, free will does not negate science, and thus I have no need to abandon consistency.
Science is the method of investigating, hypothesising, testing, analysing, and making new hypotheses to test. Let's look at the dictionary, shall we?
sci-ence (sie'uhns) n.
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing
with a body of facts or truths
systematically arranged and showing the
operation of general laws.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or
material world gained through
observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or
physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles;
knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. any skill or technique that reflects a
precise application of facts or
principles.
[1300-50; ME < MF < L scientia knowledge =
scient-, s. of sciens, prp. of scire to know + -ia
- IA]
Nothing in that necessitates that science treats everything, nor that all things have to be subject to "scientific laws". Science investigates stuff and learns about it. Nothing requires that science must know all, or be able to learn all via its methods. And its not just me saying this to safeguard my religious beliefs. Go check out the reams of recent philosophy writings which all look at this Enlightenment idea and find it to be a pretensious sham. (I suggest starting with this classic text:
Lyotard, Jean François. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Trans. Geoff Bennington, Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1984.
and then perhaps moving on to such as:
Rorty, Richard. Truth and Progress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
—. Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Derrida, Jacques. The Derrida Reader. Julian Wolfreys, ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998
—. "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences," Modern Criticism and Theory: A Reader. Ed. David Lodge. London & New York: Longmann, 1988, 108-123.
Grenz, Stanley J. A Primer on Postmodernism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Lyon, David. Postmodernity. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999.
From there you can go on to check out others.)
There are many scientists who are not determinists. They do perfectly good science without being determinists. Determinism is not a necessary component to science at all--doing science requires no such belief. It is possible to go on and assert that science can and will explain everything, but that is not a scientific claim, nor one necessary to do science, as the multitudes of non-determinist scientists amply show. Science is a methodology, which is why we can have opposing scientific theories; it's not a worldview. You've failed to distinguish between your own conception of the world and the necessary conditions for scientific endeavour.
just stopping with what you call "natural" for no reason is stupid. Once again, this is like saying that mathematics must only work with prime numbers and not the other numbers, or that science must only work with that which is not related to to the shape of the Earth because it has no equipment to fulfil this role (this task should be left to the Flat Earth Society). :D
Actually, it is like saying that mathematics isn't much use in analysing poetry. I want science to ask all the questions it can, and encourage the free range of scientific enquiry. I nowhere say that it should be forced to stop somewhere if it can go beyond that point. But it is ridiculous hubris to suppose that science alone can and will unlock all the mysteries of the universe and answer all questions. Some questions need other methods, because they just simply don't work that way. Science does have the equipment to discover the shape of the earth, it doesn't have the equipment to find out why poem A is more powerful than poem B.
so...why does every particle not have it also? No reason why only humans (collections of particles) have it while nothing else does...
Because humans are not only collections of particles, there is the supernatural element in us too. Greek (and Cartesian) ideas see the material and immaterial as two almost entirely disjunct things, while the Biblical conception sees them intimately intertwined in the human being, only seperable by such a violent force as death. (I can go into a more detailed metaphysical anthropology by the Christian view, if you want.)
Well, if he can do it, he will, since that's the only way to measure whether or not he can, eh? :D
So if I can delete all the files for The Scroll of Atankharzim, I will, and if I can kill my family with a shotgun, I will? :doubt:
Ability does not entail actuality.
But perhaps his purpose in making us was simply that he was getting bored with nothing else around, so he went ahead and made a universe for his entertainment; can't really blame him for that, since I would be pretty bored too with absolutely nothing around... :D
:lol: :rolleyes:
-
Interesting sidenote here relating religion with current-day politics! Yays! ;)
Jeremiah 31:35-37:
35 Thus says the LORD,
Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
Who disturbs the sea,
And its waves roar
(The LORD of hosts is His name):
36 "If those ordinances depart
From before Me, says the LORD,
Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
From being a nation before Me forever."
37 Thus says the LORD:
"If heaven above can be measured,
And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath,
I will also cast off all the seed of Israel
For all that they have done, says the LORD.
A few decades ago, scientists thought they knew how large the universe was. They said that there were enough stars in the universe to allow each human on Earth to have his very own star, with plenty extra.
Then they sent up the Hubble telescope. :D
Now, there are enough galaxies for each of us to have his own galaxy. And that's just within range of our instrumentation.
So basically, the prevelant deception in Christian circles called "Replacement Theology", where the Church replaces Israel/The Jews in Biblical prophecy, is just that - deception. Israel's here to stay, folks. And the fact that we've returned to the Promised Land after 2000 years, a direct fulfilment of prophecy, should be sign enough for anyone willing to believe that there most assuredly is a God.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, science has already disproved the existence of this omnipotent-type god, just as many religions have disproved science,
the existence of a Christian-type god means that the most fundamental axiom of science must be thrown out
I challenge you to provide a good, logical, premises-to-conclusion argument why either of these statements should be believed. As I just said, science is a methodology, and requires only such assumptions as are necessary to carry out its proceedure. The belief that things behave in regular, predictable patterns does not entail that ALL things are required to do so. The moment we come to a subject that does not, it simply does not.
Unlike your position, I see no reason to abandon the scientific method if it doesn't do everything. This all or nothing view of yours is strange to me. If civil law is not able to account for medical facts, does that mean we should throw it away?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Interesting sidenote here relating religion with current-day politics! Yays! ;)
A few decades ago, scientists thought they knew how large the universe was. They said that there were enough stars in the universe to allow each human on Earth to have his very own star, with plenty extra.
Then they sent up the Hubble telescope. :D
Now, there are enough galaxies for each of us to have his own galaxy. And that's just within range of our instrumentation.
So basically, the prevelant deception in Christian circles called "Replacement Theology", where the Church replaces Israel/The Jews in Biblical prophecy, is just that - deception. Israel's here to stay, folks. And the fact that we've returned to the Promised Land after 2000 years, a direct fulfilment of prophecy, should be sign enough for anyone willing to believe that there most assuredly is a God.
Agreed, and "Yay!" :D
-
well I'm waiting with great egerness for God to decend somewere around there and bring peace to everyone...
still waiting...
-
Small clouds appear above Bobboau.
Looking up he frowns in puzzlement.
Suddenly a very tiny heavenly figure jumps down onto his head screaming for him to repent and poking him with a rather small lightning bolt. Bobboau, being rather puzzled at this strange occurance goes to swats the small figure and walks off taking a small figure descending from a small heaven as a common house fly.
