Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Aardwolf on January 31, 2009, 01:00:33 pm
-
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Discuss.
-
I bet God is not actively involved with us anymore. Just created, then sit back and facepalmed every century.
-
Problem of Evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil)
-
If there is no god, then there is no evil.
-
I usually don't participate in discussions regarding god's existance, but any logical attempt to prove god's existence or behavior is seriously flawed. Pratchett said it best in one of his books where a guy said "It's a safe bet to believe in god since you lose nothing that way" met a group of angry gods after he had died. Turned out that the gods didn't like smartasses like him.
What it comes to my personal beliefs, I simply think we are doing journey back to home all the time and finally arrive on death.
Mika
-
Well, you could say that free will inevitably led to the rise of evil; that giving humans freedom of choice limits their ability to be completely good. So basically god isn't able to make us perfect without turning us into glorified automatons. So why call him god?
-
The Christian's God's limits are those that he places on himself. He cannot break them because He is perfect.
He is willing but not always able. For the most part he's not able because he waits on you.
The lack of good is evil, for instance the lack of God among most Christians can be seen clearly.
-
But if you assume there is no god at all, then there really can't be good or evil. There has to be a judge in order for good and evil to be, you know, good and evil. The natural universe has no morality.
The best part of no god, though, is that humans are not special. Without some god creating us in his/her/its own image or for some purpose, we are just another animal on another planet in some dark corner of the universe.
-
Very true. No argument there.
But luckily we have a sense of "morality" no matter how fragile it's existence.
-
Existence of God is a rather moot point in my opinion. If God is anything lesser than the collective overruling consciousness of the universe (or multiverse depending on point of view), then it's just a conscious being residing in the universe, in which case I fail to see any point in believing or not believing in it - either this creature we call "God" exists or not, either way it would still be equal in category (if not in power levels) to us; a sentient being existing inside the universe. Or multiverse. Servitude to such creature is something I am not willing to enter whether or not I would believe in the existence of such being, I kinda dislike cults of personality...
On the other hand, if the Universe really does have a collective consciousness... then everything is a part of it and I doubt that my consciousness ending (death) has much of an effect in the whole, and servitude of a personal deity becomes even more of a moot point, since it would then be better to show one's gratitude to universe by living as good a life as possible, which makes sense even if universe is a "blind god" without a single, overruling consciousness.
Or in a nutshell... which is bigger, universe (by definition "all that exists") or God?
Personally I think it's very unlikely that the universe would have an "overconsciousness", but due to my view of the world I can not deny the possibility of such a thing, after all the functionality of this consciousness would very likely be based on some currently unknown natural phenomenon. But on the other hand I do not think believing in these things changes things in the slightest, no matter how strange theological and teleological assumptions have been made during centuries.
Quoting another famous statement from Epicurus:
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
Or in other words, the existence of my consciousness will continue as long as it will, and afterwards my death will not matter to me.
What comes to the problem of evil in context of the existence of God, well, as you might see that question becomes as moot as the question about God's existence, so I'll just pass on that one for now.
-
I don't believe in a power from above because of many reasons, this (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page) being one of those reasons.
-
Existence of God is a rather moot point in my opinion. If God is anything lesser than the collective overruling consciousness of the universe (or multiverse depending on point of view), then it's just a conscious being residing in the universe, in which case I fail to see any point in believing or not believing in it - either this creature we call "God" exists or not, either way it would still be equal in category (if not in power levels) to us; a sentient being existing inside the universe. Or multiverse. Servitude to such creature is something I am not willing to enter whether or not I would believe in the existence of such being, I kinda dislike cults of personality...
On the other hand, if the Universe really does have a collective consciousness... then everything is a part of it and I doubt that my consciousness ending (death) has much of an effect in the whole, and servitude of a personal deity becomes even more of a moot point, since it would then be better to show one's gratitude to universe by living as good a life as possible, which makes sense even if universe is a "blind god" without a single, overruling consciousness.
Or in a nutshell... which is bigger, universe (by definition "all that exists") or God?
Personally I think it's very unlikely that the universe would have an "overconsciousness", but due to my view of the world I can not deny the possibility of such a thing, after all the functionality of this consciousness would very likely be based on some currently unknown natural phenomenon. But on the other hand I do not think believing in these things changes things in the slightest, no matter how strange theological and teleological assumptions have been made during centuries.
Quoting another famous statement from Epicurus:
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
Or in other words, the existence of my consciousness will continue as long as it will, and afterwards my death will not matter to me.
What comes to the problem of evil in context of the existence of God, well, as you might see that question becomes as moot as the question about God's existence, so I'll just pass on that one for now.
interesting...
-
I don't believe in a power from above because of many reasons, this (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page) being one of those reasons.
Well, I hope the other reasons are more rational :p
I don't like that place. But who has time to look at everything and give a verdict :D
-
you got it all bass akwards, god is the satan
-
you got it all bass akwards, god is the satan
Yeah I'm bored too...
-
The fun part of god, though, and belief is that it doesn't matter if there is a god or not. Whether god is real or not, the belief in god still inspires people to do the silliest of things.
-
The fun part of god, though, and belief is that it doesn't matter if there is a god or not. Whether god is real or not, the belief in god still inspires people to do the silliest of things.
It's made me a very happy person and given me a great life so far. There is no proof for either side, (as far as I'm concerned) some things are taken by faith. As long as I'm not a bigot and disrespectful though I don't see the big deal about believing in God.
-
The best part of no god, though, is that humans are not special. Without some god creating us in his/her/its own image or for some purpose, we are just another animal on another planet in some dark corner of the universe.
What makes you think we are any more special than any other potential lifeform in the universe?
If God created us, then he also created Alien Joe from Zeta Reticuli.
Those aliens would be him children too....probably also created in His image (who's to say they are not?)
-
Well, I hope the other reasons are more rational :p
I don't like that place. But who has time to look at everything and give a verdict :D
Why yes, there are, but I'd rather not turn this into another religious debate.
-
Well, I hope the other reasons are more rational :p
I don't like that place. But who has time to look at everything and give a verdict :D
Why yes, there are, but I'd rather not turn this into another religious debate.
That's fine they are mundane around here and very pointless. I'm not that bored. :p
-
The fun part of god, though, and belief is that it doesn't matter if there is a god or not. Whether god is real or not, the belief in god still inspires people to do the silliest of things.
Yeah, in that sense God definitely is real to many people, but so are pink elephants and little green men, and three celestial dwarves. And Satan and all the other hairy tale characters.
The only difference is that when someone says they can communicate with invisible dwarves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florentino_V._Floro) they are seen as lunatics, but when someone claims they are doing God's work or the like, far less people think the same. Which is immensely troubling to everyone who doesn't believe in God, and further more in same God as the one who claims is getting messages from above...
As long as I'm not a bigot and disrespectful though I don't see the big deal about believing in God.
:yes:
Most people tend to think the same way. Hell, I think that way as well and I don't really have any faith in more than the existence of universe and even that is kinda on the level of "I observe something, so something must exist - whether that something is the same thing as I observe I can't really know..."
It's the vocal nutcase minorities that give every faction a bad reputation if the moderates let them gain positions of power. Zealots - both religious and atheist zealots - annoy me to the extreme.
Damn this discussion is proceeding fast...
-
The best part of no god, though, is that humans are not special. Without some god creating us in his/her/its own image or for some purpose, we are just another animal on another planet in some dark corner of the universe.
What makes you think we are any more special than any other potential lifeform in the universe?
If God created us, then he also created Alien Joe from Zeta Reticuli.
Those aliens would be him children too....probably also created in His image (who's to say they are not?)
I don't believe humans are special. Most humans do, though. Humans are just yet another product of the natural universe. You know, evolution, etc. A human life is never worth more than the life of any other animal.
-
I really enjoy your post Herra Tohtori and I agree with it. :)
-
What makes you think we are any more special than any other potential lifeform in the universe?
If God created us, then he also created Alien Joe from Zeta Reticuli.
Those aliens would be him children too....probably also created in His image (who's to say they are not?)
In which case either they are unfallen or God is really, really bad at learning from his mistakes. :p
-
The Christian's God's limits are those that he places on himself
Then either he's not omnipotent or is malevolent.
-
Well, who's to say a god's judgement of what is good and evil is the same as ours? Perhaps god is omniscient and omnipotent, but has no morality. We can say he's evil, but we can say anything is evil.
-
But if you assume there is no god at all, then there really can't be good or evil. There has to be a judge in order for good and evil to be, you know, good and evil. The natural universe has no morality.
Honestly, why does the idea of good actions and bad actions have to be respected by the whole universe? To be a human that feels pain, and has the capacity of feeling empathy towards others, the belief that one should not do others ill is so...basic. That's why there are no sociopaths and mass murderers that have normal minds. Not because of societal pressures, but because the idea that pain and happiness exists in beings like themselves is such a basic axiom of existence that in order to ignore others feelings to such an absurd extent their minds have to become severely warped. They're warped not because they're misfits in society; but because they really are mad.
And any living entity; any living, conscious entity that desires to live can understand instantly why it is bad to remove another life. The universe may harm and kill without care, but the universe is an inanimate object, no more capable of feeling than a pebble. To be seen as something that can do good or evil, one must live, breathe, and think: and to do those things is to give up the ability to see life coldly and impartially. It doesn't matter what the **** god or the universe thinks about good or evil. It matters to us, and that's all that matters.
-
It's the vocal nutcase minorities that give every faction a bad reputation if the moderates let them gain positions of power. Zealots - both religious and atheist zealots - annoy me to the extreme.
:yes:
On the topic of morality, studies in developmental psychology have been showing that children develop an early sense of morality and correct social conduct without the direct influence of religion. Furthermore, this is the case across many cultures, even those considered less "religious" than others, so it is not just a matter of religious ideas "seeping in" to the minds of children. It appears that morality, including norms such as sharing, reciprocal behavior (acting towards others the way you'd have them towards you), and punishment for unjust acts, may be deeply rooted in our evolutionary cognitive heritage, and will emerge given the right social circumstances, without any prompting from religious sources.
On a personal note, hurray for secular pantheism! :D Nature is spiritually awe-inspiring enough for me, and we don't need to go to church to appreciate it.
-
But if you assume there is no god at all, then there really can't be good or evil. There has to be a judge in order for good and evil to be, you know, good and evil. The natural universe has no morality.
You're wrong. You live with people, and there are certain guidelines we all tend to see as right and wrong, barring truly crazy people. Some god telling people to do something wouldn't make "something" right, ("God is good" does not mean "good is God") people all have a preconception of good and evil quite separate from god, whether they know it or not.
-
The Christian's God's limits are those that he places on himself
Then either he's not omnipotent or is malevolent.
In my opinion that is trivial nonsense. Can God make a burrito that's so hot not even He can stand it? Hmmm... ponder that one.
In theory that seems correct, but the fact is I'm glad God gave us free will. Now there is a fragile idea in itself. But then there would be no point in creation at all. To be zombies and prisoners to fate like many Calvinistic and naturalistic minded people believe (or should.)
-
On a personal note, hurray for secular pantheism! :D Nature is spiritually awe-inspiring enough for me, and we don't need to go to church to appreciate it.
It really is wonderful. :)
-
Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces.
(http://www.comicsreporter.com/images/uploads/fff17rorschach.jpg)
It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us.
-
Uh. Reality isn't random. I can see it, touch it, taste it and hear it. I can measure it. It doesn't change from one day to the next.
-
I'd say God doesn't prevent evil because he gave us free will.
Good things will happen to bad people just as much as bad things will happen to good people.
Also
Good things will happen to good people just as much as bad things will happen to bad people.
It's just natural, that's the way things are.
Talking about how God doesn't prevent bad things bores me. I'm surprised it doesn't bore other people of religion or atheism. It's the oldest argument in the book. It's tiring, old, overused, and dumb. I figure people who would be talking about deities wouldn't want to bring this up.
Why not talk about how God doesn't prevent good things? Oh, but people wont because that's not the norm.
Apart from the norms of the world and going with what the bible says. God created us with free will and dominion over this planet. He doesn't control us like drones with no consciousness forever repeating "praise be the lord almighty". Imagine if you did that (i guess the equivalent would be a ton of ipods that were stuck on repeat hooked up to a speaker system saying "praise be Galemp almighty), it'd be a very empty and pointless thing to do. God wanted to have fellowship, so he created man to have fellowship with Him. This is much more fulfilling and not pointless since you now have followers. But, since man has free will and God doesn't take away free will, many will choose not to follow him, many will choose to be evil, good, deluded, etc. Good things will happen to bad people, bad things will happen to good people.
Humans have an amazing capacity for formulating ideas and theories. The epicurus quote is an amazing critical analysis of God either way.
-
you got it all bass akwards, god is the satan
Yeah I'm bored too...
While Nuke is just being, well, Nuke, I'm not.
This is in fact a particular gnostic viewpoint. God is not good. However, I'm going to take it to its logical extreme.
This is something that studying Christian theology sort of forced upon me; I was a practicing Christian once. But when it comes down to it, God is apparently an out-and-out asshole. The doctrine of original sin and being cast out of the Garden is the story of God blaming the people who were, morally, least cuplable for what happened. God never really got better about that kind of thing. The ultimate proof of this awaits in the lake of fire, where souls burn in torment for eternity, regardless of their crimes or whether God even bothered to check He had gotten His word to them and they even had a chance. I don't care what your crimes were. Even murder and rape, for which I would happily revoke your membership in the human race. Eternal torture is simply not moral. No crime is worthy of being burned alive forever. A week, a month, a year, perhaps even a decade. But not forever.
So put simply God is evil. If He exists, then we have a moral duty to rebel against Him, to free ourselves from His control and to destroy Him that He may never harm another.
Yes, you read the correctly. I am advocating that if we can locate the bastard, we should blow God up. He deserves it.
Jesus of Nazareth, on the other hand, was a stand-up guy, and worthy of respect. He was someone worth following. But if the Son is, the Father is not.
-
Uh. Reality isn't random. I can see it, touch it, taste it and hear it. I can measure it. It doesn't change from one day to the next.
Rather, you haven't noticed it change. Maybe all the consistency that you have observed is coincidental. Maybe your memories of yesterday's rules are false.
-
Apart from the norms of the world and going with what the bible says. God created us with free will and dominion over this planet. He doesn't control us like drones with no consciousness forever repeating "praise be the lord almighty". Imagine if you did that (i guess the equivalent would be a ton of ipods that were stuck on repeat hooked up to a speaker system saying "praise be Galemp almighty), it'd be a very empty and pointless thing to do. God wanted to have fellowship, so he created man to have fellowship with Him. This is much more fulfilling and not pointless since you now have followers.
Why is it that the biggest memebots are religious followers then? If God didn't want drones then why did he claim he would reward those who act the most like drones? If as you claim God wants fellowship then why would God want a bunch of yes men who constantly follow him around saying what a great person he is?
Maybe God wants yes men. Maybe he's such an egoist that life is simply a way of God picking out the biggest lick-arses to be with him. Frankly if that's the case it's hardly surprising Satan rebelled then is it. We've all known jerks like that in real life and they're not fun to be friends with and certainly even worse as the boss. :D
Or maybe it's that the test is not who has faith, but who chooses to ignore the bull****. If God wanted companions then the ones he'd want are not the ipods and lick-arses but the ones who actually pick out the good bits (Jesus talking about loving thy neighbour and being kind to everybody) and ignore the bad ones. God is painted as a kindly father much of the time. Surely every parent wants their child to be able to think for themselves rather than simply being a clone of themselves. I'd rather have kids who told me I was wrong than ones who simply parroted my ideals back to me because they'd never thought about them themselves.
If God does move in mysterious ways, if God does have an ineffable plan, why is it that religious people never seem to consider that the Bible/Koran/Torah must be taken as absolute truth? Why would God write down his entire plan in a book if he really wants companions with free will? That's like presenting potential friends with a friendship charter and promising to never speak to anyone again who doesn't follow it. What's especially amusing about that of course is that most religions assume that people following the other religions were simply tricked or fooled into following a false religion. The possibility that there is a God but that all the religions are deliberately false never seems to occur.
I'm not going to go as far as NGTM-1R in saying that you need to get rid of God. If you do believe that there is a God, simply be aware that he might not have been as straight with you about what he wanted as the book claims.
-
So put simply God is evil. If He exists, then we have a moral duty to rebel against Him, to free ourselves from His control and to destroy Him that He may never harm another.
Hm, interesting.. but is God obliged to stop us from doing the stupid things we do?
If he is, then he is also obliged to take away our freedom, to foster us forever. For which we must hate him in any case, heh.
So, a "good" God is actually impossible as a concept. It can only choose from being either an ignorant god, a non-existent god, or a pain in the ass god.
-
Hm, interesting.. but is God obliged to stop us from doing the stupid things we do?
If he is, then he is also obliged to take away our freedom, to foster us forever. For which we must hate him in any case, heh.
Interestingly enough, that's totally irrevelant to my point. I'm not even going to bother addressing Epicurus. We're cutting direct to the eternal damnation issue.
-
I don't believe humans are special. Most humans do, though. Humans are just yet another product of the natural universe. You know, evolution, etc. A human life is never worth more than the life of any other animal.
*watsisname agrees* :yes:
-
Interestingly enough, that's totally irrevelant to my point. I'm not even going to bother addressing Epicurus. We're cutting direct to the eternal damnation issue.
As I said in my post that is assuming that the eternal damnation thing is actually real. If it is, then yeah I agree 100% that God must be evil since eternal damnation awaits everyone who doesn't believe in God regardless of whether or not they had ever even heard of him.
-
In which case either they are unfallen or God is really, really bad at learning from his mistakes. :p
Eh? :wtf:
unfallen? What is that supposed to mean?
Some god telling people to do something wouldn't make "something" right, ("God is good" does not mean "good is God") people all have a preconception of good and evil quite separate from god, whether they know it or not.
That is open to much, much debate.
If there is a God, the creator of everything, then He would be way beyond our understanding and even wildest dreams when it comes to power, knowledge, etc..
So to assume to know ANYTHING better than Him would be downright insane. (if His intelligence and knowledge are virtually limitless)
Technicely, God saying that something is right would defacto make something right or good.
While Nuke is just being, well, Nuke, I'm not.
This is in fact a particular gnostic viewpoint. God is not good. However, I'm going to take it to its logical extreme.
This is something that studying Christian theology sort of forced upon me; I was a practicing Christian once. But when it comes down to it, God is apparently an out-and-out asshole. The doctrine of original sin and being cast out of the Garden is the story of God blaming the people who were, morally, least cuplable for what happened. God never really got better about that kind of thing. The ultimate proof of this awaits in the lake of fire, where souls burn in torment for eternity, regardless of their crimes or whether God even bothered to check He had gotten His word to them and they even had a chance. I don't care what your crimes were. Even murder and rape, for which I would happily revoke your membership in the human race. Eternal torture is simply not moral. No crime is worthy of being burned alive forever. A week, a month, a year, perhaps even a decade. But not forever.
So put simply God is evil. If He exists, then we have a moral duty to rebel against Him, to free ourselves from His control and to destroy Him that He may never harm another.
I now coinsider it my moral duty to kill you.
You got everything mixed up. What the hell did they teach you anyway?
First, Hell is a foreign concept that we have no idea what it's actually like. It's described like bruning in the lake of fire, but that's just colorfull description. You can't experience Hell while alive, so no human can really describe it.
Secondly, you dont' ahev to be Crhistian to go to heaven. I don't know where you got that from.
-
Why is it that the biggest memebots are religious followers then?
(http://sas.localguides.com/bundles/guides_ax/assets/widget_a6dGQ98pzfcPBd2IRdNQuQ.jpg)(http://sas.localguides.com/bundles/guides_ax/assets/widget_c-C6RYjEvnbzO3rWqtPNXJ.jpg)
If as you claim God wants fellowship then why would God want a bunch of yes men who constantly follow him around saying what a great person he is?
Not as if i claim, as the bible claims (the fellowship part). All i did earlier was make a comparison to natural reality and reality interpretted through the bible which included a scenario of mankind being created by Him. God through my understanding doesn't want a bunch of yes men. Just because there was many christian yes men in history doesn't mean that God wanted them. Yes men for any cause doesn't good because those people are most likely going to be radicals. Over 900 different christian denominations world wide all filled with yes people all believing that their own denomination is the only right way would definitely not be what God is after. Over 900 christian denominations with most at each other's throats all with people each pushing their own agenda as being the only correct "way" is not unity and definitely not what God wants. God wanting yes men sure would seem retarded and definitely counter intuitive to christianity itself (reminds me of catholicism versus calvinism back in the day).
If God didn't want drones then why did he claim he would reward those who act the most like drones? If as you claim God wants fellowship then why would God want a bunch of yes men who constantly follow him around saying what a great person he is?
God likes people to have faith in him and tests the faith of those who do have faith in Him. One of the hardest things to do as man is to let go of everything and follow one thing. Being an every day human, it's not easy believing in something you can't see, and even harder to believe that something you can't see is going to take care of you. It's a testament to faith and devotion when one follows God without any doubt. At the same time God is a jealous God. He really doesn't like it when man worships things other than Him. In other words God likes when people have devotion to Him
Or maybe it's that the test is not who has faith, but who chooses to ignore the bull****. If God wanted companions then the ones he'd want are not the ipods and lick-arses but the ones who actually pick out the good bits (Jesus talking about loving thy neighbour and being kind to everybody) and ignore the bad ones. God is painted as a kindly father much of the time.
The bible does say to go against the flow of the world. This has many contexts, one of them is ignoring bull**** and thinking for yourself. The bible also says follow the laws of the land. To go against the flow of the world and following the laws of the land doesn't contradict one another. Just a way for the bible to suggest being a smart rebel (in the sense of being smart and respectful of the laws of the land for where you are). Jesus was the best example of God in the bible ever. Jesus was one in the same as God as well as being his son. God cared enough about us that he brought himself down to earth in his mother "midi-chlorian" style and was the son of man.
I'd rather have kids who told me I was wrong than ones who simply parroted my ideals back to me because they'd never thought about them themselves. Surely every parent wants their child to be able to think for themselves rather than simply being a clone of themselves.
My mom doesn't like me because of this. My dad does like me because of this. This being the telling them when they're wrong about something and not parroting their ideals back to them. Most people can't handle when they're wrong, even when they know they're wrong. Parents are like this much of the time too. My mother would very much prefer me to be a non thinking religious automoton. That way she can continue leading me so i'll be a carbon copy of her. I could tell this was happening when i was on innocent dates with non christian girls (my mothers conditioning lead me to feel guilty for no reason after many dates until i thought about why). Most parents i've seen don't care if they're kids think for themselves. I've met many people who are my age or younger who exhibited the intelligence to think for themselves. I do my best to encourage people to think for themselves, of course many don't succeed or don't succeed for long most of the time falling back into their non thinking habits where they were most comfortable. Only smart parents are going to be able to handle hearing from their kids when they're wrong and these will be the parents who will teach their kids thinking for themselves. Following the theory that God is a god and is greater than mankind, he's never wrong and also would surely not tolerate some of the things He does being called wrong by a lesser being. Also in the bible God has great relationships with those who know how to think (God makes best use of those people).
If God does move in mysterious ways
Why would you even say something as this. It's a god you're talking about, gods are greater than man. Most of what gods do are going to be interpretted as mysterious because we won't always comprehend what they're up to. What's with the subtle notion of thinking that mankind would be greater than gods anyhow? That makes no sense otherwise gods wouldn't be gods.
I'm not going to go as far as NGTM-1R in saying that you need to get rid of God.
I wouldn't go so far as to say get rid of God completely as well. Just what i think is this world needs a lot less people manipulated by religions and beliefs for those who are of faith. This is why as being a christian myself, i just stick with the bible. It's obvious no single christian denomination is going to be the right way. And that no single religion is going to be the right way either (the understanding here is that they're all the right way).
If you do believe that there is a God, simply be aware that he might not have been as straight with you about what he wanted as the book claims.
I actually don't care about this idea. Jesus was straight up enough for me :)
-
In which case either they are unfallen or God is really, really bad at learning from his mistakes. :p
Eh? :wtf:
unfallen? What is that supposed to mean?
Free of the so called original sin, which according to christian theology is the reason we need to be saved by our faith in God and Jesus, in order for our souls to survive death without unpleasant consequences.
Karajorma is simply saying that if God makes every sentient species "fall from grace" the same way as humanity allegedly did, he either wants it to happen so or alternatively just doesn't ever learn to avoid it...
Some god telling people to do something wouldn't make "something" right, ("God is good" does not mean "good is God") people all have a preconception of good and evil quite separate from god, whether they know it or not.
That is open to much, much debate.
If there is a God, the creator of everything, then He would be way beyond our understanding and even wildest dreams when it comes to power, knowledge, etc..
So to assume to know ANYTHING better than Him would be downright insane. (if His intelligence and knowledge are virtually limitless)
Technicely, God saying that something is right would defacto make something right or good.
The problem in this is obviously that no one can know what God is saying, but many people claim to know so... and they claim God says a lot of contradicting things.
By the way tangenting to the other ongoing debate, do you think God should be allowed to, say, sacrifice people for the greater good because him saying it's for greater good would make it good? Obviously, you are no God, but what if you were? Would you allow yourself the right to do such things? What if you had created an on-going simulation of a world complete with sentient AI's interacting with each other and having odd notions about being your servants in order to save themselves from death, and decided to felgercarbcan the simulation to start it anew...?
Obviously your knowledge of the simulated world would be in, so to speak, higher level than the inhabitants of the simulation. But would it really mean that whatever you do to the simulation - hey, let's try a huge flood and see how these guys deal with it - would be good and right in the inhabitants' point of view because you do it or say it?
What I'm trying to say is this - what exactly is it that makes God's point of view regarding good and bad any more accurate or absolute than your or mine point of view? He's a personality according to religions, but even if he has complete knowledge of how the simulation (or world if you like, the analogy works just fine) runs, it doesn't really mean that his notions of good and evil should coincide with ours - or that even if we had absolute knowledge of his notions of good and evil, we should match ours to his, even if they happen to disagree with our ethic principles.
While Nuke is just being, well, Nuke, I'm not.
This is in fact a particular gnostic viewpoint. God is not good. However, I'm going to take it to its logical extreme.
This is something that studying Christian theology sort of forced upon me; I was a practicing Christian once. But when it comes down to it, God is apparently an out-and-out asshole. The doctrine of original sin and being cast out of the Garden is the story of God blaming the people who were, morally, least cuplable for what happened. God never really got better about that kind of thing. The ultimate proof of this awaits in the lake of fire, where souls burn in torment for eternity, regardless of their crimes or whether God even bothered to check He had gotten His word to them and they even had a chance. I don't care what your crimes were. Even murder and rape, for which I would happily revoke your membership in the human race. Eternal torture is simply not moral. No crime is worthy of being burned alive forever. A week, a month, a year, perhaps even a decade. But not forever.
So put simply God is evil. If He exists, then we have a moral duty to rebel against Him, to free ourselves from His control and to destroy Him that He may never harm another.
I now coinsider it my moral duty to kill you.
Careful with the death threats... :nervous:
You got everything mixed up. What the hell did they teach you anyway?
Why don't you ask which sect of christianity teaches this and that rather than throw insults against persons and their former denomination?
First, Hell is a foreign concept that we have no idea what it's actually like. It's described like bruning in the lake of fire, but that's just colorfull description. You can't experience Hell while alive, so no human can really describe it.
The concept of hell varies from a literal place of eternal suffering to eternal separation from God to simply death of soul, nonexistence, so I don't think a theological discussion of hell's concept is in the best interests of this discussion to stay even remotely interesting.
The point in fact is not the nature of "hell" in itself at all. The point is that religions have a bunch of criteria that vary from religion and sect to other, but each have one thing in common - the criteria are dictated by the God in each religion. Supposedly, if one follows these criteria, one gains the benefit of eternal pleasant afterlife, while not doing so will result in not getting the benefits, and in some religions there are specific unpleasantness (hell) resulting from not following the rules.
The criteria itself varies from simply accepting JC as one's personal saviour and having faith in him, to following exact rules and rituals during one's life, but the basic idea is similar.
Now the question is, why would any of these criteria be accurate, and if one of them is, why would God place such criteria for his creatures to pass or fail? What would be the motive in that?
Ironically, even though I don't have any faith in existence of any divine creature, I have faith that should one of those exist, they wouldn't have such asinine requirements for their creations...
Secondly, you dont' ahev to be Crhistian to go to heaven. I don't know where you got that from.
Yes well that is very much subject to debate between different religions and branches of christianity even. But I think it might have something to do with Jesus saying that the only way to kingdom of heaven is through him... interpretations of that and other similar quotes have been various to say the least. :rolleyes:
-
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
George Carlin - NSFW ;)
-
Bottom line - trying to use logical construct and deduction for a debate like this is pretty much useless.
Logic can't do God justice. It's like trying to contain a ocean in a small glass. It makes no sense. Not to mention that God is above logic so the whole thing is rather moot.
-
I started to write a long post, but the woman in the red dress ( that for some strange reason only i can see ) told me NOT to participate in this discussion.
It would be unhealthy for me. :nervous:
-
Bottom line - trying to use logical construct and deduction for a debate like this is pretty much useless.
Logic can't do God justice. It's like trying to contain a ocean in a small glass. It makes no sense. Not to mention that God is above logic so the whole thing is rather moot.
Yes, logic and God don't mix well because logic is the study of truth. :p
-
No it's because God is above logic, the ABSOLUTE truth. :p
-
No it's because God is above logic, the ABSOLUTE truth. :p
That's a real funny way to present arguably the world's biggest lie.
-
The first post quote's author assumes that good and evil are two equal and opposite entities. If you assume that, then you have dualism, which Christianity doesn't believe in. In fact, none of the three major monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) believe that evil is an entity at all.
This post was going to be considerably longer, but I just didn't feel like it....
EDIT: as for the "all non-Christians go to hell" argument.
God is absolute truth if he is absolute good. Therefore, any person searching for truth is searching for God. I am reminded of the scene in Faust where he is saved; God can't bring himself to damn somebody just for trying to better himself, even if he shook of God to do so.
That'd be my rationale for why I think non-Christians can all get into heaven...it'd be kind of an asshole God if he was that exclusive.
-
God is absolute truth if he is absolute good. Therefore, any person searching for truth is searching for God.
:confused: wat
-
That'd be a Christian rationalization for why non-Christians (by Christianity's own rules) aren't automatically damned. If you don't believe in God, then obviously you don't believe he is truth or good...or anything.
-
I actually don't care about this idea. Jesus was straight up enough for me :)
Jesus is about the only decent thing in the Bible. If Christians ditched everything but the gospels the world would be a much better place. It's when they try to follow the other bollocks that we have problems.
http://sas.localguides.com/bundles/guides_ax/assets/widget_a6dGQ98pzfcPBd2IRdNQuQ.jpg
I fail to see what point you are trying to make here.
Not as if i claim, as the bible claims (the fellowship part). All i did earlier was make a comparison to natural reality and reality interpretted through the bible which included a scenario of mankind being created by Him. God through my understanding doesn't want a bunch of yes men. Just because there was many christian yes men in history doesn't mean that God wanted them.
I'm not saying he wanted them. Maybe you should try reading my entire argument again before responding to it. Christians like yourself claim that God made man to see who would have faith in him. I'm turning that argument on it's head and saying what if God made man to see who wouldn't. What if the whole point was to figure out who was stupid enough to blindly follow him and discard them instead of discarding those who didn't have faith.
God wanting yes men sure would seem retarded and definitely counter intuitive to christianity itself (reminds me of catholicism versus calvinism back in the day).
Of course it's retarded. That's my entire point.
God likes people to have faith in him and tests the faith of those who do have faith in Him.
That's the angle the Bible puts on it. My point is that what if God deliberately said that and the real test is whether or not people will blindly follow the bible. What if the test isn't "Do you believe in God?" but "Do you believe in Love thy neighbour enough to realise that large parts of the bible are nothing to do with love?"
One of the hardest things to do as man is to let go of everything and follow one thing. Being an every day human, it's not easy believing in something you can't see, and even harder to believe that something you can't see is going to take care of you.
No it isn't. There wouldn't be half as many cults if it were hard to persuade people to believe in any old bollocks. If some hack sci-fi writer can convince a bunch of rich, well educated people that a galactic emperor sent everyone alive to Earth in rockets that looked like wingless DC10s, stacked them up in a volcano, nuked it and that the trauma from that is the cause of suffering in this world, then getting people to believe in an invisible man in the sky should be a piece of piss.
My mom doesn't like me because of this. My dad does like me because of this. This being the telling them when they're wrong about something and not parroting their ideals back to them. Most people can't handle when they're wrong, even when they know they're wrong. Parents are like this much of the time too. My mother would very much prefer me to be a non thinking religious automoton. That way she can continue leading me so i'll be a carbon copy of her.
And this is good parenting you think?
Following the theory that God is a god and is greater than mankind, he's never wrong and also would surely not tolerate some of the things He does being called wrong by a lesser being.
And once again you've missed the basic premise of my argument and argued about some tiny facet of it. You're assuming that God told you the truth.
When you tell your kid about Santa Claus and they say that they don't believe in him because there's no way that he could visit everyone's house on Christmas night wouldn't you be proud of them for having seen through your lie? Similarly wouldn't you be somewhat disappointed in your 15 year old if they still believed in Santa?
I find it hilarious that most Christians are willing to believe that life is meant to be a test but completely and utterly refuse to ever think about what it might be a test of and instead blindly assume it must be a test of faith.
Most of what gods do are going to be interpretted as mysterious because we won't always comprehend what they're up to.
Certainly an interesting comment from someone who has just spent most of their post telling me what God wants, likes or thinks. Especially given that it's aimed at the person saying that maybe God doesn't want what you think he wants.
-
I now coinsider it my moral duty to kill you.
You got everything mixed up. What the hell did they teach you anyway?
First, Hell is a foreign concept that we have no idea what it's actually like. It's described like bruning in the lake of fire, but that's just colorfull description. You can't experience Hell while alive, so no human can really describe it.
Secondly, you dont' ahev to be Crhistian to go to heaven. I don't know where you got that from.
A wise man once observed to me about arguments such as yours that "Sense makes stupid be knowing."
Hell is eternal torment. That's pretty concrete. And no one, ever, for any reason, deserves eternal torment. I don't care if that means just having to listen to someone rapidly clicking a pen for millenia or the lake of fire. It's not moral to eternally punish someone in any fashion.
As for the second point, this a subject of contention within Christian philosophy itself. However there are enough people who lived and died in, say, New Guniea before Europeans showed up whose religions included cannablistic activities or other things that are perfectly capable of earning you a spot in eternal damnation. So it really doesn't matter whether all non-Christians do or do not go to hell, plenty of people never even had a chance to reform, and this is an omnipotent deity who could have given it to them.
Thus why if God exists, He must be dealt with. Harshly.
-
:D
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I find it hilarious that most Christians are willing to believe that life is meant to be a test but completely and utterly refuse to ever think about what it might be a test of and instead blindly assume it must be a test of faith.
Kaj, what you fail to see is that many believe in a thruthfull God - ergo, He does not lie.
A God that lied wouldn't be their God, so the whole point is kinda moot.
Hell is eternal torment
It's actually described more closely as being away from God. REALLY away. And its' very much debatable if it's actually eternal or just described as such.
As for the second point, this a subject of contention within Christian philosophy itself. However there are enough people who lived and died in, say, New Guniea before Europeans showed up whose religions included cannablistic activities or other things that are perfectly capable of earning you a spot in eternal damnation. So it really doesn't matter whether all non-Christians do or do not go to hell, plenty of people never even had a chance to reform, and this is an omnipotent deity who could have given it to them.
I'm curious. Exactly how do you know who went to hell in the past and who didn't?
For all you know 99% of all people might be in heaven.
You don't really know what goes up there.
Thus why if God exists, He must be dealt with. Harshly.
:lol:
Good luck with that.
However, I'd advise you to strive for something you're more likely to actually accomplish..like let's say - destroying energy, time and space. :lol:
-
I'd rather have kids who told me I was wrong than ones who simply parroted my ideals back to me because they'd never thought about them themselves. Surely every parent wants their child to be able to think for themselves rather than simply being a clone of themselves.
My mom doesn't like me because of this. My dad does like me because of this. This being the telling them when they're wrong about something and not parroting their ideals back to them. Most people can't handle when they're wrong, even when they know they're wrong. Parents are like this much of the time too. My mother would very much prefer me to be a non thinking religious automoton. That way she can continue leading me so i'll be a carbon copy of her. I could tell this was happening when i was on innocent dates with non christian girls (my mothers conditioning lead me to feel guilty for no reason after many dates until i thought about why). Most parents i've seen don't care if they're kids think for themselves. I've met many people who are my age or younger who exhibited the intelligence to think for themselves. I do my best to encourage people to think for themselves, of course many don't succeed or don't succeed for long most of the time falling back into their non thinking habits where they were most comfortable. Only smart parents are going to be able to handle hearing from their kids when they're wrong and these will be the parents who will teach their kids thinking for themselves. Following the theory that God is a god and is greater than mankind, he's never wrong and also would surely not tolerate some of the things He does being called wrong by a lesser being. Also in the bible God has great relationships with those who know how to think (God makes best use of those people).