Im geussing you wouldnt see god come down even if he hit him on the head (literaly)
J/king
-
Fair questions, I'll take a shot at responding.
If you had a universe filled with letters in all directions (up, down, sides) with the letters being a nanometer in width, length, height what is the chance it'll form coherent words/sentences/ paragraphs and even books?
This one's a tough one since there's no way to try it. But, if you were to take those letters, break them down into their atomic components tossed them out there. And they happened to form the planets and one in just the right orbit to sustain life and one of those life forms managed to develop intelligence to learn to write and one of those lifeforms happened to write a great shakespearian(sp) play AND you did it in your first toss. I would say you had something there. For me that's too much to accept. I cannot accept that it just happened there's too much evidence to the contrary. There is a design and purpose to everything in our world and its all designed for one purpose. Sustain life on this planet.
you just need to show it's more sensible/reasonable.
I'm not even required to do that. Jesus commanded his followers to tell others about him (not shove it down their throats, btw). If they listen, great, if not, I'm to dust my feet off and move on to the next person who will listen.
Oh here's a question: do you think if humans were grown without religious bias (not told about it at all) and were taught things with little dogmatic bias (i.e. never establishing science as an ultimate truth but as something that some people use for practical observation) do you think the persons would believe christianity? do you think they'd invent it? Do you think they'd even create a concept of god?
And another: if we burned every bible/koran whatnot in the world and banished all knowledge of religion would god englighten us and make us believe him WITHOUT all the passing down that we have now?
Again, since we can't try this, so neither of us can say for sure. I will refer you to Luke 19:40 where Jesus himself says if his followers were silenced the rocks themselves will cry out. Since God created the rocks, I'm certain he knows how to make them talk. :) So based on what Jesus said, yes I do believe some would come to believe.
Based on the above scripture, I do see you shot my argument about science not proving the existance of God out of the water. If you were to burn the bibles and silence all Christians then I suppose shouting rocks could be observed scientifically. :P
Ah, good to see you arguing in here too
Discussing, not arguing. A nit I know but a an important nit. Friendships are lost and people start shooting one another when these discussions turn into arguments :( That's the last thing I would want to happen here.
Well, science has already disproved the existence of this omnipotent-type god, just as many religions have disproved science, because for any proof you need the assumptions; science simply uses a set of axioms from which such a god can be disproved.
I don't understand this one. How is that statement different from the Flat Earth's Society's contention that the earth is flat?
Both makes assumptions that bring scientific progress to a screeching halt. You might be able to make that statement if science knew everything there is to know but we don't. You can't make those assumptions just because they clean up your equations. Chances are you're going to miss your greatest discoveries! In Galileo's time it was the Catholic Churchs dogma holding back science. Today it's the 'scientific community' who make such assumptions/declarations then try to force all their observations to fit those assumptions.
So you can take one or other, but not both.
I disagree wholeheartedly. I've studied chemisty, physics, modern physics and have seen nothing that proves/disproves the existance of God. Everything I've studied in chemistry, physics, and modern physics only confirms my view that God exists. The fact that you can reduce the operation of the universe to a set of mathematical equations re-enforces my view that there is a definite design to the universe. It didn't just happen.
Oh well, that's it for now.
-
Can anyone tell me about my letters question? I'm sure that if you say that's possible that you should accept that 'randomness' (which isn't truly random) in human creation is quite possible as well...
It is my opinion (not backed up by science of anything as of now, I'll do scientific research later) that time stretches back in inifinity (this should be an idea christians should be able to accept as god is supposedly this) and the number of universes formed and crunched (or heat deathed or whatever) are infinite as well.
Assuming that's true then would it not be quite probable, or in fact inevitable that eventually in the infinity of time eventually life will 'randomly' form?
What is there that goes against this? (assume that my opinion of time is correct for the sake of argument)
-
The dreaded test is in seven hours; nothing like a good argument to get me going for that... :D
How so? I've been arguing that Christianity is not tied to any particular scientific opinion, not that it is one. History isn't tied to any particular scientific opinion either: Oh look, Newton's discovered his laws, does that mean anything for the history of Charlemagne's reign? No. Oh look, Einstein has developed relativity theor(ies), does that mean anything for the history of Charlemagne's reign? Nope. Oh look, quantum mechanics, how about that one? Not that either. Same thing goes for Christianity. I don't know where you got the idea that I was arguing Christianity is science.
Well, it will affect it in some way, however minute, (suppose the history is just really, really detailed, down to the movements of every particle in his body) since we are assuming that these things are all connected from the induction axiom. But this particular one is assuming exactly the opposite axiom, and the contradiction created by taking both is just incredible.
Well, it doesn't really make sense to say that. Entity, not realm. Realm means an arena where multiple entities interact, but when we are talking about just God, he's an entity. He can reach down into realms and interact with entities in them, but by himself he is an entity, not a realm.
Ah, whatever; basically means the same thing in this case. :p
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing
with a body of facts or truths
systematically arranged and showing the
operation of general laws.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or
material world gained through
observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or
physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles;
knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. any skill or technique that reflects a
precise application of facts or
principles.
Nothing in that necessitates that science treats everything, nor that all things have to be subject to "scientific laws". Science investigates stuff and learns about it. Nothing requires that science must know all, or be able to learn all via its methods. And its not just me saying this to safeguard my religious beliefs. Go check out the reams of recent philosophy writings which all look at this Enlightenment idea and find it to be a pretensious sham. (I suggest starting with this classic text:
1, 4 and 5 are the relevant ones for our purposes here. Until sometime around 1930, that was exactly the point of science; it must indeed know all, and nothing short of that, or it would not be science. Today, we know that the chances are around equal that it is or is not possible, but we must still assume for the moment that it is. It may well be wrong and it is quite possible that as parts of the universe it is impossible for us to learn about its workings, but in that case there is nothing further to discover, so we are stuck and must go back to the first option until we are absolutely sure of the alternative. We can but try, right? :D I have not read any of that stuff, but most elementary textbooks on any sub-discipline of science will start off by saying the same things that I have said and giving a short discussion on science itself and its general properties and methods. (or try Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery) Science not only investigates stuff and learns about it, but it investigates everything and learns about it. If science cannot know everything that there is to be known, it cannot fully know about anything, because to learn fully about one thing it is necessary to learn about everything else as well due to the interconnectivity of these things.