I bolded the key sentences. My response was based on the generalization that most parents don't care if they're kids think for themselves and that only smart parents will be able to handle hearing from their kids when they're wrong and that these smart parents will teach their kids to think for themselves. I was also pointing out that the parents who teach their kids to think for themselves is good parenting as opposed to small example of the psychological bs of my mom trying to raise me to be a carbon copy of her.
Also i wasn't responding to you just about parenting because you weren't originally talking about parenting, but questioning as God's children...wouldn't He prefer those who can think for themselves. I ended up concluding that yes, God does like smart people sort of like how smart parents like to have smart kids. And the last note being that as God and He's greater than His creations you shouldn't call Him wrong because He knows best (that last note i should have just quoted from scripture "do not test the Lord thy God."). God makes amazing use of smart people.
http://sas.localguides.com/bundles/guides_ax/assets/widget_a6dGQ98pzfcPBd2IRdNQuQ.jpg
I fail to see what point you are trying to make here.
You said memebot :lol:
-
So where is it then? Cause I'm not seeing it. :p
Your entire paragraph was based on taking my comment about most parents wanting their children to be the best they can be and to not falsely limit their abilities. Instead of seeing that it was obvious I meant most good parents you decided to fixate on that single missing word, completely ignoring the point I was making.
And then you complain I take things out of context? :lol:
I find it hilarious that most Christians are willing to believe that life is meant to be a test but completely and utterly refuse to ever think about what it might be a test of and instead blindly assume it must be a test of faith.
Kaj, what you fail to see is that many believe in a thruthfull God - ergo, He does not lie.
A God that lied wouldn't be their God, so the whole point is kinda moot.
But what evidence do you have for this? The argument is completely circular. You base your impressions on the nature of God as always truthful based on the Bible and you base the Bible as truthful based on the fact that it is the word of God,
More importantly though, God doesn't have to actually lie. He simply doesn't have to correct it when humans screw things up. Again I find it hilarious that the Christians on this thread have spent so long commenting on God respecting free will but assume that God would descend from the heavens with a giant marker pen to correct the bible if someone screwed it up.
To send someone to Earth and never actually mention the stuff that was wrong seems more in line with the way I'd expect such a God to act.
-
You should reread my previous post. I didn't think i hit post so soon, until i noticed that the post button said save.
EDIT: Actually i think i hit modify on my previous post to grab some text. I posted not in order. Sorry about that.
God does act, He works through people. An example is sort of like when you need money because you're in debt, and praying to God for a solution. Next thing you know there's a good job opening that you get hired for which lets you get the money to pay off your debt. The working through people part of this would be say the boss of the job fired the really crappy dude who use to fill the position now making it open for you. This is normal circumstance of the job market that there will be openings eventually so you can get hired and make money. On the coincidence part it ended up being the exact solution you were praying about.
My mom doesn't like me because of this. My dad does like me because of this. This being the telling them when they're wrong about something and not parroting their ideals back to them. Most people can't handle when they're wrong, even when they know they're wrong. Parents are like this much of the time too. My mother would very much prefer me to be a non thinking religious automoton. That way she can continue leading me so i'll be a carbon copy of her.
And this is good parenting you think?
You accused me of not reading your whole entire post so i accused you of the same thing here. Since in the original post i wasn't talking about just parenting like you were also not talking about just parenting...yeah you took this out of context because i didn't include the word "good" anywhere.The example of my mom desiring me to be a carbon copy of her and how i didn't like it also suggests that raising children to be carbon copies of their parents is not good parenting. I didn't say i liked being a carbon copy of her either. I implied my dad likes me because i think for myself and that my mom doesn't like me so much because of this.
Most of what gods do are going to be interpretted as mysterious because we won't always comprehend what they're up to.
Certainly an interesting comment from someone who has just spent most of their post telling me what God wants, likes or thinks. Especially given that it's aimed at the person saying that maybe God doesn't want what you think he wants.
The bible tells you plenty of what God wants, is like, and to a degree thinks. Of course the bible isn't going to say everything about God.
-
What part of the word "belief" do you have trouble understanding here Kaj?
I believe in a truthful God because I do. Period. Not only because there Bible sez so, but because that the image of God that makes most sense to me.
-
I have no trouble with the word belief. My point was that it's hilarious that you apply God wanting free will to everything except the bible. There's no way free will could have cocked that up even though free will is the explanation for everything else.
God does act, He works through people. An example is sort of like when you need money because you're in debt, and praying to God for a solution. Next thing you know there's a good job opening that you get hired for which lets you get the money to pay off your debt. The working through people part of this would be say the boss of the job fired the really crappy dude who use to fill the position now making it open for you. This is normal circumstance of the job market that there will be openings eventually so you can get hired and make money. On the coincidence part it ended up being the exact solution you were praying about.
Now apply that to God wanting to correct the bible over inaccuracies that had appeared in the OT. Instead of correcting it he sent Jesus down to do it. Jesus then preaches the word the way God wants it. Jesus ascends back to heaven. The Gospels are written, getting it mostly correct. Paul comes along and buggers it all up by then preaching a bunch of stuff counter to Jesus' message. God thinks "Well the message is there, it's up to people to notice it and disregard the nonsense. I'll act through people once in a while to try to remind them that Jesus is the stuff I wanted listened to, not Paul"
The bible tells you plenty of what God wants, is like, and to a degree thinks. Of course the bible isn't going to say everything about God.
Again assuming that the bible is 100% correct. Which I'd already said was something I was taking as suspect in the first part of my argument.
Besides, make up your mind. Either you know what God wants, is like and to a degree thinks or he is utterly unknowable to the human mind. You're trying to argue both.
-
What part of the word "belief" do you have trouble understanding here Kaj?
I believe in a truthful God because I do. Period. Not only because there Bible sez so, but because that the image of God that makes most sense to me.
Now repeat that statement without using circuitious logic and... you'll be sainted for doing the impossible :drevil:
-
I forgot this thread was still alive, so I posted this somewhere else:
I learned something funny in Epistemology today. Empiricists think that something is only real if you can experience it, and rationalists think that something is real even if no one can experience it.
--Empiricism essentially makes a lot of meta-physics meaningless, including the debate for an existence of God, because God as I've been taught hasn't ever been experienced. They use inductive reasoning a lot.
--Rationalists don't need an experience for something to be true; they use logic to deduce that something is real.
Both are mutually exclusive and all encompassing my reading said, so you have to be one of them (even if you don't know it), and you can't be both. And so given that, I have come to these conclusions about God:
A) He exists. (Rational argument only)
1) It will always be impossible for human people to know that he exists with any significant amount of certainty. Always. Given Philosophy, this is an unacceptable conclusion (I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean incorrect, though).
-OR-
2) God exists and there is a logical, deductive way to prove it (that doesn't mean simple or easy, though).
-OR-
B) God doesn't exist. He never has and he never will. (Rational and Empirical argument)
This is why I thought that Trashman and Karajorma were always debating about God, Karajorma being an Empiricist and Trashman being a Rationalist. But I seem to recall Trashman openly denying the validity of logic, which is essential for a rationalist's proofs. So it would seem that it is impossible for Trashman to ever really "know" that God exists until after he dies. Karajorma, on the other hand, from what I've seen of his method of thinking, knows that God does not exist.
On an unrelated note, I believe that tomorrow I will become a multi-billionaire, assuming that I become a multi-billionaire tomorrow.
And I believe that on Pluto, there is a gigantic apple pie, just for the hell of it.
-
So...what I'm getting from that is that TrashMan doesn't actually exist? :p
-
So...what I'm getting from that is that TrashMan doesn't actually exist? :p
I figured that he just wasn't very good rationalist. :p
-
I learned something funny in Epistemology today. Empiricists think that something is only real if you can experience it, and rationalists think that something is real even if no one can experience it.
--Empiricism essentially makes a lot of meta-physics meaningless, including the debate for an existence of God, because God as I've been taught hasn't ever been experienced. They use inductive reasoning a lot.
--Rationalists don't need an experience for something to be true; they use logic to deduce that something is real.
Both are mutually exclusive and all encompassing my reading said, so you have to be one of them (even if you don't know it), and you can't be both. And so given that, I have come to these conclusions about God:
A) He exists. (Rational argument only)
1) It will always be impossible for human people to know that he exists with any significant amount of certainty. Always. Given Philosophy, this is an unacceptable conclusion (I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean incorrect, though).
-OR-
2) God exists and there is a logical, deductive way to prove it (that doesn't mean simple or easy, though).
-OR-
B) God doesn't exist. He never has and he never will. (Rational and Empirical argument)
This is why I thought that Trashman and Karajorma were always debating about God, Karajorma being an Empiricist and Trashman being a Rationalist. But I seem to recall Trashman openly denying the validity of logic, which is essential for a rationalist's proofs. So it would seem that it is impossible for Trashman to ever really "know" that God exists until after he dies. Karajorma, on the other hand, from what I've seen of his method of thinking, knows that God does not exist.
You fail. I don't deny logic - what I do deny is the belief that it's the be-all and end-all of everything. Logic is a tool, a personal tool further tweaked by each individual. It's far from perfect and super-accurate, but it does it's job (more or less).
Besides, I know God exists.
-
I know that pi is exactly 3.
-
Douglas Adams already proved the non-existace of god.
-
And modern science proved you don't exist. There never was a emperor of all earth! You are a lie! A LIE I TELL YOU! It's a all a CIA-alien coverup! :lol:
-
This is why I thought that Trashman and Karajorma were always debating about God, Karajorma being an Empiricist and Trashman being a Rationalist. But I seem to recall Trashman openly denying the validity of logic, which is essential for a rationalist's proofs. So it would seem that it is impossible for Trashman to ever really "know" that God exists until after he dies. Karajorma, on the other hand, from what I've seen of his method of thinking, knows that God does not exist.
Sorry but you fail on both counts. :p
I'm not 100% certain I buy your argument but it certainly makes more sense if you have got the sides mixed up. :p
1) You've noted yourself that Trashman has denied the validity of logic.
2) Religious people for the most part have experienced God. They don't arrive at the belief he exists via logic. They attempt to construct logical arguments for his existance based on the cast iron certainty they already have that he exists. Trashman himself said that he knows God exists. He's experienced him. That experience gives him faith. When a religious person begins to doubt the validity of that experience that's when they have a crisis of faith.
3) I don't know that God doesn't exist. I don't know that the universe has no meaning. Both of those could actually be true. But I've not seen one jot of evidence for either being true. And given that logic demands that the simpler of two explanations is likely to be correct I'd be abandoning logic to assume God existed with no data to confirm or deny it. (cue a whole big argument on how God is actually the simpler answer :rolleyes: )
4) I've got no problem with people believing that there is a meaning to life or that there is a God. As far as I'm concerned that's a philosophical point that I disagree with them upon. What I dislike is attempting to claim that logic can prove that there MUST be a God cause they universe couldn't have existed without one. Cause that is flawed logic.
-
I now coinsider it my moral duty to kill you.
You got everything mixed up. What the hell did they teach you anyway?
First, Hell is a foreign concept that we have no idea what it's actually like. It's described like bruning in the lake of fire, but that's just colorfull description. You can't experience Hell while alive, so no human can really describe it.
Secondly, you dont' ahev to be Crhistian to go to heaven. I don't know where you got that from.
A wise man once observed to me about arguments such as yours that "Sense makes stupid be knowing."
Hell is eternal torment. That's pretty concrete. And no one, ever, for any reason, deserves eternal torment. I don't care if that means just having to listen to someone rapidly clicking a pen for millenia or the lake of fire. It's not moral to eternally punish someone in any fashion.
As for the second point, this a subject of contention within Christian philosophy itself. However there are enough people who lived and died in, say, New Guniea before Europeans showed up whose religions included cannablistic activities or other things that are perfectly capable of earning you a spot in eternal damnation. So it really doesn't matter whether all non-Christians do or do not go to hell, plenty of people never even had a chance to reform, and this is an omnipotent deity who could have given it to them.
Thus why if God exists, He must be dealt with. Harshly.
James 4:17?
-
This is why I thought that Trashman and Karajorma were always debating about God, Karajorma being an Empiricist and Trashman being a Rationalist. But I seem to recall Trashman openly denying the validity of logic, which is essential for a rationalist's proofs. So it would seem that it is impossible for Trashman to ever really "know" that God exists until after he dies. Karajorma, on the other hand, from what I've seen of his method of thinking, knows that God does not exist.
Sorry but you fail on both counts. :p
I'm not 100% certain I buy your argument but it certainly makes more sense if you have got the sides mixed up. :p
1) You've noted yourself that Trashman has denied the validity of logic.
2) Religious people for the most part have experienced God. They don't arrive at the belief he exists via logic. They attempt to construct logical arguments for his existance based on the cast iron certainty they already have that he exists. Trashman himself said that he knows God exists. He's experienced him. That experience gives him faith. When a religious person begins to doubt the validity of that experience that's when they have a crisis of faith.
3) I don't know that God doesn't exist. I don't know that the universe has no meaning. Both of those could actually be true. But I've not seen one jot of evidence for either being true. And given that logic demands that the simpler of two explanations is likely to be correct I'd be abandoning logic to assume God existed with no data to confirm or deny it. (cue a whole big argument on how God is actually the simpler answer :rolleyes: )
4) I've got no problem with people believing that there is a meaning to life or that there is a God. As far as I'm concerned that's a philosophical point that I disagree with them upon. What I dislike is attempting to claim that logic can prove that there MUST be a God cause they universe couldn't have existed without one. Cause that is flawed logic.
2) Religious people have physically experienced God. This does not mean that there is a non-physical God, depending on how you define him.
3) Wasn't it you that cited that Strong Atheism page? That's pretty much the main reason why I made the assumption that I did. If that was just an example you were using at the time and didn't necessarily reflect your own viewpoints; then my bad. I mis-remembered. :/
4) Wait, so do you dislike them claiming that there must be a God because their premise was that the universe couldn't exist without one, or was that just an example?
You fail. I don't deny logic - what I do deny is the belief that it's the be-all and end-all of everything. Logic is a tool, a personal tool further tweaked by each individual. It's far from perfect and super-accurate, but it does it's job (more or less).
Besides, I know God exists.
I could look up the exact posts where you deny it, and it pretty much contradicts what you said here, but I'm sure that everyone that cares about this discussion can remember what I'm talking about, and if they can't, I'll look them up for them. By the way, I'm curious: what exactly do you think logic's job is?
And if you understood Epistemology at all to most any degree, assuming your definition of God correlates to most people's, you don't actually "know" with 100% certainty that God exists. And "knowing" isn't the same as "believing with 100% certainty" or "wanting to know".
EDIT: Come to think of it, I did phrase a lot of my original post rather poorly. And I'll probably think the same of this post in a few hours.
-
2) Religious people have physically experienced God. This does not mean that there is a non-physical God, depending on how you define him.
I agree. Just because a religious person claims to have physically felt God's presence doesn't mean that there actually was one. My point was that they believe in the non-physical god not due to logic but because they believe that they have experiences that could only happen if one existed.
3) Wasn't it you that cited that Strong Atheism page? That's pretty much the main reason why I made the assumption that I did. If that was just an example you were using at the time and didn't necessarily reflect your own viewpoints; then my bad. I mis-remembered. :/
I did but I believe I also pointed out that by the definition I was more of a weak atheist.
4) Wait, so do you dislike them claiming that there must be a God because their premise was that the universe couldn't exist without one, or was that just an example?
I dislike anyone saying that there must have been a god for the Big Bang to happen, for abiogenesis to occur, for evolution of complex structures (like the eye, cell or DNA) or to explain the reason why plain apes developed intelligence.
If on the other hand someone says that there must be a God for the universe to have meaning then I disagree with them but I don't dislike them saying it.
In the case of the first one science can answer those questions to a good degree and can fill in enough details to make a claim that God did the rest seem rather like an attempt to shoehorn God in somewhere. People have been doing that for as long as there have been people (God makes the sun rise in the mornings, God makes it rain) and it seems silly that whenever there is anything unexplained people are still doing it. What's worse though is when it has been explained and people insist on holding onto the "God did it" claim. It's as silly and insulting to those of us who do understand it as continuing to claim that God makes the sun rise every morning and insisting that all the astrophysicists have gotten it wrong.
The second case however is a philosophical difference. If someone claims to know what that meaning is then I'll probably argue with that too but the difference is that it would be a philosophical argument rather than a science vs made up nonsense argument.
-
I dislike anyone saying that there must have been a god for the Big Bang to happen, for abiogenesis to occur, for evolution of complex structures (like the eye, cell or DNA) or to explain the reason why plain apes developed intelligence.
I agree with the two in bold. Abiogenesis cannot occur, that is proven definitively enough. Plain apes do not develop intelligence. Now adays, we just call them apes. The intelligent apes I assume you are referring to are humans, and therefore, distinctly different.
In the case of the first one science can answer those questions to a good degree and can fill in enough details to make a claim that God did the rest seem rather like an attempt to shoehorn God in somewhere.
Why is it so unthinkable that God is the answer to a good degree and science is just the attempt to shoehorn what we assume we know in there? The Big-Bang theory and the theory of evolution are just that, theories. They have an observational scientific base going for them, of course, but remember too that abiogenesis was widely accepted because there was an observational aspect to it. The same may or may not be true for evolution or the big bang. They could be just as wrong.
What's worse though is when it has been explained and people insist on holding onto the "God did it" claim. It's as silly and insulting to those of us who do understand it as continuing to claim that God makes the sun rise every morning and insisting that all the astrophysicists have gotten it wrong.
Yes, it is. It's as silly and insulting to those of us who do understand that God made the sun, and therefore, has made it "rise" every morning as continuing to claim that all the religious people have gotten it wrong. Of course "rise" is just a spacially relative term in this case, but you get my point. "God did it" because He set in motion the things that astrophysicists try so hard to explain.
a philosophical argument rather than a science vs made up nonsense argument.
I could counter that by saying that all of Darwin's books are made up nonsense. It doesn't make it true.
EDIT: I apologize, I just saw your actual meaning of that sentence.
Did you know, in fact, that Darwin didn't actually advocate "evolution?" He merely observed what he saw of natural selection in the Galapagos and wrote a book on it. It has been more modern sceintists that have twisted his observations into the theory we have today.
-
I dislike anyone saying that there must have been a god for the Big Bang to happen, for abiogenesis to occur, for evolution of complex structures (like the eye, cell or DNA) or to explain the reason why plain apes developed intelligence.
I agree with the two in bold. Abiogenesis cannot occur, that is proven definitively enough. Plain apes do not develop intelligence. Now adays, we just call them apes. The intelligent apes I assume you are referring to are humans, and therefore, distinctly different.
Incorrect. Science doesn't disprove things. It can't disprove things. It is not possible to disprove something like abiogenesis, which is a hypothesis of life's origins in the course of millions or billions of years. Scientific method relies on proving hypotheses with experimentation, after which the hypothesis and the related means of predicting the outcome of experiments becomes a theory.