There are many scientists who are not determinists. They do perfectly good science without being determinists. Determinism is not a necessary component to science at all--doing science requires no such belief. It is possible to go on and assert that science can and will explain everything, but that is not a scientific claim, nor one necessary to do science, as the multitudes of non-determinist scientists amply show. Science is a methodology, which is why we can have opposing scientific theories; it's not a worldview. You've failed to distinguish between your own conception of the world and the necessary conditions for scientific endeavour.
Wait, what exactly do you mean by this? I never said anything at all about determinism; in fact, if the quantum theory is completely correct, then the probabilistic viewpoint would be the correct one. But think of what a free will really is. It means that there exist events (the will) that are fully independent of the universe and are not caused by anything (they cannot be caused by themselves because other events also exist in the same system), which would go against the logical causation idea, which in turn would go against that first science axiom. Science is both a set of methodologies and of world views; it can only have opposing theories as long as those theories fit within certain axioms. For example, a theory in which humans cannot learn anything is not a scientific theory unless it is a mathematical proof, in which case science is all wrong.
Actually, it is like saying that mathematics isn't much use in analysing poetry. I want science to ask all the questions it can, and encourage the free range of scientific enquiry. I nowhere say that it should be forced to stop somewhere if it can go beyond that point. But it is ridiculous hubris to suppose that science alone can and will unlock all the mysteries of the universe and answer all questions. Some questions need other methods, because they just simply don't work that way. Science does have the equipment to discover the shape of the earth, it doesn't have the equipment to find out why poem A is more powerful than poem B.
Ideally, there is no reason why it should not be; mathematics alone maybe cannot, but the final form of science should certainly be able to, and it must be able to answer any question for which an absolute answer exists, or it is not yet complete. How is one to determine what needs a different method and what works with existing stuff? The Flat Earth Society people will certainly say that science does not "have the equipment" to determine the shape of the Earth. :D And why don't these other questions work that way? They are part of the same universe/reality/existence/etc. so there is no reason to start making arbitrary distinctions between them given from what little we know, since we are starting from the "all is one" premise anyway.
Because humans are not only collections of particles, there is the supernatural element in us too. Greek (and Cartesian) ideas see the material and immaterial as two almost entirely disjunct things, while the Biblical conception sees them intimately intertwined in the human being, only seperable by such a violent force as death. (I can go into a more detailed metaphysical anthropology by the Christian view, if you want.)
But if this element is in us, why is it not in everything else also? Why is that humans must be the only connecting force between them, and not everything else as well? (actually, the real answer to this is that humans feel good when they think they are in some way unique, so any classifications they make must place them in a seperate category from everything else :D)
I personally like the hindu idea in this case, where the material and immaterial are the same thing and it is pointless to make distinctions between them. :D
So if I can delete all the files for The Scroll of Atankharzim, I will, and if I can kill my family with a shotgun, I will?
Ability does not entail actuality.
Frankly, from a universal point of view, it does. If you do not, you cannot, since that's part of the measure of whether or not you "can." Rather, it is more accurate to say whether or not the deterrent to your capability lies within your brain or on some external condition outside the brain.
I challenge you to provide a good, logical, premises-to-conclusion argument why either of these statements should be believed. As I just said, science is a methodology, and requires only such assumptions as are necessary to carry out its proceedure. The belief that things behave in regular, predictable patterns does not entail that ALL things are required to do so. The moment we come to a subject that does not, it simply does not.
I already gave that a long time ago. This axiom does indeed entail that everything, without exception, is required to be so. This holism and absolute unity is the whole essence of science in the first place (this is about the one thing that every one of the great scientists who were behind today's modern theories agreed on) - we want a grand theory of absolutely everything, and nothing short of that - and the existence of laws is always taken as the first assumption during a scientific discovery of any kind. For instance, if physicists discover a different dimension, they are immediately going to go about attempting to discover its properties and controlling laws, and from the axiom, they know that anything they discover must have these in some way. If they discover a supernature/god/whatever, they will do exactly the same thing. Have you ever heard of a scientist finding something new and making the opposite assumption first (that there are no laws governing it)? :p
Besides, even if this was somehow not the case, we can always fall back on the induction axiom, where science once again strikes home over religion. Since we don't know enough to make any distinctions between your various "realms," nor is there anything whatsoever to be gained by making them (it is complicating things instead of simplifying them), we follow the usual procedure of first assuming that they are all the same thing and see where that gets us; after all, we want to unite everything into one theory in the end anyway, so this could also potentially save us quite a bit of work. Less distinctions is always better.
Unlike your position, I see no reason to abandon the scientific method if it doesn't do everything. This all or nothing view of yours is strange to me. If civil law is not able to account for medical facts, does that mean we should throw it away?
Well, these are really just parts of science. Science is what holds all these things together, so an ultimate scientific theory should account for both (science is supposed to explain the universe, and since we are parts of the universe, it must explain our behavior too). If it does not work for everything, it is not complete, and if it can never work for everything, it is all wrong, since everything is ultimately an interconnected whole, so it is really not working for anything. As far as science goes, it is indeed all or nothing; it's possible to have a new set of assumptions (something like a semi-science) which only takes some of the science ones, but that's not quite science then. Keep in mind that we are talking about science and not biology, cosmology, or any other subdiscipline of it, which is what I think you have been thinking about so far.
-
Discussing, not arguing. A nit I know but a an important nit. Friendships are lost and people start shooting one another when these discussions turn into arguments That's the last thing I would want to happen here.
Hey, for me arguing is enjoyment. :D
I don't understand this one. How is that statement different from the Flat Earth's Society's contention that the earth is flat?
It isn't; they are all just using different assumptions.
Both makes assumptions that bring scientific progress to a screeching halt. You might be able to make that statement if science knew everything there is to know but we don't. You can't make those assumptions just because they clean up your equations. Chances are you're going to miss your greatest discoveries! In Galileo's time it was the Catholic Churchs dogma holding back science. Today it's the 'scientific community' who make such assumptions/declarations then try to force all their observations to fit those assumptions.
We need some way to eliminate the most stuff possible (purple dragons, shivans, and whatever else) while still keeping at least one thing, and this is really the best method we have. Sure, I may miss some good discoveries, but the chances are much, much higher that I will just end up wasting a lot of time. (it's like assuming the existence of let us say, eight additional forces in the universe that act like gravity but are inverse-factorial with respect to distance and only apply for certain combinations of materials; it may be true, but it just unnecessarily complicates things, so let's see how far we can go with existing stuff and then try that)
I disagree wholeheartedly. I've studied chemisty, physics, modern physics and have seen nothing that proves/disproves the existance of God. Everything I've studied in chemistry, physics, and modern physics only confirms my view that God exists. The fact that you can reduce the operation of the universe to a set of mathematical equations re-enforces my view that there is a definite design to the universe. It didn't just happen.