Same applies to God - science can't disprove him either.
Logical method can, though - you just need to ask yourself which is bigger, universe (by definition "everything that is") or God?
If God exists, he is by definition part of the universe which contains "everything there is". That means that if God is an individual entity in the Universe, logically it follows that the universe itself is mightier, bigger and awesomer than God, which kinda puts this God being on the same line with us, a sentient being in the universe.
Also, I don't really understand what you mean be "plain apes do not develope intelligence". When put into conditions where intelligence would be the primary selective pressure - whether naturally or by selective breeding - it's pretty certain that the intelligence of the test population would increase by time. However if other things like anatomical requirements for bigger brain would not be addressed (more dangerous childbirth and infancy, increased need for food etc. etc.) it would obviously at some point reach a limit where the appearance of the species would need to change for intelligence to grow further, and at some point you wouldn't be able to call them the same species any more - but the question is without much relevance because the required amount of generations for this kind of evolution is a lot longer than any research could conceivably last and thus we need to jsut use the nature as our laboratory and look at what kind of evolution is visible on our lifetime.
Such as rat populations developing resistance to strychnine. Or seagull populating spreading around the shores of Arctic Sea and when they met the original populations after going around the globe, the "new" and "old" seagull populations had deviated far enough that they didn't procreate between populations any more, because they didn't recognize each other to be of the same species any more. Whether that was due to changes in appearance or mating behaviour doesn't really matter; it is possible that at that point the two species (or sub-species) could have produced fertile offspring but the fact remains they didn't, which would have eventually led to the separation of the species into two.
In the case of the first one science can answer those questions to a good degree and can fill in enough details to make a claim that God did the rest seem rather like an attempt to shoehorn God in somewhere.
Why is it so unthinkable that God is the answer to a good degree and science is just the attempt to shoehorn what we assume we know in there? The Big-Bang theory and the theory of evolution are just that, theories. They have an observational scientific base going for them, of course, but remember too that abiogenesis was widely accepted because there was an observational aspect to it. The same may or may not be true for evolution or the big bang. They could be just as wrong.
Specifics first:
The big bang hypothesis is supported by the observations of expanding universe, and since the big bang hypothesis accurately offers an explanation to the observations, it can be called a theory and in addition it can be considered as the most accurate theory at present - which in science means that it is the most likely explanation aka probable truth.
Abiogenesis is a bit trickier thing. It hasn't been proven to happen experimentally due to obvious problems in replication of conditions and the timeframe for the expected emergence of life, which means it is a hypothesis rather than theory, but the thing that makes it more acceptable than God-answer in science is that it is definitely not inconceivable by other very well documented theories and observations - mainly physics, chemistry and observations of basic chemicals of life in various places in the universe. Abiogenesis is, in a way, an extension of chemical evolution. In favourable conditions, it is not inconceivable to think that some nucleotides or other molecules could form a self-replicating molecule, and when there's as much time as there has been in the universe (refer to the Big Bang theory, 13.7 billion years), then the probability of such an event happening at some point increases drastically.
Evolution on the other hand is a very well documented and proven accurate theory of the developement of species. Aside from fossil records, there's the huge amount of information used in genetic engineering and indeed even selective breeding that pretty much proves that it is indeed the genotype that defines the fenotype, and with sufficient change in the fenotype the species can evolve into different species (unable to produce fertile offspring).
Then the general answer. Goddidit is a lot less informative answer to things than some more in-depth answers. On a fundamental level, though, I personally find it easiest to simply call Universe a God without personality or overruling consciousness, and in that sense "goddidit" is as good an answer to things as saying that this is how things just happen in the universe.
Of course, considering Universe to be a blind god makes a lot more sense to me than a personal god for the aforementioned reasons (personal God < Universe).
What's worse though is when it has been explained and people insist on holding onto the "God did it" claim. It's as silly and insulting to those of us who do understand it as continuing to claim that God makes the sun rise every morning and insisting that all the astrophysicists have gotten it wrong.
Yes, it is. It's as silly and insulting to those of us who do understand that God made the sun, and therefore, has made it "rise" every morning as continuing to claim that all the religious people have gotten it wrong. Of course "rise" is just a spacially relative term in this case, but you get my point. "God did it" because He set in motion the things that astrophysicists try so hard to explain.
And of course there is the problem with "goddidit" that it hides everything else behind the question - where did God come from?
To me it all boils down to one thing. Which is more likely to emerge from nothingness - an all-powerful (with infinite powers) consciousness, or a finite universe without any intelligence of it's own, just a bunch of mechanics?
Not only that but there are no infinities in science, so it is unlikely that God would be infinitely powerful, even should he exist...* :p
*Smilie is there to announce that I realize how oxymoronic this sentence is...
-
Deist, so pointless question
:pimp:
-
Plain apes do not develop intelligence. Now adays, we just call them apes. The intelligent apes I assume you are referring to are humans, and therefore, distinctly different.
*facepalm*
There are a bunch of people who like to claim that evolution is true but that God must have helped with the evolution of intelligence. It's about as nonsensical as most of the other arguments against evolution.
Why is it so unthinkable that God is the answer to a good degree and science is just the attempt to shoehorn what we assume we know in there?
Cause if he is then he's the kind of God who deliberately buries dinosaur skeletons in order to test people's faith. Bill Hicks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMB5L0VoszI) sums up my objection to that far better than I ever could.
The Big-Bang theory and the theory of evolution are just that, theories.
Like the theory of gravitation then.
I'd suggest you actually read up a little on the subject before you start making comments like this one because they reveal a profound lack of knowledge about the subject. A comment like this one is like saying to a Christian "but Christians don't believe in only one god cause Buddha said...."
Anybody who knows anything about Christianity knows that Buddha is not part of it and thus wouldn't make a comment as deeply stupid as that. Similarly anyone who has the slightest bit of knowledge about science knows that there is nothing higher than theory. There is no level of proof above that. Gravity is a theory, the structure of the atom is a theory, the principles your PC works on is a theory.
By making that comment you reveal you actually know nothing at all about science or how it works. So quite why you expect you can tell people that they are wrong is beyond me.
They have an observational scientific base going for them, of course, but remember too that abiogenesis was widely accepted because there was an observational aspect to it. The same may or may not be true for evolution or the big bang. They could be just as wrong.
What? :confused: Abiogenesis is still widely accepted. You seem to believe it's been proved wrong. Worse you claim it's been proved wrong by the greater scientific community and not just the sort of crackpots who claim that they can scientifically prove that Noah's flood created dinosaur fossils.
Either you phrased that very badly or you don't actually know what abiogenesis is. I'll give you a chance to rephrase in case you do.
It's as silly and insulting to those of us who do understand that God made the sun, and therefore, has made it "rise" every morning as continuing to claim that all the religious people have gotten it wrong. Of course "rise" is just a spacially relative term in this case, but you get my point. "God did it" because He set in motion the things that astrophysicists try so hard to explain.
If you want to claim that, go ahead.
I meant it was a silly as the primitive belief that a god actually physically moves the sun from a position where it's set to a position where it has risen. Examples of such being Apollo pulling the chariot of the sun, etc. These are completely outmoded concepts and there are very few people who seriously believe them still. Science has given us a better answer.
Disagreeing with evolution however is on the same level. You accept that it is possible to say that everything the Sun does is because God made it do that but you refuse to apply the same to evolution and accept that maybe God made evolution too. And that is exactly the kind of behaviour I was on about in that post. The science has one explanation but you choose to ignore it because you don't like it. That's as silly as saying that God pulls the sun across the sky himself because you don't like the idea that the Earth goes round the sun.
Did you know, in fact, that Darwin didn't actually advocate "evolution?" He merely observed what he saw of natural selection in the Galapagos and wrote a book on it. It has been more modern sceintists that have twisted his observations into the theory we have today.
You've made a fundamental mistake. Why would any scientist give a **** about the beliefs of a long dead scientist? Science is not based on the wants, desires or beliefs of the scientists. It's based on repeatable experiments, logic and observations. Newton believed in God, Darwin apparently didn't (at least later on in his life), Archimedes believed in Zeus. Who cares? It certainly doesn't affect the validity or invalidity of their work.
Mendeleev for instance is a personal hero of mine. He got all kinds of things wrong (composition of Aether or how petroleum forms for instance) but that doesn't mean I can't respect him for what he did get right.
If Darwin didn't actually advocate "evolution" as you say, so what? He was wrong. The whole point of science is to figure out the bits that are wrong and replace them with the bits that are correct. I'd still respect the work he did coming up with natural selection in the first place.
And that's assuming you're right. Personally I think you're displaying a complete ignorance of Origin of the Species. Darwin's basic ideas on natural selection are largely unchanged. So unless you can substantiate your assertion, I'll put it down to the usual kind of bollocks I hear from creationists about Darwin.
-
Same applies to God - science can't disprove him either.
Logical method can, though - you just need to ask yourself which is bigger, universe (by definition "everything that is") or God?
If God exists, he is by definition part of the universe which contains "everything there is". That means that if God is an individual entity in the Universe, logically it follows that the universe itself is mightier, bigger and awesomer than God, which kinda puts this God being on the same line with us, a sentient being in the universe.
What ever gave you this silly idea? You can't prove or disprove God with logic.
It's like trying to contain a ocean within a tea spoon. It just doesn't work.
There are a bunch of people who like to claim that evolution is true but that God must have helped with the evolution of intelligence. It's about as nonsensical as most of the other arguments against evolution.
Go ahead and prove it wrong then.
-
What ever gave you this silly idea? You can't prove or disprove God with logic.
It's like trying to contain a ocean within a tea spoon. It just doesn't work.
You misunderstood me.
I was not exactly disproving the existence of God. I was simply showing that logically, a personal God entity is by definition smaller than the Universe (which contains everything there is) and therefore a personal God, an entity, is not the mightiest thing there is but instead simply an inhabitant of the universe.
The only way God could be on the top of things, so to speak, is to her being the Universe directly, at the same time consisting of and containing the whole universe. That of course leads to the question, "does Universe have a single, combined consciousness or not" - and THAT is the real question you should be asking, instead of "is there God or not". As I've stated before, I do not believe that the Universe has any ruling common consciousness and thus speaking of her as God is a bit misleading, but as I do believe in scientific method, I cannot entirely reject the concept since science doesn't disprove things. However, even if she does have a consciousness, then I am part of forming that consciousness just as you and the dirt and the algae and the nuclear bombs and black holes and it's a bit irrelevant to be considering what an afterlife would be - we would be part of Universe just as we are now, just without our individual consciousness any longer.
And by the way when I speak of Universe I literally mean "all there is". If we live in a multiverse, all worlds still belong to the Universe. If God exists outside our "universe" (without capital U), and even if he created our verse, he would still be part of Universe if he has any connection to our universe at all (and if he doesn't the question is moot anyway since what doesn't have any effect on our universe can with good reason be said not to exist).
Besides, since logic is by definition the study of truth and if God is the truth as you have claimed, then therefore God is just as subject to logic as you and I... oh wait, scratch that, you're not a subject to logic. :p
Logic transcends the limits of human mind and stays just as valid no matter what the entity performing it is. Same with mathematics and, fundamentally, natural sciences.
-
Same applies to God - science can't disprove him either.
Logical method can, though - you just need to ask yourself which is bigger, universe (by definition "everything that is") or God?
If God exists, he is by definition part of the universe which contains "everything there is". That means that if God is an individual entity in the Universe, logically it follows that the universe itself is mightier, bigger and awesomer than God, which kinda puts this God being on the same line with us, a sentient being in the universe.
What ever gave you this silly idea? You can't prove or disprove God with logic.
It's like trying to contain a ocean within a tea spoon. It just doesn't work.
Yes it can. It's like trying to eat a cake with a fork and knife.
If you can't tell, it's a fallacy.
-
What ever gave you this silly idea? You can't prove or disprove God with logic.
It's like trying to contain a ocean within a tea spoon. It just doesn't work.
You misunderstood me.
I was not exactly disproving the existence of God. I was simply showing that logically, a personal God entity is by definition smaller than the Universe (which contains everything there is) and therefore a personal God, an entity, is not the mightiest thing there is but instead simply an inhabitant of the universe.
The only way God could be on the top of things, so to speak, is to her being the Universe directly, at the same time consisting of and containing the whole universe. That of course leads to the question, "does Universe have a single, combined consciousness or not" - and THAT is the real question you should be asking, instead of "is there God or not". As I've stated before, I do not believe that the Universe has any ruling common consciousness and thus speaking of her as God is a bit misleading, but as I do believe in scientific method, I cannot entirely reject the concept since science doesn't disprove things. However, even if she does have a consciousness, then I am part of forming that consciousness just as you and the dirt and the algae and the nuclear bombs and black holes and it's a bit irrelevant to be considering what an afterlife would be - we would be part of Universe just as we are now, just without our individual consciousness any longer.
And by the way when I speak of Universe I literally mean "all there is". If we live in a multiverse, all worlds still belong to the Universe. If God exists outside our "universe" (without capital U), and even if he created our verse, he would still be part of Universe if he has any connection to our universe at all (and if he doesn't the question is moot anyway since what doesn't have any effect on our universe can with good reason be said not to exist).
Besides, since logic is by definition the study of truth and if God is the truth as you have claimed, then therefore God is just as subject to logic as you and I... oh wait, scratch that, you're not a subject to logic. :p
Logic transcends the limits of human mind and stays just as valid no matter what the entity performing it is. Same with mathematics and, fundamentally, natural sciences.
Insulting me with get you nowhere...even within a pun.
In this you are wrong. Prove to me that logic can be used to analyze or describe God.
If God is above logic then how can you use logic to describe him? Makes sense that He can be above logic if he's above physical laws, doesn't it?
You can't even prove that logic applies to the whole universe (universe as in ALL that is, not universe as in the observable world...in this case that would also include the supernatural things)
-
Why are you giving for sure that he exists in the first place? What's the point in basing a discussion on this?
Also, where did you get all those references to that "Universe compared to God" thing?
-
Okay, you can argue he operates on physical laws we do not yet understand, but at the point you claim God is not subject to logic at all you cease to have any standing in the argument, because you're basically claiming you don't have an argument or evidence.
-
Trashman just wants to keep on believing in something that he has no reason to believe.
-
So why do you have a problem with it?
The way I see it, people can think whatever they want to, until they force their way of thinking on someone else. THEN it's a problem.
-
Trashman just wants to keep on believing in something that he has no reason to believe.
I have my reasons to believe.
If you don't believe than that's your problem, not mine.
What I do not like is people who constantly try to constrain God and present him like just another being in the universe. If he was jsut a super-powerfull being and nothing else, then I wouldn't call him God, now would I?
Okay, you can argue he operates on physical laws we do not yet understand, but at the point you claim God is not subject to logic at all you cease to have any standing in the argument, because you're basically claiming you don't have an argument or evidence.
No. God being unexplanable and beyond understanding is an argument in itself.
It doesn't matter how much logic you use if akk of your premises are false. You'll never get to right conclusion anyway.
-
Why are you giving for sure that he exists in the first place? What's the point in basing a discussion on this?
Yeah, it's pretty much like discussing how hot dragon fire can be.
By the way based on the best literary sources (which are of course facts in themselves), it is less hot than the lava in the Orodruin mountain, though exact physical temperatures remain to be a mystery. Since the temperature of lava generally is between 700 and 1200 centigrades, it is reasonable to assume that the fires of Mount Doom were not too much hotter than that, so within reasonable margins of error I would say that dragon fire at it's hottest (as demonstrated by Ancalagon the Black) is less than 1500 degrees Celcius in temperature.
Also, where did you get all those references to that "Universe compared to God" thing?
No references, just personal thoughts. Despite my tendency to value secular philosophy over religious dogmas I have actually thought of these things quite a bit...
Also, if God is beyond logic it means that the good and bad of God are not what humans can understand, and true and false of God are not the same as truth and false are to humans, which makes even less sense than the concept of personal God itself, because it basically - like NGTM-1R said - dissolves any kind of basis for discussion and argumentation about God's existence and nature.
Not to mention that according to religions God is usually supposed to reward good and punish for bad deeds at one level or another, so if God is not logical entity, that kinda removes the basis for that too... :rolleyes:
Everything that exists is subject to logic, and claims to contrary are quite... surreal. :nervous:
Rhymes_With_PSYCHO: I generally don't have problems with whatever people believe. It's their business. But when it starts to dictate their actions that affect other people, it becomes an issue, I agree with that. On my real life I generally keep my opinions to myself unless asked to join a conversation regarding them. I know a lot of people who I would describe as religious, and I get along with them perfectly fine.
In fact, personal beliefs don't annoy me much at all in themselves. It's religions and the attached dogma and authorital pseudofacts that make me want to facepalm when ever I come across them. People taking things for granted just because they are told to them by authority figures is a lot worse problem than people who figure their own opinions out, no matter what the conclusion is, because drones are far too easy to impress on doing something stupid like killing yourself along with a bunch of people caught in the explosion, because God wants it. These drones, faithful automatons, are what make me very suspicious of religions and other indoctrinative organizations like cults of personality.
Even though I don't have faith in any specific divine being(s), it would be incorrect to say that I disbelieve in God (as in claim that God doesn't exist at any possible level at all); the simple fact that I prefer secular philosophy and scientific method to other views of world means that it is impossible for me to outright deny the existence of God. However I can say with absolute certainty that I do not believe in religions. No matter how big or old or supposedly documented a religion is, they are all organizations maintained by people, and thus their philosophies and truths are susceptible to people that maintain them (even though all of them claim to be the divine truth), and I do not want other people to dictate what I should believe in. What I do believe in is that the Universe exists and I'm part of it, and I can't really know what else exists beyond observable facts. What I can know is what I can interact with and observe, and by all meaningful criteria, that is what reality consists of. If there's something else, I will either find out some day or not, but meanwhile I'm not gonna believe in something I can't have any interaction with, or something I can't observe in any way (like dragon fire or God).
TrashMan: What exactly is it that God is to you then apart from a super-powerful being?
And God being unexplainable and beyond understanding as an argument...? I'm inclined to disagree. To me it feels much more like an authoritative smoke screen to assure that you don't need to know, just follow the drill and everything will be fine.
/me does the Jedi Mind trick
"You don't need to think about God logically. These are not the arguments you are looking for. Move along."
-
No. God being unexplanable and beyond understanding is an argument in itself.
It doesn't matter how much logic you use if akk of your premises are false. You'll never get to right conclusion anyway.
Explain the methods you have used to come to this conclusion.
-
Why are you giving for sure that he exists in the first place? What's the point in basing a discussion on this?
Yeah, it's pretty much like discussing how hot dragon fire can be.
By the way based on the best literary sources (which are of course facts in themselves), it is less hot than the lava in the Orodruin mountain, though exact physical temperatures remain to be a mystery. Since the temperature of lava generally is between 700 and 1200 centigrades, it is reasonable to assume that the fires of Mount Doom were not too much hotter than that, so within reasonable margins of error I would say that dragon fire at it's hottest (as demonstrated by Ancalagon the Black) is less than 1500 degrees Celcius in temperature.
Enlighten me about the fire of Gothmog (the first), a typical Valarauko and a standard Uruloki, then. I'm also interested on what you can come out with :D
Also, where did you get all those references to that "Universe compared to God" thing?
No references, just personal thoughts. Despite my tendency to value secular philosophy over religious dogmas I have actually thought of these things quite a bit...
Also, if God is beyond logic it means that the good and bad of God are not what humans can understand, and true and false of God are not the same as truth and false are to humans, which makes even less sense than the concept of personal God itself, because it basically - like NGTM-1R said - dissolves any kind of basis for discussion and argumentation about God's existence and nature.
Not to mention that according to religions God is usually supposed to reward good and punish for bad deeds at one level or another, so if God is not logical entity, that kinda removes the basis for that too... :rolleyes:
Everything that exists is subject to logic, and claims to contrary are quite... surreal. :nervous:
I'd love to read the most logical comments, ever...like:
1) Why the hell God, the Christian/Jew/Muslim God, exists while the others don't? Why many other religions are simply pointed out as "Mythology"?
2) Isn't a lot more logical to believe that gods and religions were all but invented by mankind for obvious self-esteem purposes?
3) Where was God when his beloved population was being decimated by Nazists back in the 40s?
4) Where was God when his beloved Church of Rome became a corrupted entity?
5) Where is God now? Why don't we have any proofs?
6) Why did God change after the birth of Jesus? For the Jews, God was both good and evil(he oftentimes sentenced the infedels). Suddenly, he(it?) became good and a new entity, the Devil, appeared. How do you explain this? God has changed? And who changed him?
-
Yeah, it's pretty much like discussing how hot dragon fire can be.
By the way based on the best literary sources (which are of course facts in themselves), it is less hot than the lava in the Orodruin mountain, though exact physical temperatures remain to be a mystery. Since the temperature of lava generally is between 700 and 1200 centigrades, it is reasonable to assume that the fires of Mount Doom were not too much hotter than that, so within reasonable margins of error I would say that dragon fire at it's hottest (as demonstrated by Ancalagon the Black) is less than 1500 degrees Celcius in temperature.
I assume the Mount Doom you reference is from Tolkein? Why not use some other source. (Hey, let's get into an argument about this too. :D)
Also, if God is beyond logic it means that the good and bad of God are not what humans can understand, and true and false of God are not the same as truth and false are to humans, which makes even less sense than the concept of personal God itself, because it basically - like NGTM-1R said - dissolves any kind of basis for discussion and argumentation about God's existence and nature.
Why?
Not to mention that according to religions God is usually supposed to reward good and punish for bad deeds at one level or another, so if God is not logical entity, that kinda removes the basis for that too...
God isn't an illogical entity, rather He is MORE than logic, and logic in and of itself cannot describe him.
Everything that exists is subject to logic,
The next time someone falls in love (dang, that's cliched) tell them that. It'll fix everything </sarcasm>
drones are far too easy to impress on doing something stupid like killing yourself along with a bunch of people caught in the explosion, because God wants it.
These drones, faithful automatons, are what make me very suspicious of religions and other indoctrinative organizations like cults of personality.
So, you are suspicious of religion because some people who may be a part of that could be drones? :wtf: If so, why aren't you suspicious of life in general? They have drones there too.
I can say with absolute certainty that I do not believe in religions.
To each his own, in this case. To be honest, the faith is needed, not the attached dogma </NOT sarcasm>. Speaking of which, the movie of the same name (:lol:) pretty much sums that up.
And God being unexplainable and beyond understanding as an argument...? I'm inclined to disagree.
He is, or we wouln't gigantic arguments like this. Eventually we would settle on an explanation, but that will never happen, ergo, unexplainable. :p
but meanwhile I'm not gonna believe in something I can't have any interaction with, or something I can't observe in any way
Like evolution? :lol: Interesting middle ground you found there.
What I do not like is people who constantly try to constrain God and present him like just another being in the universe.
I feel a need to interject myself into this little tidbit. God isn't in the universe. He is greater than the universe. Our description of universe (to use your definition: all that is) is in error. You have broached that interpretation, and I am sorry to say that it is, in this instance wrong. :)
-
Enlighten me about the fire of Gothmog (the first), a typical Valarauko and a standard Uruloki, then. I'm also interested on what you can come out with :D
Well Gothmog was more powerful than Sauron ever. Both were maia, Gothmog was an enforcer and Sauron was the strategist in Melkor's posse. Sauron the Witch just happened to be better at surviving than Gothmog and thus ended up as the most powerful minion of Melkor after the valar had closed their evil brethren outside of the Middle-earth's level of existence, and proceeded to create his own institution of evil. I'm quite certain that if he had wanted, he could've produced fire hotter than both Ancalagon and Mount Doom (which was assumedly boosted by Sauron's influence), but on the other hand, fire is just one aspect of Balrogs, or the physical form these spirits in Melkor's service chose to take. They might have chosen not to use fire that hot.
Unfortunately there is very little mentions of the actual abilities of Balrogs. The most known one encountered in the Third age in Moria was probably not nearly on the same power level as Gothmog, but whether or not the balrogs' abilities are limited by power of the spirit or by the chosen form remains unknown. If the latter is the case, then the temperatures demonstrated by Durin's Bane would be about the same as Gothmog would have produced, within reasonable error bars of course. Unfortunately, again, we have limited information on the temperatures involved in the encounter at the Bridge of Khazad-Dum; the only direct contact was with another maia that in addition wielded Narya, the Ring of Fire, so that's not really reliable source of information.
The reactions of the rest of the fellowship would be more useful, but there's no direct contact here so we need to simply estimate the upper limit for Durin's Bane's temperature. It's obvious that the Balrog's temperature caused the fellowship some discomfort (Olorín himself was sweating despite the Ring of Power and his own strength) but they didn't apparently get burns and definitely weren't incinerated by the heat, so we can establish some upper limits to the fire of that particular Balrog there: Mere thermal radiation from lava flows can ignite buildings from several metres without touching them, depending on wind conditions. Even lesser temperature would definitely cause some burns to exposed skin, and the Balrog's physical size is most likely big enough to cause problems like this. My estimation would be that the distance between the Balrog and the Fellowship was at most a couple dozen metres. If the Balrog's fire was hotter than dragonfire or Mount Doom's lava, the fellowship would have likely suffered at least first degree burns on their faces and attempts to save Gandalf with the Balrog dangling from his foot would have been very much discouraged by the thermal radiation (just try how close you can go to a burning house if you ever get the chance...)
Based on this, the balrog in Moria probably had surface temperature far less than thousand degrees Celcius. Possibly something akin to a bonfire would be more realistic, although another approach - spectrum analysis - would suggest that the fires that the balrog was engulfed in, being dull red in colour, was about 700 degrees Celcius... but of course that is assuming that the visible flames were carbon particles and not some other substance.
Of course that is based on the Balrog's appearance in the movies, which is not really canon information.
Yeah, it's pretty much like discussing how hot dragon fire can be.
By the way based on the best literary sources (which are of course facts in themselves), it is less hot than the lava in the Orodruin mountain, though exact physical temperatures remain to be a mystery. Since the temperature of lava generally is between 700 and 1200 centigrades, it is reasonable to assume that the fires of Mount Doom were not too much hotter than that, so within reasonable margins of error I would say that dragon fire at it's hottest (as demonstrated by Ancalagon the Black) is less than 1500 degrees Celcius in temperature.
I assume the Mount Doom you reference is from Tolkein? Why not use some other source. (Hey, let's get into an argument about this too. :D)
Yes indeed this information comes from a trustworthy and hallow source. At least, as trustworthy as books come. This is an old argument of mine, if a group of people that didn't know that Lord of the Rings and associated legendarium are works of art rather than holy books, how could they tell that Silmarillion was not a basis for a religion and Bible or Quaran was?
Also, if God is beyond logic it means that the good and bad of God are not what humans can understand, and true and false of God are not the same as truth and false are to humans, which makes even less sense than the concept of personal God itself, because it basically - like NGTM-1R said - dissolves any kind of basis for discussion and argumentation about God's existence and nature.
Why?
Because:
Not to mention that according to religions God is usually supposed to reward good and punish for bad deeds at one level or another, so if God is not logical entity, that kinda removes the basis for that too...
God isn't an illogical entity, rather He is MORE than logic, and logic in and of itself cannot describe him.
So why do religions try and present a lot of things that God wants from us if he is that alien to us? The argument that God is so mysterious that our terms and logic can not handle it pulls the carpet under any religion in my eyes, so I can't really fathom how that is a good argument for God's existence, much less validity of any religion.
Everything that exists is subject to logic,
The next time someone falls in love (dang, that's cliched) tell them that. It'll fix everything </sarcasm>
Did you misunderstand me by purpose or by accident? :p
Illogical actions are not uncommon, yet the reality doesn't care about them. Universe works logically; pulling the trigger has a logical conclusion that the bullet is propelled out of the weapon through the head of some poor sod, and equally logical is that if the shooter is caught they go to jail. That doesn't mean that people always think logically or act logically, but their actions always have logical consequences.
Very much similarly, everything that hypothetic God does has logical consequences. God might or might not have logical reasons for them, though.
The question is, what exactly is it that makes God "more than logical"...
drones are far too easy to impress on doing something stupid like killing yourself along with a bunch of people caught in the explosion, because God wants it.
These drones, faithful automatons, are what make me very suspicious of religions and other indoctrinative organizations like cults of personality.
So, you are suspicious of religion because some people who may be a part of that could be drones? :wtf: If so, why aren't you suspicious of life in general? They have drones there too.
I believe I mentioned cults of personality, which don't need to have anything to do with religions. Same goes with every one-party state and other misuses of authority, so yes, I don't really trust organized truth too much. Be it of religious or mundane nature.
I can say with absolute certainty that I do not believe in religions.
To each his own, in this case. To be honest, the faith is needed, not the attached dogma </NOT sarcasm>. Speaking of which, the movie of the same name (:lol:) pretty much sums that up.
Why exactly is faith needed then? And faith on what exactly? Odin? Amon-Ra? Or faith on yourself, or faith on the people close to you?
And God being unexplainable and beyond understanding as an argument...? I'm inclined to disagree.
He is, or we wouln't gigantic arguments like this. Eventually we would settle on an explanation, but that will never happen, ergo, unexplainable. :p
If he's unexplainable, what is his function?
I mean, if you can accept something being unknown, surely it would be easier to accept the idea of universe becoming into existence on it's own, out of nothing, rather than the idea of God becoming into existence out of nothing?
Surely universe (without consciousness) is less complex than God (with consciousness)?
but meanwhile I'm not gonna believe in something I can't have any interaction with, or something I can't observe in any way
Like evolution? :lol: Interesting middle ground you found there.
Specifically, evolution has been confirmed to happen in many occasions.
Generally, you could also translate what I said as "supernatural does not exist" because everything that exists is part of nature (or universe), including any divine forces like God. If he exists, he is part of everything that exists, right?
(...) God isn't in the universe. He is greater than the universe. Our description of universe (to use your definition: all that is) is in error. You have broached that interpretation, and I am sorry to say that it is, in this instance wrong. :)
Going into etymology: Universe has it's roots in Latin, and it means "the whole world", key word being "whole". On a breakdown, it's derived from Latin word "unu" (one) and "'vertere" (to turn), and together they mean "One World" or the entirety of existence.
Mincing words doesn't really help here because you can just as well substitute universe with multiverse, but on it's very basic meaning, universe really means everything that there is. So again logically, if God exists (ie. has any connection on the space-time continuum we happen to live in), he is one part of everything that exists.
And if you say that God is not belong to the Group of Things That Exist, you are basically saying that he doesn't exist... :p
-
Enlighten me about the fire of Gothmog (the first), a typical Valarauko and a standard Uruloki, then. I'm also interested on what you can come out with :D
Well Gothmog was more powerful than Sauron ever. Both were maia, Gothmog was an enforcer and Sauron was the strategist in Melkor's posse. Sauron the Witch just happened to be better at surviving than Gothmog and thus ended up as the most powerful minion of Melkor after the valar had closed their evil brethren outside of the Middle-earth's level of existence, and proceeded to create his own institution of evil. I'm quite certain that if he had wanted, he could've produced fire hotter than both Ancalagon and Mount Doom (which was assumedly boosted by Sauron's influence), but on the other hand, fire is just one aspect of Balrogs, or the physical form these spirits in Melkor's service chose to take. They might have chosen not to use fire that hot.
Unfortunately there is very little mentions of the actual abilities of Balrogs. The most known one encountered in the Third age in Moria was probably not nearly on the same power level as Gothmog, but whether or not the balrogs' abilities are limited by power of the spirit or by the chosen form remains unknown. If the latter is the case, then the temperatures demonstrated by Durin's Bane would be about the same as Gothmog would have produced, within reasonable error bars of course. Unfortunately, again, we have limited information on the temperatures involved in the encounter at the Bridge of Khazad-Dum; the only direct contact was with another maia that in addition wielded Narya, the Ring of Fire, so that's not really reliable source of information.
The reactions of the rest of the fellowship would be more useful, but there's no direct contact here so we need to simply estimate the upper limit for Durin's Bane's temperature. It's obvious that the Balrog's temperature caused the fellowship some discomfort (Olorín himself was sweating despite the Ring of Power and his own strength) but they didn't apparently get burns and definitely weren't incinerated by the heat, so we can establish some upper limits to the fire of that particular Balrog there: Mere thermal radiation from lava flows can ignite buildings from several metres without touching them, depending on wind conditions. Even lesser temperature would definitely cause some burns to exposed skin, and the Balrog's physical size is most likely big enough to cause problems like this. My estimation would be that the distance between the Balrog and the Fellowship was at most a couple dozen metres. If the Balrog's fire was hotter than dragonfire or Mount Doom's lava, the fellowship would have likely suffered at least first degree burns on their faces and attempts to save Gandalf with the Balrog dangling from his foot would have been very much discouraged by the thermal radiation (just try how close you can go to a burning house if you ever get the chance...)
Based on this, the balrog in Moria probably had surface temperature far less than thousand degrees Celcius. Possibly something akin to a bonfire would be more realistic, although another approach - spectrum analysis - would suggest that the fires that the balrog was engulfed in, being dull red in colour, was about 700 degrees Celcius... but of course that is assuming that the visible flames were carbon particles and not some other substance.
Of course that is based on the Balrog's appearance in the movies, which is not really canon information.
Finally something interesting in this thread, 'cause religious discussions are SO boring, IMO.
Let's hijack this thread and go on a journey to middle earth... :D
-
/hijack fail
Also, if God is beyond logic it means that the good and bad of God are not what humans can understand, and true and false of God are not the same as truth and false are to humans, which makes even less sense than the concept of personal God itself, because it basically - like NGTM-1R said - dissolves any kind of basis for discussion and argumentation about God's existence and nature.
Why?
Because:
Not to mention that according to religions God is usually supposed to reward good and punish for bad deeds at one level or another, so if God is not logical entity, that kinda removes the basis for that too...
God isn't an illogical entity, rather He is MORE than logic, and logic in and of itself cannot describe him.
So why do religions try and present a lot of things that God wants from us if he is that alien to us? The argument that God is so mysterious that our terms and logic can not handle it pulls the carpet under any religion in my eyes, so I can't really fathom how that is a good argument for God's existence, much less validity of any religion.
Because, true to the definition of alien (In this case being "Dissimilar" courtesy The Free Dictionary) God is alien. He is not human. What I was trying to say is that any logic we apply to God falls short of the mark, that nothing we say can fully or completely describe even a portion of him, so trying to is an effort in futility. It's not so much an argument for His existence as it is the best of an explanation for His will.
Universe works logically; pulling the trigger has a logical conclusion that the bullet is propelled out of the weapon through the head of some poor sod
Accident.
Unless bullet jams in the weapon :p. (Just poking fun, no argument)
I can say with absolute certainty that I do not believe in religions.
To each his own, in this case. To be honest, the faith is needed, not the attached dogma </NOT sarcasm>. Speaking of which, the movie of the same name ( :lol:) pretty much sums that up.
Why exactly is faith needed then? And faith on what exactly? Odin? Amon-Ra? Or faith on yourself, or faith on the people close to you?
I apologize, I was referring to my own personal belief about what religion needs. The dogma is unnecessary crap, but the faith is cruicial to a religion. If you watch the movie Dogma, you'll understand.
Surely universe (without consciousness) is less complex than God (with consciousness)?
And surely no life at all is less complex than the organisms evolution so readily explains. Same principle. People are so ready to believe that such complex life rose from nothing, but not so willing to accept the same thing about God, provided He wasn't always there.
Specifically, evolution has been confirmed to happen in many occasions.
But you cannot interact with it. Ergo, you don't believe in it, going on with your earlier statemtent.
Mincing words doesn't really help here because you can just as well substitute universe with multiverse, but on it's very basic meaning, universe really means everything that there is. So again logically, if God exists (ie. has any connection on the space-time continuum we happen to live in), he is one part of everything that exists.
And if you say that God is not belong to the Group of Things That Exist, you are basically saying that he doesn't exist... :p
Once again, logic falls short of the mark when trying to deduce or explain who, what, or why God is. I'm saying that you're usage of the word universe is in error. God created everything. He is not part of the universe the same way the the person who invents a new piece of equipment is not part of that equipment.
He does exist, but you are either unable or refusing to understand how he exists.
EDIT: had to change a lot of quote messups on my part.
I love these kinds of arguments.
-
Go ahead and prove it wrong then.
You've made the ridiculous claim. Go ahead and prove it right.
-
Go ahead and prove it wrong then.
You've made the ridiculous claim. Go ahead and prove it right.
No claim I made is redicolous.
If your mind cannot grasp it's simplicity, well...nothing I can do about it.
-
You've made the ridiculous claim that intelligence couldn't have evolved. Now prove it.
I don't need to prove my view as I can simply point to the mass of scientific literature on the subject. You have no scientific evidence. So prove it.
I don't have to prove you wrong Trashman. That's not how science works. You have to prove your hypothesis is right.
-
Go ahead and prove it wrong then.
You've made the ridiculous claim. Go ahead and prove it right.
No claim I made is redicolous.