But what about god himself then? There would be another set of equations that describes his behavior. Chemistry, physics, biology and all that are quite compatible with a god (or can be made so with very minor changes); it is science itself as a whole where the problem lies. Look a bit into the philosophy of science instead, and you may see what I mean. :D
-
I know, bumped it a page and a half. Sorry, but I could resist this one - evolution in action (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2568957.stm)
Explain this, then, you Christian fellows...
-
Oh yeah, I forgot about this thread... I'll have to post a reply to CP now that exams are over.
Tomorrow. I'm getting sleepy now.
-
they have made a lame responce to this already,
it's "macro"-evolution :lol:
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
I know, bumped it a page and a half. Sorry, but I could resist this one - evolution in action (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2568957.stm)
Explain this, then, you Christian fellows...
Sorry, but this is the first time I've heard of this 'Superbug' - mind explaining to me what this has to do with evolution?
-
Since the discovery of penicillin (s/p?), back in the day, medical science has only actually discovered or concoted about 50 or so different anitbiotics. For years, doctors have been worried that a 'superbug' could evolve, a disease resistant to our limited arsenal of antibiotics. If it got loose in a hospital (which is apparently, the most likely place it would evolve), then the consequences could be disastarous - imagine a building full of hundreds or thousands of already weakened people, suddenly exposed to a disease resistant to 95% of our medecines... :shaking:
Evolutionary theory predicts the superbug - and doctors believe that it is now upon us. Unfortunately, the problem has gone the way of the asteroid impact, and governments have not invested sufficient money in a soloution - the devolpment of new, artificial antibitiocs. You may not realise it, but nearly every one of our antibiotics is found in the natural world and were discovered rather than invented. Doctors believe that they now have the
know how needed to synthesize new drugs, which would put us in the lead in the fight against the bugs.
So there you have - evolution in action. In the case of Science vs. Religion, it's looking like check-mate to Science :)
-
You jump to conclusions far too quickly, matey. :)
When that superbug develops appedages, I'll call it evolution. But apparently you need to learn the difference between 'evolution' and 'adaptation':
Evolution: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolution
Adaptation: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=adaptation
Just like the human eye adapts to varying levels of light, the superbug is adapting to varying levels of antibiotics (if I understand the situation correctly). Do you call the conditioning of a spy to be more resistant to poisons evolution or adaptation?
-
Well said Sandwich.
I was about to write the same thing but you said it much better.
-
Ah-ha - I've got you there, Mr Sandwich!
The difference is that the bugs have handed their survival traits down thorugh the generations. The spy may become resistant to poisons through training, but will his descendants be born with the same resistance?
The bugs that have the characteristics necessary to survive our antibiotics will do so, and mulitply, and pass on their traits to their 'descendants'. The bugs that do not have the necessary characteristics will die, and their 'inferior' characteristics will not be passed on. Survival of the fittest, as Darwin said.
Woo! Go science! :D
-
Did you even read the links? The superbug never evolved. the only difference between it and it's ancesters is the this one is resistent to anti-biotics.
-
Evolution, my boy - that's how evolution works. That's what it is. Afterall, the only difference between us and our ancestors is hair, tails, and a love of phallic yellow fruit. To a bacterium, being resistant to most all anitbiotics is as important as our being able to walk and chew gum is to us, no doubt.
Evolutionary theory states that future generations will be better equpiied to survive adverse conditions then the current generations (assuming that species survives at all). And this is what the super bug has done. One the whole, its ancestors would be killed by our drugs. Those few that could survive, did so. Now they have mulitplied and are taking the place of the non-resistant bugs, as they die off. Numbers of non-resistant bugs go down. Numbers of resistant, super-bugs go up. Eventually, the non-resistant bugs are all dead, and the species has completely evoloved a resistance to the majority of modern medecines. Survival of the fittest. Booyah!
-
Dude, there is a huge difference between a virus/bacteria passing along traits - there's not much there that can change without affecting it's genetic structure - and humans evolving from monkeys. :doubt:
-
No there isn't. I need some numbers crunched - hey CP, do some maths involving the size of a human and their gene count vs a bacterium and its gene count (rough and crude, I know, but hey). Also, how long have we had antibiotics? Try how many generations of bacteria have been exposed to antibiotics, to produce superbugs in the last, say, decade, vs. how many generation of true homo sapiens have there been?
There is no difference at all, Sandwich - the problem is that you religious guys can't accpet the fact that we humans are the result of lengthy, natural process which has relied on accident and random chance as much as any thing else. You desperately want something to make you believe that you are better than the germs or the other animals. We are not. There is no divine purpose guiding us. We, both as a species and as individuals, got here by sheer accident and luckand very little else. There is no supreme being with a master plan for us. We are in no way different from any other creature on this planet - except for our ability to process abstract concepts, which grants a us delusion of "morality".
Another thing - I suppose you guys don't believe neanderthal man ever existed, right? Another species of homonid? Does that appear in the Bible? Yet we have neanderthal skeletons. They had been thought to have died out over 20'000 years ago, having apprently been superceded by us lot - homo sapiens (survival of the fittest again, in a slightly different context). However, new research in Portugal uncovered skeltons with both homo sapien and neanderthal characteristics. The conclusion of the investigators is that the few remaining neanderthal families merged with 'invading' migratory homo sapien families. Offspring of these mergers produced the hybrid skeletons, and since the DNA is a close enough match, the hybrids could breed. It is now believed that there is residual neanderthal DNA in the european make-up at least, if not further spread around the world... the desireable characteristics of the neanderthal (such as tool skills, art and famliy-level social interaction) were added to human DNA - and before you say owt, we're talking about a time when you needed a certain mindset to grasp the basics of tool making and operation here, and the neanderthal outclassed us lot by far in the tool field - he made far superior flint tools, a skill humans never really picked up until the period when the hybrid skeletons were dated to. A combination of inherited mental abilites and taught skills are responible, it is thought. Humans had other skills and natural qualites, and the resulting hybrid was better equipped than either species to deal with his or her world.