If your mind cannot grasp it's simplicity, well...nothing I can do about it.
lol
-
Well Gothmog was more powerful than Sauron ever. Both were maia, Gothmog was an enforcer and Sauron was the strategist in Melkor's posse. Sauron the Witch just happened to be better at surviving than Gothmog and thus ended up as the most powerful minion of Melkor after the valar had closed their evil brethren outside of the Middle-earth's level of existence, and proceeded to create his own institution of evil. I'm quite certain that if he had wanted, he could've produced fire hotter than both Ancalagon and Mount Doom (which was assumedly boosted by Sauron's influence), but on the other hand, fire is just one aspect of Balrogs, or the physical form these spirits in Melkor's service chose to take. They might have chosen not to use fire that hot.
Unfortunately there is very little mentions of the actual abilities of Balrogs. The most known one encountered in the Third age in Moria was probably not nearly on the same power level as Gothmog, but whether or not the balrogs' abilities are limited by power of the spirit or by the chosen form remains unknown. If the latter is the case, then the temperatures demonstrated by Durin's Bane would be about the same as Gothmog would have produced, within reasonable error bars of course. Unfortunately, again, we have limited information on the temperatures involved in the encounter at the Bridge of Khazad-Dum; the only direct contact was with another maia that in addition wielded Narya, the Ring of Fire, so that's not really reliable source of information.
The reactions of the rest of the fellowship would be more useful, but there's no direct contact here so we need to simply estimate the upper limit for Durin's Bane's temperature. It's obvious that the Balrog's temperature caused the fellowship some discomfort (Olorín himself was sweating despite the Ring of Power and his own strength) but they didn't apparently get burns and definitely weren't incinerated by the heat, so we can establish some upper limits to the fire of that particular Balrog there: Mere thermal radiation from lava flows can ignite buildings from several metres without touching them, depending on wind conditions. Even lesser temperature would definitely cause some burns to exposed skin, and the Balrog's physical size is most likely big enough to cause problems like this. My estimation would be that the distance between the Balrog and the Fellowship was at most a couple dozen metres. If the Balrog's fire was hotter than dragonfire or Mount Doom's lava, the fellowship would have likely suffered at least first degree burns on their faces and attempts to save Gandalf with the Balrog dangling from his foot would have been very much discouraged by the thermal radiation (just try how close you can go to a burning house if you ever get the chance...)
Based on this, the balrog in Moria probably had surface temperature far less than thousand degrees Celcius. Possibly something akin to a bonfire would be more realistic, although another approach - spectrum analysis - would suggest that the fires that the balrog was engulfed in, being dull red in colour, was about 700 degrees Celcius... but of course that is assuming that the visible flames were carbon particles and not some other substance.
Of course that is based on the Balrog's appearance in the movies, which is not really canon information.
Someone needs a hug.
-
/hijack fail
Awww. :(
So why do religions try and present a lot of things that God wants from us if he is that alien to us? The argument that God is so mysterious that our terms and logic can not handle it pulls the carpet under any religion in my eyes, so I can't really fathom how that is a good argument for God's existence, much less validity of any religion.
Because, true to the definition of alien (In this case being "Dissimilar" courtesy The Free Dictionary) God is alien. He is not human. What I was trying to say is that any logic we apply to God falls short of the mark, that nothing we say can fully or completely describe even a portion of him, so trying to is an effort in futility. It's not so much an argument for His existence as it is the best of an explanation for His will.
Then why is faith in him necessary?
Based on all this we can't know anything about God, including his existence, motives and methods. We can't know what God, should he exist, wants or needs (what would an almighty being need from us anyway). So why would God need or want our faith in him? And why would he use that faith as any kind of criteria for salvation? I don't need to understand God's logic to say that from my point of view this kind of practice (as preached by almost every religion to be a fact and truth) sucks in celestial scale.
In fact he could very well affect people without existing. And that would be the only thing where faith is required; the create "God" that affects people's decisions - but does the influence come from God or the preachers, that is the question... In a way, religions create their deities in metaphorical sense, since I don't really doubt the sincerity of some people's experiences but rather the objectivity of those experiences. Like a well known entertainer said, "I reject your reality and substitute my own."
Universe works logically; pulling the trigger has a logical conclusion that the bullet is propelled out of the weapon through the head of some poor sod
Accident.
Unless bullet jams in the weapon :p. (Just poking fun, no argument)
Yeah, well. My point was that physically, universe works logically. Complex systems can generate a level of seemingly illogical decisions and actions, but only from the subjective viewpoint of those complex systems; the natural constants and laws of nature still stay solid and those are what in the end decide what consequences are caused by any action.
Why exactly is faith needed then? And faith on what exactly? Odin? Amon-Ra? Or faith on yourself, or faith on the people close to you?
I apologize, I was referring to my own personal belief about what religion needs. The dogma is unnecessary crap, but the faith is cruicial to a religion. If you watch the movie Dogma, you'll understand.
If I have time I might check that movie out at some point...
The point is, I can't really elevate any religion over another, thus I view them all equally inaccurate. Including the tenets that faith of any kind is necessary. Religions claim so. I haven't seen or heard God claiming that faith is necessary. Although believing that the Universe exists makes sense in a fundamental manner like Mr. Cartesius took note of, "Cogito, ergo sum".
Of course, I interpret this in the following way; I observe something, so obviously something exist; let's call everything that exists "Universe".
Surely universe (without consciousness) is less complex than God (with consciousness)?
And surely no life at all is less complex than the organisms evolution so readily explains. Same principle. People are so ready to believe that such complex life rose from nothing, but not so willing to accept the same thing about God, provided He wasn't always there.
Specifically, evolution has been confirmed to happen in many occasions.
But you cannot interact with it. Ergo, you don't believe in it, going on with your earlier statemtent.
The hypothesis of abiogenesis doesn't have the problem of something emerging from nothing, which is a problem that plagues all hypotheses for Universe's birth. Both the Big Bang and God hypothesis are equally problematic in this sense, but at that point Ocham's Razor steps in and says that it's far less likely for a conscious being of infinite power to pop into existence out of nothing, than a finite non-conscious blob of energy and mass experiencing the same. Abiogenesis as a hypothesis of origin of life simply states that it is possible that in suitable conditions, molecules capable of reproducing themselves might have ended up in cellular structures and adapted so that the reproduction process would include the cellular structures themselves, and then it's just evolution from that point on.
What comes to my statement about interacting, I quote myself:
I'm not gonna believe in something I can't have any interaction with, or something I can't observe in any way
OR != AND
Interaction is just one criterium. If I can observe something, it is an equally good reason to believe it. And I can definitely observe evolution in many ways, including but not excluded to:
-results of selective breeding
-examples on nature (lizard populations on islands changing their fenotype according to the conditions in surprisingly short timeframe)
-research on species with very short generations (fruit flies, bacteria)
-genetic research in general
-rat populations developing immunity to poisons
-lactose tolerance on humans (most of world's population is still lactose-intolerantic but it's a beneficial mutation so it's spreading)
-HIV-immunity on human population as a likely result for past epidemics of virae that used same methods of entering the cell as HI-virus uses
-fossil records
-not last nor least: the fact that sexual reproduction is preferred by almost all multicellular organisms in known existence, and occasionally practiced by single-cell organisms as well.
Populations that reproduce asexually tend to be a lot slower in adapting to changes and thus, apart from the fast-reproducing bacteria, tend to die out and thus there is a selective pressure for species to reproduce sexually.
There are other ways I can observe the effects of evolution on species, but of course as a specimen I can't have direct interaction with evolution except making babies or not making babies. Doesn't diminish the validity or accuracy of the theory.
Examples of observed cases of speciation are fewer, but there are those as well. Although the definition of "species" tends to be a bit fuzzy as well.
Once again, logic falls short of the mark when trying to deduce or explain who, what, or why God is. I'm saying that you're usage of the word universe is in error. God created everything. He is not part of the universe the same way the the person who invents a new piece of equipment is not part of that equipment.
Doesn't matter. If god exists, he exists. Therefore he is part of "everything that exists". This is very simple application of set theory.
Let's name the set "Everything" as "E", World as we observe it as "W" and God as he might or might not be, "G".
In this case, there are four possibilities on how the reality could be configured:
(http://i39.tinypic.com/2mrijhz.gif)
1: God exists completely separate from World. Both exist, though, so they belong to "Everything that exists"-set. This is pretty uninteresting though, since even though God might have created the world he has no connection to World in this reality configuration and religions are thus plenty wrong, regardless of the origins of the universe.
2: God exists and has a connection to the World which he might or might not have created. This is, I think, the configuration that many people assume to be true consciously or inconsciously. Basically in this model, God has connection to the World, but both sets still belong to the superset of Existence (E).
3: This is probably the most controversial and in fact you could probably drop the "W" out of the set list and simply explain it as God who exists inside World (or inside Everything) as an independent entity. Of course, this puts God hierarchically on the same level as every other conscious entity that exists in the Universe (Everything), even though God might have created a few planets or species as a playground in this particular reality configuration. Note that there's really nothing in religions that would contradict this possibility; there's nothing being said in the Bible for example about creating Universe, just stuff that exists in it (earth, sky, stars on the sky, sea, sun, solar system...). Genesis doesn't in fact say that God created the Universe's space-time continuum. God might've come to existence after universe.
EDIT: In fact the Hebrew version of Genesis seems to support this kind of configuration as it literally translates as "In (a) beginning filled God the heavens and the earth." Even though other translations interpret this as "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." A small difference in meaning, but since the second verse literally says "The earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters" It lends some credibility to the claim that God simply filled or organized the existence rather than created it.
But I don't think there's any need to get further into any specific branch of theology... :p Just a little sample that not everything might be as it seems.
4. This is another controversial reality configuration. In this example, the world as we observe it is part of God but God is bigger than Universe. Of course, similar to the set number three, some simplification could be possible in this model - you could replace G with E or E with G as you like, making it so that God == Everything and World is part of God or Everything, whichever configuration you like better.
Of course, there is fifth way but it is so simply that I'm just going to write it here without a picture:
E==W==G
This reality configuration is, of course, the simplest of these possibilities and lets you drop two letters of your choice. You can call the existence of everything as "God", "Universe", "World" or simply "Everything" and it will have the fundamentally same meaning no matter what your specific beliefs are.
Of course, it does not answer to the question "Does Universe have a consciousness of it's own?" but the point is, it doesn't need to answer that question either. If there is such consciousness, we might or might not find out after dying - with luck our consciousness would merge to that consciousness, but if not, vanishing into nonexistence is not exactly painful or scary idea to me either.
This configuration is an elegant solution to the problem of God and existence of universe in itself. It is also simplest of available solutions and thus passes Ocham's razor. No need to assume more than you need, so to speak...
He does exist, but you are either unable or refusing to understand how he exists.
And neither can you. In fact since it's impossible for a human to understand God if what you say is valid, then you can't know that he exists either. Even if God exists, you can not be sure he exists or how, much less what exactly he wants of us, if anything at all.
I love these kinds of arguments.
They are definitely entertaining... ;)
-
We can't know what God, should he exist, wants or needs (what would an almighty being need from us anyway). So why would God need or want our faith in him?
Because, through a book written over 1500 years from 40 authors on three continents with no real inconsistencies, He has told us what He wants, and that He wants our faith.
And why would he use that faith as any kind of criteria for salvation?
And if you someone doesn't have faith in Him, why should He reward them with Salvation?
Like a well known entertainer said, "I reject your reality and substitute my own."
<mythbuster>
Am I missing an eyebrow?
</mythbuster> :lol:
Interaction is just one criterium. If I can observe something, it is an equally good reason to believe it. And I can definitely observe evolution in many ways, including but not excluded to:
-results of selective breeding
-examples on nature (lizard populations on islands changing their fenotype according to the conditions in surprisingly short timeframe)
-research on species with very short generations (fruit flies, bacteria)
-genetic research in general
-rat populations developing immunity to poisons
-lactose tolerance on humans (most of world's population is still lactose-intolerantic but it's a beneficial mutation so it's spreading)
-HIV-immunity on human population as a likely result for past epidemics of virae that used same methods of entering the cell as HI-virus uses
-fossil records
-not last nor least: the fact that sexual reproduction is preferred by almost all multicellular organisms in known existence, and occasionally practiced by single-cell organisms as well.
Populations that reproduce asexually tend to be a lot slower in adapting to changes and thus, apart from the fast-reproducing bacteria, tend to die out and thus there is a selective pressure for species to reproduce sexually.
There are other ways I can observe the effects of evolution on species, but of course as a specimen I can't have direct interaction with evolution except making babies or not making babies. Doesn't diminish the validity or accuracy of the theory.
Examples of observed cases of speciation are fewer, but there are those as well. Although the definition of "species" tends to be a bit fuzzy as well.
Nearly all of the examples you point to are more arguments for natural selection than evolution. I'm fairly certain most people here know what natural selection is, so I won't insult anyone's intelligence by assuming they don't. Suffice it to say that the adaptation to environmental stimuli is not evolution. The long term changing of one species into another by various means is. Those means could include long term natural selection, but also a variety of other aspects.
The major bone I have to pick with evolution is how it is taught in schools, and how no allowance for even the possibility of any God at all is permitted. The general scholarly consensus is that evolution is to be treated as fact to the exclusion of all other points of view. It is a perfectly valid theory when talked about as a theory. Even then, I have a few issues with it, mostly centered on the earlier hypothesized stages of evolution, due to my own religious stand point.
EDIT: You should watch Ben Stein's Expelled if you don't understand what I'm talking about, but you probably do. :)
Side note: definition of a species: a group of organisms that are able to interbreed with each other to create fertile offspring.
Of course, there is fifth way but it is so simple that I'm just going to write it here without a picture:
E==W==G
This reality configuration is, of course, the simplest of these possibilities and lets you drop two letters of your choice. You can call the existence of everything as "God", "Universe", "World" or simply "Everything" and it will have the fundamentally same meaning no matter what your specific beliefs are.
Of course, it does not answer to the question "Does Universe have a consciousness of it's own?" but the point is, it doesn't need to answer that question either. If there is such consciousness, we might or might not find out after dying - with luck our consciousness would merge to that consciousness, but if not, vanishing into nonexistence is not exactly painful or scary idea to me either.
This configuration is an elegant solution to the problem of God and existence of universe in itself. It is also simplest of available solutions and thus passes Ocham's razor. No need to assume more than you need, so to speak...
I could agree with this one. Of course, we still have the subject of the consciousness of God/Universe/Everything to argue about. :D
And neither can you. In fact since it's impossible for a human to understand God if what you say is valid, then you can't know that he exists either. Even if God exists, you can not be sure he exists or how, much less what exactly he wants of us, if anything at all.
First sentence = touche
Second/Third sentence(s): see first rebuttal of this post.
-
lol, no real inconsistencies.
if the god in those books is the actual god, he's a douchebag and doesn't deserve any sort of worship or "faith" (willful ignorance)
-
if the god in those books is the actual god, he's a douchebag and doesn't deserve any sort of worship or "faith" (willful ignorance)
:wtf:
Elaborate please.
-
Okay, thought I would re-align the discussion a little bit (feel free to continue as we have been, bit I wanted to actually discus the reason for the thread :lol:).
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
My big problem with this is that it assumes that if God does not do every single thing in his power to keep anything that could possibly be construed as bad from happening to you, he is malevolent. To illustrate my point: Would you call a parent that does not keep their child from every single scrape or bruise, that does not allow them to experience both aspects of the world malevolent? We would be unable to fathom the concept of good if nothing evil or bad ever happened to us. Some people may critisize me for saying this, but pain is one of the world's best teachers. By seeing what evil or bad(ness?) is, we develop more of an appreciation for goodness.
Is he able, but not (always) willing?
Then he is a teacher.
:blah: (I wish they had a [profound] smiley)
-
if the god in those books is the actual god, he's a douchebag and doesn't deserve any sort of worship or "faith" (willful ignorance)
:wtf:
Elaborate please.
Have you ever read the book of Job?
-
We can't know what God, should he exist, wants or needs (what would an almighty being need from us anyway). So why would God need or want our faith in him?
Because, through a book written over 1500 years from 40 authors on three continents with no real inconsistencies, He has told us what He wants, and that He wants our faith.
And dragon fire is not as hot as lava in Mount Doom.
This is where the dogma kicks in. Despite popular belief, there are no assurances whatsoever that the Bible or any other holy book were written under any kind of divine influence. They tell us what some people at some point thought God was all about, and submitting ourselves to those believes is just mimicking the belief systems of the writers.
I could go into the specific inconsistencies but specifics don't matter, so let's just keep it general; why would any given holy book be accurate? Like religions, there are many in the world.
What makes them different from Silmarillion, to a reader that would hypothetically have no knowledge of any of the books' origins?
Besides that, quoting a statement is not the answer to the question regarding motives. Saying that God wants our faith is not the answer to the question why he would want our faith. Why is our faith so important that it would be used to define our post-mortal state?
And if you someone doesn't have faith in Him, why should He reward them with Salvation?
Dude he's an almighty being, he doesn't need our faith. What does he have to gain from faith? Does it give him kicks? Why would he be so petty as to leave non-believers hanging high and dry simply because of their lack of faith?
Let's have a hypothetic thought experiment now.
Let's say you become a scientist and manage to create a simulation running in a quantum computer, able to simulate entire civilizations of sentient minds with limited lifetime in the simulation.
Let's then say that you don't give them any definite assurance of the origins of the simulated world and only make a few of the simulated beings write a book that supposedly has some information about you, and then let a lot of people interpret the scriptures as they wish and preach that as your word in various cults and various meanings, and then you would expect people to still have faith in you?
Let's also say you have the ability to copy the personality matrices from the simulation and insert them into android interface or something, to give them life after their deaths.
What would you use to define who gets a new life? Would you poll the databases of each simulated entity to check if they believed in your existence during their lifetime, and if they did you would put them into that android interface so they could interact with you, and would you terminate the non-believers - no matter what kind of personalities they were?
What would you gain from the simulated entities having faith in you? And why would you use faith alone to define who gets another shot at life?
To me, it makes no sense at all. If God exists and if he created the universe and if he loves us, he wouldn't do that. If that is the only thing he requires, I don't much care about it. I'll rather take my chances than submit to a being that has that kind of priorities...
Of course, this is just analogous to Christian theology. In other religions you would also expect the simulated entities to behave in a certain way or do certain things. Which of course makes even less sense to me, but hey, that's just me. :rolleyes:
Regarding natural selection, it seems you have misunderstood the fact that evolution IS natural selection and it's consequences to the species. What you seem to be considering "evolution" is actually speciation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation), which is just part of evolution. I think some evolution critics make a distinction between "microevolution" (interspecies evolution) and "macroevolution", speciation or introduction of new major features to species. Truth is, there's no difference between micro- and macroevolution from evolution's point of view. It's all just change; speciation involves more changes through many generations accumulating in enough differences to classify two populations as different species in the end.