It all comes down to survival of the fittest - which animal has the best chances of surviving long enoug to breed? The fastest one. The one with the biggest teeth and claws. The one with the brightest clours, to attract the lay-deez. The one that can eat the most varied kind of diet, thus expanding it's food resources. The creature better suited to it's environment survives, breeds, and over the generations, the species evolves. Survival. Of. The. Fittest.
That, and Darwin had a better beard than God and Jesus combined :cool:
-
did you guys even read the links sandvich posted
adaptation
The act or process of adapting.
The state of being adapted.
Something, such as a device or mechanism, that is changed or changes so as to become suitable to a new or special application or situation.
A composition that has been recast into a new form: The play is an adaptation of a short novel.
Biology. An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment.
Physiology. The responsive adjustment of a sense organ, such as the eye, to varying conditions, such as light intensity.
Change in behavior of a person or group in response to new or modified surroundings.
evolution
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
The process of developing.
Gradual development.
Biology.
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.
adaptation is a general term, while evolution does fall into this catagory, adaptation is more oftine used to describe learned behaviural changes,
evolution is exactly what is going on here, some bacteria survive an antibiodic, becase what ever weakness the antibiodic was useing gets changed a little due to mutation. then they being the only ones that survived reproduce themselves untill you get sick again, you get more antibiodics, more bacteria survive than last time, these ones are considerably more resistant to the drug. they reproduce themselves, you get sick, you get drugs, a few of them die but by now natural selection has led to the current incarnation to be fairly resistant, you feel beter for a while but now they can tolorate the drug and reproduce in its presence at a rate faster than it kills them and now it's just a mater of time before the drug is rendered totaly useless against what ever bug it is that is now devouring you're flesh at a geometric rate.
moral of the story, those who don't beleve in evolution and are stupid enough to not follow there doctors advice are going to be handed a Darwin award :)
also there are aproxomately
3.1 billion base pairs and 30,000 genes in the human genome, lets compare that with some other organisms
yeast 12million BP, 5300 genes
malaria 23m BP, 6294 G
slime mold 34m, 11,000
nematode 97m, 19,000
fruit fly 137m, 14,000
malaria masquito 289m, 14000
rice 420m, 50,000
purple sea urchin 900m, 27350
mouse 2.7 Billion base pairs, 22,500-30,000 (were not sure exactly) genes
Corn 3 Billion base pairs (compare to the 3.1 billion of humans)
and 50,000 genes! we only have 30,000 and this is fricken CORN!! it's a domesticated plant, surely you will egnolege that corn of today is not like corn of 40,000 years ago
Wheat has 16 billion base pairs, and a comperable 50,000 genes
bullfrogs have 6.9 billion base pairs, and Amoeba dubia, a protozoan, has 670 billion (yes billion) base pairs !!!
we don't know how many genes there are in there but it's a fair bet it's more than us
source discover magasine
now you can see that complexity or 'superiority' has little to do with the size of ones genome, and has nothing to do with the evolvability of said organism.
-
We got 'em now, Bob. Hail Darwin, Master of facial hair! All shall follow his theories and dispair! Mwahahaha!
-
evolution is mother,
evolution is father
:nod:
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
...There is no divine purpose guiding us. We, both as a species and as individuals, got here by sheer accident and luckand very little else. There is no supreme being with a master plan for us.
Gosh, I'm sorry that the sheer existance of the very nation in which I live is a testament to the fact that God not only exists, but is still active in the world today. So it was prophesied in a book thousands of years ago that the Jews would return to the land God has given them as an eternal inheritance - and now we're the Arnold Schwartzenagger of the world... "We're back!". So it was prophesied that Jerusalem would become a stumbling stone to the rest of the world - why, gosh! Lookie here! And here! Wow - Jerusalem seems to be in every single headline of newspapers all over the world. Hmmm..... I guess it figures, since the rest of the world considers all the current problems to be caused by the Jews residing in their land. Such nerve - how dare they! :doubt:
My faith is not out of some personal insecurity, some "need" to believe in a guiding force beyond what we can touch and see and hear. It isn't founded in the teachings of Sunday school lessons ingrained in a young and impressionable mind.
No, my faith is based upon the fulfilment of ancient prophecy right before my very own eyes, in complete disregard of the incredibility of it all. When was the State of Israel formed? At the peak of the Jews' military or political power? Hardly! It was formed after the Holocaust, when 6 million were slaughtered wholesale. It was formed by Holocaust refugees, coming off the boats. And not only that, but it was birthed into a situation that immediately sprouted into full-blown war - a war waged not against a military might, but against those very same Holocaust refugees, disembarking from their ships, being given guns, and going to fight for their right to live. And our victory against the armies of Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Trans-Jordan, and a Saudi Arabian contingent was not by our own might.
Why do you think that the Islamic world hates the Jews so much? Because every single war that Islam has waged against Israel has failed, in essence the god of the Koran being defeated by the God of the Bible. And what a shame that is for Islam.
Israel's continued existance is proof and guarantee that the Word of God holds true today. If Israel is wiped out, my faith crumbles, because that proves the Word of God a lie. America can fall, Iraq may be turned into one big parking lot, but it will not affect my faith. Israel, however, is crucial, and according to the Bible, so long as there is a sun in the sky and stars by night, Israel shall be a nation before God forever.
So bring those Shivans on - let's see them try to make Sol go supernova! :lol:
-
I don't believe in God, and I don't believe in us being here by accident. We exist via evolution. The fittest survived, from primordial soup to cavemen, to today. I need no God, for I have my humanity. We are sentient and intelligent and that makes us powerful. It just so happens, some of us do not have the same beliefs and when our brainpower fails we fall back our basic instincts that are always violent. Also, sorry Sand, but in terms of the existence of your country, I think thats just the result of human evolution and intelligence too.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Also, sorry Sand, but in terms of the existence of your country, I think thats just the result of human evolution and intelligence too.
How can you blanketly dismiss what Sandwich just posted? Israel was birthed out of slavery. Israel was violently uprooted from her homeland, not once, but several times. Hitler tried to exterminate the Jewish people during WWII - and keep in mind, the Jews at that time were still in exile (without their own country). And yet Israel exists as a nation today.
Chalk it up to survival of the fittest. :wtf: :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
How can you blanketly dismiss what Sandwich just posted? Israel was birthed out of slavery. Israel was violently uprooted from her homeland, not once, but several times. Hitler tried to exterminate the Jewish people during WWII - and keep in mind, the Jews at that time were still in exile (without their own country). And yet Israel exists as a nation today.
Chalk it up to survival of the fittest. :wtf: :doubt:
Hmm, I see tempers are still fragile around here. Well, I won't argue with you on those points. And i never did. I just don't see how it proves God is still, or ever was kickin about! :p
-
First of all, to me God doesnt exist.
I think Religion making god , al of it, is for emotions and mentality, to make people feel better. Well its even use as for advantages to the church, for power, for example, this astronomer, that found that Earth wasnt really in the center of the universe, and then he brought it up to the church, they did what they wanted and pleased them, as they killed him because he was "wrong" and the church was right.
Really i dont need god, because he never help me, people say to me pray for you better future. Blah Blah. Because i was the one who did everything to be where im now. And even i dont have to fallow the way of obligation. But i respect others, and i dont give a crap on what are their beliefs.
-
I don't see Israial as a testement to God I see it as a testomont of the israilies,
God didn't found the modern state of Isrial, you did
God didn't hold off the entire middle east full of insain murderers, you did
God is not responsable for the great things we as a speiceses and people have done, we are
hell even if there was a God he wouldn't be responsable for the things we've done, wich is something that deeply religous people always say, anything good is God, any thing bad is man,
no even under the assumption of a God, we have free will and our acomplishments are our own, all to the greatness of man
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
God didn't hold off the entire middle east full of insain murderers, you did
No time for a proper reply, but just know that every single one of the wars Israel's fought for her survival has been won due to downright, out-and-out, documented miracles.
-
ah, you don't give you're selves enough credit,
you guys kick major ass
-
Originally posted by Black_Dragon
First of all, to me God doesnt exist.
I think Religion making god , al of it, is for emotions and mentality, to make people feel better. Well its even use as for advantages to the church, for power, for example, this astronomer, that found that Earth wasnt really in the center of the universe, and then he brought it up to the church, they did what they wanted and pleased them, as they killed him because he was "wrong" and the church was right.
Really i dont need god, because he never help me, people say to me pray for you better future. Blah Blah. Because i was the one who did everything to be where im now. And even i dont have to fallow the way of obligation. But i respect others, and i dont give a crap on what are their beliefs.
Apparently being spiritual can prolong your life. Apparently religious people feel better about themselves most of the time and that puts less strain on the heart.
Of course, being spiritual can happen in many different ways.
-
do you realise that you just gave a good description for spiritualism to be a evolved trait :D
religous people also tend to have a lot of children
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
religous people also tend to have a lot of children
Hehe, and then we have a bunch of religious children just waiting to spawn more dogmatic dinklings....
Personally I think religion shouldn't be taught to children so they can find god themselves if they wish, but be able to see the 'other side'.... (so on the flip side it shouldn't be ingrained in them that religion is a horrible, brain-sucking thing)
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Hehe, and then we have a bunch of religious children just waiting to spawn more dogmatic dinklings....
Personally I think religion shouldn't be taught to children so they can find god themselves if they wish, but be able to see the 'other side'.... (so on the flip side it shouldn't be ingrained in them that religion is a horrible, brain-sucking thing)
So then they should be taught only evolution, that man is only an animal, and there are no moral standards?
Wanna know the end effect is if that is put in place? Answer:Today.
Today Christianity is not taught in schools, only the religion evolution. So the end effect is kids shooting up kids, teen sex, and a whole host of things I cannot think of at the moment. I ask you this. Way back when Christianity was part of the curriculum were these things as, for the lack of a better word, "big" problems (note they might not have been problems at all)?
I have seen evidence for and against evolution. I have also seen evidence for and against creationism and God. I have fought myself over this. And you know what, I came to the conclusion that creationism is true and much more "scientific" then evolution.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
So then they should be taught only evolution, that man is only an animal, and there are no moral standards?
I tell you. I have seen evidence for and against evolution. I have also seen evidence for and against creationism and God. I have fought myself over this. And you know what, I came to the conclusion that creationism is true and much more "scientific" then evolution.
Creationism is not sensible. Creationists believe the earth is nly 12'000 years old or something to that affect. So, explain to me about the age of fossils and the existence of dinosaurs.
-
Originally posted by 01010
So, explain to me about the age of fossils and the existence of dinosaurs.
Easy. God created them. Then in the flood most of them died. Then the post flood climate was to low in temperature for them to survive long after.
-
Originally posted by 01010
Creationism is not sensible. Creationists believe the earth is nly 12'000 years old or something to that affect. So, explain to me about the age of fossils and the existence of dinosaurs.
Actually, I posted a topic on that very topic a few months ago, lemme see if I can find it...
[EDIT] Ok, so I didn't post a topic - I replied to a topic KT posted. Check out my first post in this (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,10599.0.html) thread.
The very basics of it are this: imagine a rocketship travelling at a significant percentage of the speed of light. For the people on that ship, time will seem to pass just as slow/fast as it always has. But relative to time back on Earth, their minute will be stretched over a few months/years/whatever, right? So far, so good, nothing beyond what Einstein said, ok?
Now, the same thing, albeit on a smaller scale, happens with low/high-gravity areas - gravity also has an effect on the passage of time.
Now, consider this: The universe as we know it starts with the Big Bang. Now, time at that one speck of near-nothingness was passing at the rate of one minute per minute. But when all that matter suddenly exploded outwards, what happened to time as it was percieved from each individual piece of matter? It was stretched out, so that it was passing much slower than time at "Ground Zero".
Scientists have done the calculations: the six relative days that are told about in the Bible, if they were considered to be relative to how time was passing on the speeding Earth (slowly), works out to be approximately 16-20 billion years relative to "Ground Zero" time.
Therefore, there is no contradiction in stating that (avoiding the use of the words 'creation' or 'evolution') the universe was brought into being in six literal days, and at the same time, 15-20 billion years.
I love it! :)
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Today Christianity is not taught in schools, only the religion evolution. So the end effect is kids shooting up kids, teen sex, and a whole host of things I cannot think of at the moment. I ask you this. Way back when Christianity was part of the curriculum were these things as, for the lack of a better word, "big" problems (note they might not have been problems at all)?
what do you call the crusade eh? Better than school shootings?
Anyway, evolution doesn't cause all the sexual stupidity. Anyway it's perfectly fine to have sex at early age, however children usually can't take responsibility so there's the problem. The problem is not inherent in the early sexual process itself...