And like I said before, there are examples of speciation too, but obviously they are fewer than the other examples of interspecies evolution, mainly because the timeframe of human observations regarding evolution is limited and speciation is (usually) a slow, gradual process of two populations of same species becoming unable to produce fertile offspring. It takes a long time for that kind of differences to emerge in two separated populations, but there are examples of speciation, some of which are listed here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5). Reading of the entire page is recommended for optimal understanding, but that's where the list begins...
There are also a few cases where mutations like polyploidia produce a new species in just one generation. Plants especially.
-
To Iamzack: Yes, but you apparently haven't.
Job 1:8-12
8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."
9 "Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. 10 "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."
12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."
Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.
It was not God that afflicted Job. Satan tempted him and ruined him in an attempt to get Job to spurn God. God did not tempt him.
To: Herra Tohtori, gimme a minute to come up with an answer.
-
Uh. Satan, a creation of God, challenged God and God turned around and said "yeah, go ahead and make the life of a "blameless and upright" man completely miserable."
That's a pretty dick thing to do.
-
I could go into the specific inconsistencies but specifics don't matter
I would argue that in this case, it does. You say that there are inconsistnecies, but don't reference any. Show me one that is legitemate, and we can argue this.
What makes them different from Silmarillion, to a reader that would hypothetically have no knowledge of any of the books' origins?
That the Simarillion was authored to flesh out a fantasy universe, and that the Bible was not. Knowledge of the Bible's origin is key to understanding the book itself. To look at it with no reference is not the point.
Dude he's an almighty being, he doesn't need our faith. What does he have to gain from faith? Does it give him kicks? Why would he be so petty as to leave non-believers hanging high and dry simply because of their lack of faith?
Dude He's an almighty being, what else would He want? It's not what He would gain from it, it's what we gain from it. If you would read the Bible, it says that in some nice clear passages (gimme a day or so to find some). He's not so petty, but in a civil war (this could be a bad analogy, let's find out), would you let the people who opposed you into a place in your government? (Damn, that one sucks. Eh, it works well enough.)
and then let a lot of people interpret the scriptures as they wish and preach that as your word in various cults and various meanings
The scriptures are not meant to be interpreted, they are meant to be followed. If someone interprets them as they wish, that is not what they were meant for.
What would you use to define who gets a new life?
Everyone gets a new life. It's up to them whether they want to be with God in heaven by believing, or to live forever (and maybe not even then) separated from him (Hell).
And why would you use faith alone to define who gets another shot at life?
To me, it makes no sense at all. If God exists and if he created the universe and if he loves us, he wouldn't do that.
See my above point, He doesn't do that. At least, not the way you seem to think so.
Regarding natural selection, it seems you have misunderstood the fact that evolution IS natural selection and it's consequences to the species. What you seem to be considering "evolution" is actually speciation, which is just part of evolution. I think some evolution critics make a distinction between "microevolution" (interspecies evolution) and "macroevolution", speciation or introduction of new major features to species. Truth is, there's no difference between micro- and macroevolution from evolution's point of view. It's all just change; speciation involves more changes through many generations accumulating in enough differences to classify two populations as different species in the end.
Okay. </serious>
I still don't like the way it is taught, or presented. The theory that is taught in school is that life did come from self-replicating organic molecules, and that life did not come from any form of God, no questions asked. Once again, see Expelled for a more detailed explanation of the "no questions asked" part.
-
Uh. Satan, a creation of God, challenged God and God turned around and said "yeah, go ahead and make the life of a "blameless and upright" man completely miserable."
That's a pretty dick thing to do.
And you leave out the end of the book too.
Job 42: 12-17
12 The LORD blessed the latter part of Job's life more than the first. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. 13 And he also had seven sons and three daughters. 14 The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch. 15 Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job's daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.
16 After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation. 17 And so he died, old and full of years.
That one's not so much of a dick move, is it?
Tell me, do you try to piss people off like this? Here we are having a nice discussion and you come in with "God's a dick". Not cool.
-
Turambar told me to do it. *shrug*
-
I was raised muslim, then turned atheist. I know she (iamzack) knows more about how christianity is silly than I do, being raised in a more christian environment.
-
It's more fun to argue with you people when you present arguments and evidence and such than if you just say "Christianity is silly" and walk off. Come on.
And do you mean Athiest as in: There is no God/I don't believe in Him
or Agnostic as in: I don't worship God/He may exist.?
-
Uh. Satan, a creation of God, challenged God and God turned around and said "yeah, go ahead and make the life of a "blameless and upright" man completely miserable."
That's a pretty dick thing to do.
God let Satan do everything in order to win a bet. That's a big dick move but you missed the biggest dick move in the whole story.
1:19 And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
42:12 So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses.
42:13 He had also seven sons and three daughters.
Hang a sec. God lets Satan kill all of Job's children in order to win a bet and then rewards him when he wins with new children rather than ressurecting the ones he had? If that isn't a dick move I really don't know what is.
EDIT: Scotty posted it while I was wrting and didn't even see what an utter twat it makes God out as. :lol:
-
I mean atheist in that there hasn't been one shred of anything to convince me that there's some higher power. All I see is myth, superstition, and some smart immoral folks using myth and superstition to control people (call them their flocks).
Sure, sometimes it can influence people to be nice, but most of the time it just makes them less likely to think.
-
i do not believe in any god or any gods existance , i do believe in the folly of the pack to create an illusion of a god that the weak follow instead of believing in themselves and there fellow humans.... for those who choose to believe in a god or multiple gods then they refuse to except responsability for there own actions and say they will be judged by there god .....
-
I could go into the specific inconsistencies but specifics don't matter
I would argue that in this case, it does. You say that there are inconsistnecies, but don't reference any. Show me one that is legitemate, and we can argue this.
I would begin with the difference of God of Old and New Testimony and extrapolate from there. I could also pull in the stuff that was left out of "The Bible" in Nicea by people, but it makes no difference and is a pointless excercise. The problem of the accuracy of holy books can't really be solved by concentrating on specific problems, a more general view is needed.
the Simarillion was authored to flesh out a fantasy universe, and that the Bible was not. Knowledge of the Bible's origin is key to understanding the book itself. To look at it with no reference is not the point.
It totally is the point. Since we can't be sure in any way of the (divine) origins of the Bible, the only way to evaluate it is by it's content.
"Knowing" the origins shouldn't really matter if the content is accurate, don't you think?
If you had been told from the beginning of your life that Silmarillion is the accurate history of the world as delivered by divine influence of Prophet John Ronald Reuel, what do you figure you would consider the book?
Dude He's an almighty being, what else would He want? It's not what He would gain from it, it's what we gain from it. If you would read the Bible, it says that in some nice clear passages (gimme a day or so to find some). He's not so petty, but in a civil war (this could be a bad analogy, let's find out), would you let the people who opposed you into a place in your government? (Damn, that one sucks. Eh, it works well enough.)
I fail to understand why faith would be the most important thing God would want from his sentient creations... I certainly wouldn't.
The scriptures are not meant to be interpreted, they are meant to be followed. If someone interprets them as they wish, that is not what they were meant for.
Interpretation is always involved in every piece of information that humans receive. Even if it's from God, the original message would be interpreted by a LOT of people before it gets to you, so in the end there's always human element to every religion even if unlikely the original stuff came from a divine source. Which is suspect to doubt.
Everyone gets a new life.
Depends on specific theology, but I'll humour you...
It's up to them whether they want to be with God in heaven by believing, or to live forever (and maybe not even then) separated from him (Hell).
No, it's up to God, should he exist. It's his decision to invalidate the pass to "heaven" for people who don't have faith in him.
And why would you use faith alone to define who gets another shot at life?
To me, it makes no sense at all. If God exists and if he created the universe and if he loves us, he wouldn't do that.
See my above point, He doesn't do that. At least, not the way you seem to think so.
Let's just agree that I don't think faith=salvation in theology makes much of a sensible argument in any way and leave it at that, because I'm not really interested in specific theological argumentation...
Regarding natural selection, it seems you have misunderstood the fact that evolution IS natural selection and it's consequences to the species. What you seem to be considering "evolution" is actually speciation, which is just part of evolution. I think some evolution critics make a distinction between "microevolution" (interspecies evolution) and "macroevolution", speciation or introduction of new major features to species. Truth is, there's no difference between micro- and macroevolution from evolution's point of view. It's all just change; speciation involves more changes through many generations accumulating in enough differences to classify two populations as different species in the end.
Okay. </serious>
I still don't like the way it is taught, or presented. The theory that is taught in school is that life did come from self-replicating organic molecules, and that life did not come from any form of God, no questions asked. Once again, see Expelled for a more detailed explanation of the "no questions asked" part.
"Expelled" is a steaming pile of misdirection, dishonesty and outright lies. It doesn't deserve to be pulled into this discussion.
On a basic level though I agree, but I don't see offering "Goddidit" as an alternative as an answer to the problem. The real answer would be to teach how the scientific method works. The real answer would be to teach understanding of evolution theory, not just expect blind acceptance from the students. And by understanding I mean the mechanisms, which are sadly misunderstood by most people who oppose evolution. The thing is though, there is no theory that could compete with evolution theory as an accurate representation of developement of species. Whether or not abiogenesis should be presented as the only explanation to the origins of life, I don't have much of an opinion, although I do think that Goddidit is a really bad alternative. I guess my opinion is that people should be made aware in schools that although specifics are not known, abiogenesis is scientifically the most probable explanation to the origins of life, and let people make their mind about things on themselves. The greatest thing in science is that you don't really need to convince anyone to "believe" in it if you present them all the facts; nothing changes the fact that evolution is at the moment the best in-depth explanation available for the versatility of life on Earth.
There are a lot of other things wrong in American schools, however, like teaching people to read and write, and do mathematics, and other stuff that is kinda more relevant to everyday life, so I can in a way understand that emphasis on accurate presentation of natural sciences doesn't always take priority. Sadly.
-
To Iamzack: A grand total of two people have been resurrected. Jesus, and Jesus's brother Lazarus. God didn't do that back then.
If that isn't a dick move I really don't know what is.
Oh, I dunno, maybe NOT giving him more kids. That would pretty much take the cake. :rolleyes: Furthermore, notice how Job does NOT blaspheme against God even then.
God let Satan do everything in order to win a bet
Except kill or hurt Job, you missed that part.
EDIT: Shoot, two new ones, give me a bit.
-
Jesus's brother Lazarus.
Wait what :nervous:
EDIT: Just a little addition: The assumption that faith is required is dogmatic in nature. It's based on the dogma. If you drop the dogma, there's nothing that tells you that you should believe in something specific like God.
-
I got to play Lazarus when my high school did Godspell. :-P
-
I would begin with the difference of God of Old and New Testimony and extrapolate from there
I fail to see this as an inconsistency. In the old testament, there was no Jesus, no one to take the place fore anyone's sins. With the birth of Jesus and his crucifiction, we are forgiven as long as we have faith. If you don't believe that he died for your sins, then it won't apply to you. that is what I am talking about when I say faith.
Since we can't be sure in any way of the (divine) origins of the Bible
I can, even if no one else here can. :(
Yes it is. Otherwise, I could say "hey, the Lord of the Rings is a good book. It's more entertaining than the Bible, therefore, it's better than the Bible" The origin and context is absolutely relevant.
I fail to understand why faith would be the most important thing God would want from his sentient creations... I certainly wouldn't.
Then, hypothetically, what would you want? Is there anything else they can give you that you can't simply make?
"Expelled" is a steaming pile of misdirection, dishonesty and outright lies.
Yeah, and I could say the same thing about The God Delusion by Dr. Dawkins, but I try not to insult things like that, even if it's true.
-
The assumption that faith is required is dogmatic in nature. It's based on the dogma. If you drop the dogma, there's nothing that tells you that you should believe in something specific like God.
Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ
John 1:12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—
And one of the better know verses:
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
:p I see no dogma, I see scripture, barring any interpretation.
-
"Expelled" is a steaming pile of misdirection, dishonesty and outright lies.
Yeah, and I could say the same thing about The God Delusion by Dr. Dawkins, but I try not to insult things like that, even if it's true.
Trust me, it's better if I just link you to this (http://www.expelledexposed.com/) and we leave specific discussion about "Expelled" to some other thread or leave the subject entirely. Nothing good is going to come about this thread if we start to go through all the "mistakes" that "Exposed" has...
Regarding the evaluation of content based on the "known" origins; it's basically an appeal to authority (and argumentum ad nauseam and proof by assertion). If you can't evaluate the accuracy of the content based on the content alone, then it is true to you only because of the source. So if you would have been grown to consider Tolkien as Prophet of Eru or whatever, you would consider Silmarillion the truth in the same way you now consider Bible to be true.
Let's try an exercise: Prove that Silmarillion is not an accurate history of the world preceding the cultures rising in Egypt and Middle-East ca. 6000 years ago.
Have fun. :p
I fail to understand why faith would be the most important thing God would want from his sentient creations... I certainly wouldn't.
Then, hypothetically, what would you want? Is there anything else they can give you that you can't simply make?
What indeed would I want? Perhaps I would make sure that my creations don't suffer themselves with fear and uncertainty about their existence after apparent death. Perhaps I would make them aware of me and the "real" world from the beginning.
Perhaps I wouldn't expect them to draw the "correct" conclusion from a cluttered and unbelievable various and contradictory pieces of "evidence" that I would have carefully crafted to both lead and mislead the poor sods.
Perhaps I would ask them questions after their life. Who are you. What do you want. Where are you going to. You know, the standard questions of the First Ones.
This is of course purely hypothetical but I certainly wouldn't want them to simply "have faith" on me to save themselves from "sin".
Or perhaps it would all just be a big game for me. Of course, that might make the simulated entities consider me kind of a dickwad. I wouldn't blame them for it. ;)
The assumption that faith is required is dogmatic in nature. It's based on the dogma. If you drop the dogma, there's nothing that tells you that you should believe in something specific like God.
Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ
John 1:12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—
And one of the better know verses:
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
:p I see no dogma, I see scripture, barring any interpretation.
The assumption that the scripture is accurate is a dogma.
-
Was it you or someone else earlier who distrusted organized religion or cults because of the dogmatic influence? Hmm, maybe it was Kajorama.
Dogma (noun): Something held as an established opinion.
Someone could classify anything and everything as dogma if it is an opinion, and you seem to do just that. For example, I could classify the Big-Bang theory as dogma. It is an opinion, a theory, not a law. It is also well established in the scientific community. Logically then, the big bang theory is dogma.
Perhaps I would make them aware of me and the "real" world from the beginning
Sort of like with a book that people you spoke to wrote? Like the Bible. :D
Perhaps I wouldn't expect them to draw the "correct" conclusion from a cluttered and unbelievable various and contradictory pieces of "evidence" that I would have carefully crafted to both lead and mislead the poor sods.
Once again, show me a contradiction that is legitimate. Also, it's only unbelievable to any given person if they choose not to believe it. It is perfectly believable to me. Back to my point: You haven't told me what you could want or garner from any people that you could not make yourself (hypothetically).
Of course, that might make the simulated entities consider me kind of a dickwad.
maybe some of them would (Iamzack, talking about you). It would truly depend on what you were doing.
EDIT: I'll post the Simarillion exercise tomorrow.
-
Nevermind, looked it up today anyway.
While I know that some people would say that since I believe in the bible, the year 3960 B.C. would be the first year according to fundamentalist interpreters. However, I ascribe to the idea that one ‘day’ as it is described in Genesis is an unknown amount of time determined by God (Kind of like in Inherit the Wind)
Egyptian/Nile History:
General Timeline Pre-6000 B.C.
Approximately 7000-8000 B.C. isolated groups of humans in North Africa (present day Sahara) settle into farming societies ushering in the Neolithic age (literally, new stone age, due to the fact that humanity now farmed with stone tools).
Sometime thereafter, a shift on the Earth’s axis changes the climate in North Africa, causing the creation of the Sahara Desert (sahara meaning, in Arabic, “desert”). Humans are pushed to the Nile river or the Atlantic, over some time, the civilizations of Egypt, Nubia, and Meroe developed and competed with each other.
5000 B.C. First villages appear on the Nile, history progresses as we know it.
Badarian/Central African History:
Approximately 100,000 B.C. - first incised ochre, indicating the first use of tools
35000 B.C. First human skeletons dated to this period.
27000 B.C. First African rock art
8000 B.C. First known boats evolving into a full blown boat crafting tradition in present day Nigeria, also beginnings of scattered farming.
7000 B.C. First worked bronze, pottery, and fine sculpture.
European History:
35000 B.C. to 10000 B.C. First European Paleolithic art.
There, sources from three areas and three different sources. The sources:
- www.thenagain.info/WebChron/WestEurope/Ancient.html
- wysinger.homestead.com/badarians.html
- www.wsu.edu/~dee/EGYPT/PREHIST.HTM
-
Was it you or someone else earlier who distrusted organized religion or cults because of the dogmatic influence? Hmm, maybe it was Kajorama.
Yeah that's me.
Dogma (noun): Something held as an established opinion.
Someone could classify anything and everything as dogma if it is an opinion, and you seem to do just that. For example, I could classify the Big-Bang theory as dogma. It is an opinion, a theory, not a law. It is also well established in the scientific community. Logically then, the big bang theory is dogma.
Science doesn't have dogmas [ideally] because as soon as a more accurate theory is presented and verified to give better results and predictions, it replaces the old theories.
Of course, when scientific theories are taught as facts by people who lack the understanding behind them, they make it certain that the students have certain amount of doubt towards said things.
What I mean is that you consider the scriptures to be accurate because it's an established opinion and therefore dogma. I can just as easily write something and tell people that God told this to me, now you need to jump when I say or you won't get to heaven. Or I can take Silmarillion and make it truth by assertion by telling it's true to some kids I abducted and set to live on an isolated island and in the end I get a group of people who would consider Silmarillion as true, at which point it has become a dogma.
In fact it would be awesome to become a Missionary of Silmarillionism to some recently discovered tribe and give them Silmarillion as "truth" and see where it goes from there. Unethical? You bet. Different from Christian mission? Not really.
Or, as Siddhartha Gautama wisely noted; Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written. Ironically, Gautama himself is considered "perfect person" in Buddhism, which I doubt he would've wanted...
Perhaps I would make them aware of me and the "real" world from the beginning
Sort of like with a book that people you spoke to wrote? Like the Bible. :D
Not at all. I'm talking about first hand experience rather than N'th hand knowledge circulated by clergymen and worse.
show me a contradiction that is legitimate. Also, it's only unbelievable to any given person if they choose not to believe it. It is perfectly believable to me. Back to my point: You haven't told me what you could want or garner from any people that you could not make yourself (hypothetically).