Additionally whether christianity is taught or not I think shootings will occur.. why? cause chldren these days are stressed more than people of 'old times' (and can't cope well either)
(where'd you get the idea evolution teaches early sex? or causes shootings...)
About your moral standards point... even animals have 'morals' too ya know. Duh. (wait, are you saying humans are for some odd reason very special when in fact our DNA is very close to rats? why are two things made of the same building blocks so separated? Why the hell should humans NOT be considered animals? [dont' tell me we have souls or somehting - 'cause you can't say that's scientific... as you claim christianity to be])
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
wait, are you saying humans are for some odd reason very special when in fact our DNA is very close to rats? why are two things made of the same building blocks so separated? Why the hell should humans NOT be considered animals?
Sorry - I forgot about all the rat skyscrapers and airplanes and space shuttles. :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Actually, I posted a topic on that very topic a few months ago, lemme see if I can find it...
[EDIT] Ok, so I didn't post a topic - I replied to a topic KT posted. Check out my first post in this (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,10599.0.html) thread.
The very basics of it are this: imagine a rocketship travelling at a significant percentage of the speed of light. For the people on that ship, time will seem to pass just as slow/fast as it always has. But relative to time back on Earth, their minute will be stretched over a few months/years/whatever, right? So far, so good, nothing beyond what Einstein said, ok?
Now, the same thing, albeit on a smaller scale, happens with low/high-gravity areas - gravity also has an effect on the passage of time.
Now, consider this: The universe as we know it starts with the Big Bang. Now, time at that one speck of near-nothingness was passing at the rate of one minute per minute. But when all that matter suddenly exploded outwards, what happened to time as it was percieved from each individual piece of matter? It was stretched out, so that it was passing much slower than time at "Ground Zero".
Scientists have done the calculations: the six relative days that are told about in the Bible, if they were considered to be relative to how time was passing on the speeding Earth (slowly), works out to be approximately 16-20 billion years relative to "Ground Zero" time.
Therefore, there is no contradiction in stating that (avoiding the use of the words 'creation' or 'evolution') the universe was brought into being in six literal days, and at the same time, 15-20 billion years.
I love it! :)
Hmm.. I get all this time stretching -that's fine.
But where does it ever mention in the bible about dinosaurs or fossils? Isn't this evidence that the people writing the bible had no clue about fossils and such and just wrote a book about what they could deduce/imagine/see?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Sorry - I forgot about all the rat skyscrapers and airplanes and space shuttles. :doubt:
Sure, but we still end up to be large conglomerations of DNA that's very similar to rats. We're not talking achievement here, rather I'm talking about structural similarity of the thing.
To clear my point up: if I build two foundations, one painted green the other blue and put them somewhere, they're very similar right? If I built a shopping mall on one, and build a very small doghouse on the other would one foundation actually get to a point where it's not a foundation because of the stuff built on the basics of it?
Similarly humans and rats are similar in DNA, the same foundation of an animal. Then current humans are shopping malls and rats are dog houses... but the foundation is still the same.
So in conclusion the base of the 'animal' (DNA) is the same for humans and rats, just one has a shopping mall and the other dog houses therefore a human is still an animal :nod:
Edit: *yawn* I'm lolling in a state of half-sleep... so I thnk I'll zip away for the morning/night... *will read replies later*
-
what do you call the crusade eh? Better than school shootings?
I call them distorted Christianity. You must get it straight, the Roman church had distorted the Bible.
Anyway, evolution doesn't cause all the sexual stupidity. Anyway it's perfectly fine to have sex at early age, however children usually can't take responsibility so there's the problem. The problem is not inherent in the early sexual process itself...
I haveno doubt that that is. I was meaning out of wedlock sex. A teen can be married.
Additionally whether christianity is taught or not I think shootings will occur.. why? cause chldren these days are stressed more than people of 'old times' (and can't cope well either)
Ya they can't cope because they have no standards to live by.
About your moral standards point... even animals have 'morals' too ya know. Duh. (wait, are you saying humans are for some odd reason very special when in fact our DNA is very close to rats? why are two things made of the same building blocks so separated? Why the hell should humans NOT be considered animals? [dont' tell me we have souls or somehting - 'cause you can't say that's scientific... as you claim christianity to be])
I will say we are something special. And not being "scientific" is OK in this discusion because science deals with the physical part of nature not the spiritual part.
Now I have a question for you ppl that might bring the petty discusion to a close.
If evolution is true what do I have to loss by believing that God is real?
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
I call them distorted Christianity. You must get it straight, the Roman church had distorted the Bible.
Ya they can't cope because they have no standards to live by.
I will say we are something special. And not being "scientific" is OK in this discusion because science deals with the physical part of nature not the spiritual part.
Now I have a question for you ppl that might bring the petty discusion to a close.
If evolution is true what do I have to loss by believing that God is real?
Nothing, but that was never the point, everyone is free to believe whatever they like, but some christians try to enforce their beliefs upon people that choose not to believe.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Hmm.. I get all this time stretching -that's fine.
But where does it ever mention in the bible about dinosaurs or fossils? Isn't this evidence that the people writing the bible had no clue about fossils and such and just wrote a book about what they could deduce/imagine/see?
The Bible was written for humans over the entire span of history - several thousand years. Fossils and stuff only became widely known in the past two hundred years or so. Therefore, it's not a high priority seeing as most of history wouldn't know what it was talking about.
Originally posted by 01010
Nothing, but that was never the point, everyone is free to believe whatever they like, but some christians try to enforce their beliefs upon people that choose not to believe
If, according to your moral view, everyone who does not share this moral view will severely regret it in the afterlife, don't you have a moral obligation to share that view with people? Not sharing, based on your own moral standards, would be unconscionable.
Not that this does not mean forcing it upon people. Converting people by the sword is against the most fundamental tenets of Christianity (thus the Crusades and the Inquisition are misrepresentative of true Christianity). We're supposed to show people the word and answer people's questions, but we're not supposed to force it upon them if they reject it.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
But where does it ever mention in the bible about dinosaurs or fossils? Isn't this evidence that the people writing the bible had no clue about fossils and such and just wrote a book about what they could deduce/imagine/see?
Much of it was in fact observations and personal experiences of what people back then saw, yes. But the first 5 books were written by Moses. And I'll be the first to admit that he most assuredly wasn't around for The Beginning™, but check out that link I put up: the correlation between what is written to have occurred on each (relative) "day" of creation, to the astronomical, geological, and biological activity in the universe and on Earth is nothing short of astounding! Seen through this time stretching thing, Creationists and Evolutionists are actually agreeing about the progress of life in the early stages. :)
An so, since Moses wasn't around then, how'd he know? Well, either word-of-mouth, passed on from generation, or what he wrote was God-inspired. Personally, I believe the latter, since the former doesn't make sense - word-of-mouth has to originate with someone, and everyone agrees that no-one was around during most of the early formative stages of the universe or the earth.
Originally posted by Kamikaze
So in conclusion the base of the 'animal' (DNA) is the same for humans and rats, just one has a shopping mall and the other dog houses therefore a human is still an animal :nod:
Continuing that allegory, what do people say: "I'm heading down to the mall," or "I'm heading down to that foundation with a mall on top"? Yeah, our base components are not just the same - they're identical if you go down far enough. Atoms, quarks, etc... But it's in the combination that we find the difference.
Originally posted by 01010
Nothing, but that was never the point, everyone is free to believe whatever they like, but some christians try to enforce their beliefs upon people that choose not to believe.
Which briings us to the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, etc etc. Heck, even Hitler claimed to be acting in the name of Christianity. You gotta wonder how close to the mark Christianity is to be distorted by so many...
But anyways, Christianity has a history of going far off whack (see above) and having that be seen as the utmost example of Christianity. It's like looking at what the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor in WWII and using that as an example of how the Japanese are, period. Everyone (and everything that is composed of anyone) has it's ups and downs, but all should not be condemmed for the acts of a few, or even many - especially when those acts are diametrically opposed to the very core tenets of that groups' belief.
Also... what Goober said. My favorite example is the mistranslation, into both English and many other languages, of one of the Ten Commandments as "Thou shalt not kill." No offense to all the pacifist Christians, but that is so contradictory to the rest of the Bible that it's sad that many have accepted it as true for so long. The accurate translation is "Thou shalt not murder," and you'll have to agree that there's a heck of a lot of difference between killing and murdering. :doubt:
-
Ironically, I now feel I'm in the position of defending christianity... :eek2: :wtf: Only so far as to say at least Christianity has evolved on the large scale to be more modern. Many other religions which practise today can be far more barbaric and dangerous. Militant Islam alone is leading the world to another global conflict because it wants enforce medieval, opressive and horrific laws. Even Judaism practises mutiliation of a sort. Christianity has a lot to answer for, yes - Catholicism made Western society intolerant and stigmatic towards minorities (not just ethnic ones). It also put young women through the traumatic horror of being forced to give up thier children if they weren't married. It also supported Hitler at one point, in an attempt to save the Pope's sorry ass from Blitzkrieg. However, Christianity as a whole cannot be considered a bad thing. I do not believe its spiritual teachings, but I do believe its moral ones.
(Just don't get me started on bigotry in the west of scotland)
-
Originally posted by vyper
Even Judaism practises mutiliation of a sort.
Eh?
-
Methinks he refers to the ole' winkle chopping...
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Easy. God created them. Then in the flood most of them died. Then the post flood climate was to low in temperature for them to survive long after.
SnoJ... dinosaurs died out over 65 million years ago (unless you have absoloutely no faith in radiometric dating). The flood was - what - a few thousand years ago? Do not try to tell us that the dinos died in the flod. We will point at you and laugh most heartily, Henry VIII-style...
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Today Christianity is not taught in schools, only the religion evolution. So the end effect is kids shooting up kids, teen sex, and a whole host of things I cannot think of at the moment. I ask you this. Way back when Christianity was part of the curriculum were these things as, for the lack of a better word, "big" problems (note they might not have been problems at all)?
Religion was compulsory in schools in the first half of the last century. There was still the first and second world wars. Religion was taught during the Napoleonic wars. Religion was taught during the Hundred Years War and th English civil war. And you know the most amusing part? Religion was taught during the Crusades.
I can't stand religion, but I am a moral person. Are you saying that because I am not a regular church-goer, I am a bad, law-breaking person with no sense of right or wrong? Example - I reliase why it's unacceptable to go out and kill another person. I don't need a priest to tell me that. Your statement that without religion we have no system of morals is just plain wrong.
And you know what, I came to the conclusion that creationism is true and much more "scientific" then evolution.
Explain, if you will. Faith is not scientific. Without proof, there is no faith, that's the entire point. When the big guy in the sky appears before me and starts throwing around lightning and so forth, then logic dictataes that I must aknowledge his exsistance - but I will still refuse to let him order me around as he will.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Eh?
Y'know... the things thats done... um... *points sirruptisiouly to Sandwich's doo-hickey*
-
"unless you have absoloutely no faith in radiometric dating"
I see you're new to this argument :)
no, he has no faith in carbon dateing
on the point of Snoj's desire to turn the public schools of America into Cristian madrasas,
you are confuseing morality with religon, it is quite plain to see that we, as a socal creature, have evolved inherant behaviors enableing us to get along with each other,
I doubt you would argue the point that people are born with an inherant understanding of right and wrong (though I'm sure we'll argue on were it came from), I am also sure that you and I would agree that following these rules is important for us to maintain a healthy civilisation, I am also sure that we would agree on the majority of the basic rules, things like: killing someone is generaly a bad thing (unless there trying to do an equal or greater bad thing to you or someone alse),
and don't steal,
and shareing is generaly good,
be nice to people,
there is however a few that I am sure we'll disagree on, for example:
there is one God, the Father All-sovereign, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, and the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of the Father before all the ages, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens, and was made flesh of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into the heavens, and sits on the right hand of the Father, and comes again with glory to judge living and dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end:
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the Life-giver, that proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and Son is worshipped together and glorified together, who spoke through the prophets:
and if you don't agree you will burn in a pit of hell for all eternity, so you are not alowed to beleve diferently
now for you that last one is a biggy, for me it is not a truth, it is a belefe, if you chose to beleve it fine, but you can not force someone to beleve it, and you can most certanly not enforce it through the government.
to me there is no greater act of violence than to try and force someone to beleve the same thing as you, (not to be confused with defending ones belefes)
but some things must be tought in schools, so science will be the measure of known fact, science says nothing on the unknown, it fully egnoleges that it does not know anything, and you can fight any point so long as you have evedence to back you're self up, there are many people that hold a belefe of historical fact and a belefe of spiritual fact that would seem to contradict each other.