Well, to start with, some say that there is one god and Mohammed is his Prophet. Others say that there are Father, Son and the holy spirit and that you need to believe in all three to reap the rewards. Some say there are many deities with animalistic features, some say Gods are like humans but more powerful and live in Olympos or Asgård, and some say you will be reborn after death until you reach illumination and meld into the world consciousness or reach nirvana. And some say that In his house at R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming. Most of these views claim to be the truth about the world, so there's plenty of contradictions to choose from... not all of them are specific to Christianity.
Of course, that might make the simulated entities consider me kind of a dickwad.
maybe some of them would (Iamzack, talking about you). It would truly depend on what you were doing.
Indeed. So why should we not view the possible God based on what he has been doing? Which kinda brings us back to the epicurus quote...
-
Behold! Irrefutable proof of God's non-existance or at least utter impotence!
(http://i44.tinypic.com/16c3s7o.jpg)
Apparently, he couldn't cause an internet hiccup of a fraction of a millisecond to cause that post to end in a number other than 9. Pitiful. And he expects faith and worship out of us?
-
Science doesn't have dogmas [ideally]
We can all hope. Unfortunately, that doesn't make it true.
I can just as easily write something and tell people that God told this to me, now you need to jump when I say or you won't get to heaven.
To which I reply:
Jeremiah 14:14b "The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds
Well, to start with, some say that there is one god and Mohammed is his Prophet. Others say that there are Father, Son and the holy spirit and that you need to believe in all three to reap the rewards. Some say there are many deities with animalistic features, some say Gods are like humans but more powerful and live in Olympos or Asgård, and some say you will be reborn after death until you reach illumination and meld into the world consciousness or reach nirvana. And some say that In his house at R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming. Most of these views claim to be the truth about the world, so there's plenty of contradictions to choose from... not all of them are specific to Christianity.
None of which are contradictions in the Bible, which is what I was talking about. Not one of those yet....
So why should we not view the possible God based on what he has been doing? Which kinda brings us back to the epicurus quote...
Your opinion. I posted mine about a page ago; Here it is again:
Okay, thought I would re-align the discussion a little bit (feel free to continue as we have been, bit I wanted to actually discus the reason for the thread :lol:).
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
My big problem with this is that it assumes that if God does not do every single thing in his power to keep anything that could possibly be construed as bad from happening to you, he is malevolent. To illustrate my point: Would you call a parent that does not keep their child from every single scrape or bruise, that does not allow them to experience both aspects of the world malevolent? We would be unable to fathom the concept of good if nothing evil or bad ever happened to us. Some people may critisize me for saying this, but pain is one of the world's best teachers. By seeing what evil or bad(ness?) is, we develop more of an appreciation for goodness.
Is he able, but not (always) willing?
Then he is a teacher.
:blah: (I wish they had a [profound] smiley)
-
Behold! Irrefutable proof of God's non-existance or at least utter impotence!
(http://i44.tinypic.com/16c3s7o.jpg)
Apparently, he couldn't cause an internet hiccup of a fraction of a millisecond to cause that post to end in a number other than 9. Pitiful. And he expects faith and worship out of us?
Yeah, or at least his utter disinterest with everything and anything internet related. :blah: </joke>
That, and I seriously doubt that was the first post or not photoshopped.
-
Behold! Irrefutable proof of God's non-existance or at least utter impotence!
*snip*
Apparently, he couldn't cause an internet hiccup of a fraction of a millisecond to cause that post to end in a number other than 9. Pitiful. And he expects faith and worship out of us?
And you call me a brat?
-
I can tell he (she/it?) was joking. You, on the other hand...
-
I think 4chan in itself is a strong argument for the non-existence of god...
-
:wtf: Or God just not wanting to deal with a bunch of stupid people. :D
Strong argument FOR the existence of God: This thread hasn't turned into a Flame War! :jaw:
-
Nah, that's just the rare occurance of almost everyone here clinging to the hope that you can reason with religious people. I stick with the House quote.
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people"
Seriously, you think that an omnipotent, omniscient, invisible man in the sky created everything, talked to some random guys in the desert, didn't talk to -anyone else- and then sat back to do absolutely nothing that can be in any way observed. Forgive me for not having much respect for your viewpoint.
-
You know, it is possible to respect a viewpoint and still not agree with it. A good example is yours: I firmly disagree with what you think, but I don't insult your way of thinking and respect your choice to think that way. It's just being a generally nice person to reciprocate.
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people"
If you bothered to notice earlier, I have agreed with and reasoned with several of the above (and next page) posts. Most notably, the definition of evolution and, subsequently, the discussion of how it is taught in school (I guess I just have one of those exceptions to the rule. Mine explicitly tells you that evolution is the only answer to the beginning and development of life.).
Seriously, you think that an omnipotent, omniscient, invisible man in the sky created everything, talked to some random guys in the desert, didn't talk to -anyone else- and then sat back to do absolutely nothing that can be in any way observed.
Seriously, you think that all matter came from an infinitely dense and hot speck of a substance and exploded to form the universe and everything we see in it? And that then, after stars and planets had formed and cooled enough, life just automatically built itself through a series of self-replicating molecules up until present day? Forgive me for not agreeing with your viewpoint (entirely).
About the 'nothing that can be observed'. I would call the flood pretty observable. If you don't believe me, find a single piece of folklore or history or ANYTHING that doesn't reference it. Off the top of my head, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Enuma Elish, The Ages of Man (Greek), The Creation, Death, and Rebirth of the Universe (Norse), and several others all account the flood. From the New Testament: When Jesus was resurrected, over 500 people saw him. Some people try to pass this off as a hallucination. Group hallucinations simply do not happen.
I would call those "observable"
-
I think I prefer evangelical religions to preachy atheism.
-
Except I don't base my way of thinking on fairy tales and thousand year old books written by committee. Respecting differences is good, respecting ignorance is something else.
-
Nevermind, looked it up today anyway.
While I know that some people would say that since I believe in the bible, the year 3960 B.C. would be the first year according to fundamentalist interpreters. However, I ascribe to the idea that one ‘day’ as it is described in Genesis is an unknown amount of time determined by God (Kind of like in Inherit the Wind)
Egyptian/Nile History:
General Timeline Pre-6000 B.C.
Approximately 7000-8000 B.C. isolated groups of humans in North Africa (present day Sahara) settle into farming societies ushering in the Neolithic age (literally, new stone age, due to the fact that humanity now farmed with stone tools).
Sometime thereafter, a shift on the Earth’s axis changes the climate in North Africa, causing the creation of the Sahara Desert (sahara meaning, in Arabic, “desert”). Humans are pushed to the Nile river or the Atlantic, over some time, the civilizations of Egypt, Nubia, and Meroe developed and competed with each other.
5000 B.C. First villages appear on the Nile, history progresses as we know it.
Badarian/Central African History:
Approximately 100,000 B.C. - first incised ochre, indicating the first use of tools
35000 B.C. First human skeletons dated to this period.
27000 B.C. First African rock art
8000 B.C. First known boats evolving into a full blown boat crafting tradition in present day Nigeria, also beginnings of scattered farming.
7000 B.C. First worked bronze, pottery, and fine sculpture.
European History:
35000 B.C. to 10000 B.C. First European Paleolithic art.
There, sources from three areas and three different sources. The sources:
- www.thenagain.info/WebChron/WestEurope/Ancient.html
- wysinger.homestead.com/badarians.html
- www.wsu.edu/~dee/EGYPT/PREHIST.HTM
That's just our best attempts to piece together world history. If historians fail to see the truth of Silmarillion, it's not their fault; the world has changed during and after Silmarillion (the sinking of Beleriand and Númenor being prime examples). The story ends at the Third Age, when the Eldar left Middle-Earth. The date of this event on our timeline is difficult to establish. It is probable that after this, some cataclysm came about and returned the culture level to stone age. Dwarves and halflings probably were assimilated into race of Men or died out, leaving little evidence of the existence of the old civilizations.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as some would say. However while that is true, it is always good to remember that absence of evidence to contrary doesn't make random assertions true. Burden of proof is always on the claimants.
There's no proof that dragons don't exist, for example. But I would still need to prove that dragons exist for you to believe it, right? And Silmarillion can't really be disproved. Of course, this is all an assertion that can't be disproved. I would need to prove the Silmarillion is true for my claim to have any validity, right? So why is it that no one apparently needs to prove Bible's divine sources or God's existence for people to believe in them? The point is, if someone really believes that something, anything, is true, it's really hard for them to view the matter objectively. Just look at scientology. And cults of personality. And conspiracy theories. Belief in something doesn't make it a fact. This means that even if you think you have certain information from/of God, it is not objective information verifiable by anything other but circular argument about scriptures being true because God says so in the scriptures.
Jeremiah 14:14b "The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds
So... what makes a prophet different from false prophet? :lol:
Who gets to decide what gets put into the book? Oh yeah... the councils of Nicaea. People.
None of which are contradictions in the Bible, which is what I was talking about. Not one of those yet....
I wasn't talking about contradictions exclusive to the Bible. A lot of religions claim they have Word of God in one form or another. There's an ample amount of contradictions right there, no need to get into specific theological problems at all in this context. Though I still think the behavioristic differences in God between Old and New Testimony are rather contradictory. At least they are plenty contradictory to the existence of the Divine Master Plan. God seems to be plenty good at cocking his plans up. First with the Eden debacle with the snake, then letting the world get into state where a purge was needed to restore some kind of plan, then it still didn't work out so he had to have a son and send him to wipe the humanity's collective ass clean, so to speak.
This does not sound like a very good plan to me. Kinda like the Cylons. They had a plan, but it didn't work out so well and now they are just winging it as they go.
Of course, he could have planned all that he did. Which is not very appealing thought.
-
Except I don't base my way of thinking on fairy tales and thousand year old books written by committee. Respecting differences is good, respecting ignorance is something else.
So you're right because you're right and they're wrong because you said so and you're going to rub it in everyone's faces any time the topic comes up (and even when it doesn't), especially when accused of hypocritical self-righteousness.
-
I'm sorry everyone. I accidentally hit the 'modify' button on my last post instead of making a new one. If you would kindly base your next arguments off of that. </embarrassed>
-
It is probable that after this, some cataclysm came about and returned the culture level to stone age. Dwarves and halflings probably were assimilated into race of Men or died out, leaving little evidence of the existence of the old civilizations.
But you're forgetting that I have first bronze and first farming. Even if it had existed, there would have been signs. Entire periods of existence do not simply disappear. (yes, I have read the rest of your post. I'm being specific here.)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as some would say. However while that is true, it is always good to remember that absence of evidence to contrary doesn't make random assertions true. Burden of proof is always on the claimants.
See my modified post (sorry </embarrassed> again.)
At least they are plenty contradictory to the existence of the Divine Master Plan. God seems to be plenty good at cocking his plans up. First with the Eden debacle with the snake, then letting the world get into state where a purge was needed to restore some kind of plan, then it still didn't work out so he had to have a son and send him to wipe the humanity's collective ass clean, so to speak.
That is where the (?)issue of free will comes into play. God gave man free will so they could choose to serve Him. Some did not (hell, most do not now.). It's not that He let it get to that state, we (man) let it get to that state, and so God *ahem* cleansed it.
There's no proof that dragons don't exist, for example.
leaving little evidence of the existence of the old civilizations.
Or no evidence at all. There is none, zero, ziltch.
Similarly to earlier in your post, absence of evidence can also mean absence of evidence.
The point is, if someone really believes that something, anything, is true, it's really hard for them to view the matter objectively.
But, by your criteria, anyone who can view the matter objectively will already not believe, therefore is also biased in favor of their own beliefs.
what makes a prophet different from false prophet?
These days? That there are no more prophets. Christianity and Islam agree on that one. :eek2:
EDIT: Dang, I have to get off for the day. Try not to leave me too completely out until tomorrow.
-
Seriously, you think that all matter came from an infinitely dense and hot speck of a substance and exploded to form the universe and everything we see in it? And that then, after stars and planets had formed and cooled enough, life just automatically built itself through a series of self-replicating molecules up until present day? Forgive me for not agreeing with your viewpoint (entirely).
Really don't want to get involved in this. But I do want to comment:
All of these processes have been observed occurring in nature, and in the case of the assembly and self-replication, in the lab.
Group hallucinations simply do not happen.
Sure they do. Tanganyika Laughter Epidemic. Mass hysteric behavior is common.
Heaven's Gate. Dozens of people witnessed the approach of an alien spacecraft and killed themselves to reach it. Or the Mothman. This stuff occurs.
As for the Flood issue -- common elements in human mythology can be explained either by a confounding variable, early myths that spread, or by the simple fact that there were some really massive floods in the geological past.
-
The flood is an interesting case in that it is also equally impossible to prove as it is biblically described from geologic evidence, because the way it was described, it should not have left any such evidence. There is probably a very simple reason for this, unfortunately: even at the point at which biblical representations were being written and edited, a great deal was known about the behavior of water and how it moved dirt around, picked it up, and dropped it. This is because such information has great agricultural value.
Thus, certain methods of describing the flood would have been proveably false even in that day and age. The way it was described, it would have left too small an impact even to prove with our knowledge of geology. But we have the fossil record for that.
-
It is probable that after this, some cataclysm came about and returned the culture level to stone age. Dwarves and halflings probably were assimilated into race of Men or died out, leaving little evidence of the existence of the old civilizations.
But you're forgetting that I have first bronze and first farming.
That is true according to our observations. However, playing the role of Silmarillionistic preacher, this doesn't mean that there couldn't have been unknown civilizations before the known stone age.
Ice ages and geological changes tend to be good at destroying evidence...
Even if it had existed, there would have been signs. Entire periods of existence do not simply disappear. (yes, I have read the rest of your post. I'm being specific here.)
That's true, of course. Unless Eru Ilúvatar or more likely some of the Maiar decided to remove the evidence... :p
At least they are plenty contradictory to the existence of the Divine Master Plan. God seems to be plenty good at cocking his plans up. First with the Eden debacle with the snake, then letting the world get into state where a purge was needed to restore some kind of plan, then it still didn't work out so he had to have a son and send him to wipe the humanity's collective ass clean, so to speak.
That is where the (?)issue of free will comes into play. God gave man free will so they could choose to serve Him. Some did not (hell, most do not now.). It's not that He let it get to that state, we (man) let it get to that state, and so God *ahem* cleansed it.
So is it acceptable for a teacher or a parent to let their children or students get into a mess where they have to be killed or at least given a severe beating to purge them of their stupidity?
Intervention at earlier time might have yielded positive results. But, accorting to the bible, God consciously allowed the situation to deteriorate to the point where it was apparently necessary to open the floodgates. Apparently, an almighty being considered it necessary to kill most of the land animals on Earth... So the question is, why allow free will if you're going to kill offenders anyway? Actually, sounds kinda like the argument that Islam is a religion of peace because it freely allows you to either convert, become a slave, or die.
...leaving little evidence of the existence of the old civilizations.
Or no evidence at all. There is none, zero, ziltch.
Similarly to earlier in your post, absence of evidence can also mean absence of evidence.
Do you mean that absence of evidence can mean evidence of absence?
No, it can't. Not really. Absence of evidence is good grounds not to believe in something, but it is never evidence of absence. It's always possible that dragons exist. Or existed. Or that God exists. It is improbable because there's no hard evidence supporting it, only N'th hand claims of information received from above, and no assurances whatsoever that any of this information in any form is really from the source it claims to be from.
Like I said, it's easy for me to write a piece that says it's a message from God. It would have been equally easy in the past when holy books were written. They might have been written under the influence, but I deeply suspect that influence was something else than God, possibly something more chemically based.
The writers might have even believed they wrote the word of God. That doesn't mean that they really were receiving signals from above any more than the "automatic writers" are receiving signals from extra-terrestrials (which I believe is an analogous phenomenon to the Prophets of the olden days).
The point is, if someone really believes that something, anything, is true, it's really hard for them to view the matter objectively.
But, by your criteria, anyone who can view the matter objectively will already not believe, therefore is also biased in favor of their own beliefs.
No, it means that anyone who can view the matter objectively will not believe in it for the sake of belief only. Objective view takes into account more than just what the source claims. Of course the Bible says it's from God, otherwise it wouldn't be a "Holy Book". But it never went through any kind of peer review program, so to speak. The regulators were all members of the church, the biggest edits having been done by the Councils of Nicaea that affirmed the canonical books of the Bible and left unsuitable materials out.
what makes a prophet different from false prophet?
These days? That there are no more prophets. Christianity and Islam agree on that one. :eek2:
I'm not talking only about these days. If Jeremiah acknowledges and warns about wrong prophets, how exactly is it certain that any of the prophets in the Bible were actually receiving the word of God (or same god even, assuming there were many of them)? Obviously an established religion doesn't want people to come and rock the boat with newly revealed divine information, so they quite often "close the door" so to speak, to keep established dogma safe from change since change might be a bit unconvincing: How is it that now this is the truth but yesteryear it was a lie? Even the most uneducated peons would start asking questions at that point. Therefore main religions can't really change, they can just undergo reformations which tend to be bloody and profound.
And yes, if you read between the lines you might notice some marxist undertones there. Not that I would have much in common with him, but I do view religions first and foremost as mass control devices for the (religious) authorities. Islam being the worst in this time because religious authorities there tend to also have significant secular power, which is unfortunate. Roman Catholic Church used to be like that but after the reformation they kidna lost their grasp on secular politics (which allowed growth of secular philosophy and enabled Europe to develope much faster than the rest of the world in terms of natural sciences and technology). Of course, cults are the culmination of control over members, and go way beyond any religion in that sense. In fact I would say that the only thing that separates a cult from religion is the amount of control it demands from its members, and the amount of those members.
Re: Flood.
It is widely accepted historical consensus that some kind of cataclysmic flood event did happen at some point in the history of Middle-East or close by, and that some records of it have survived to find their ways to Gilgamesh epic and the Bible, and other records as well. This, however, does not mean that everything in the Bible would be equally accurate historically, and it means even less considering the source of the text being divine or not.
There certainly never was a flood of the magnitude it is described in the Bible engulfing the whole world in several kilometres of water, so the accuracy of the details is quite suspicious. Flash floods aren't entirely uncommon, although it is possible that the flood in question might have been quite unique, mainly the filling of the basin of the Black Sea when the Strait of Bosphorus was formed (it's the closest thing that would match the description of incredibly widespread catastrophic flood, but there are doubts that it was the case).
Something regarding abiogenesis and formation of life: Ever heard of the anthropic principle? It basically says that the universe is as we observe it to be, because it's the only way it can be in order to produce sentient life of our kind. It doesn't say that universe was designed or made to be suitable of generating the life as we know it, and us, it says that if the Universe had been a bit different, we wouldn't have developed at all. In a multiverse interpretation of quantum physics this means that formation of life is not a big wonder at all and that there are almost infinite amounts of alternate realities where life can never spontaneously emerge because of those worlds lack the prerequisites for, say, molecules to form long chains in the way carbon does. No long molecules, no proteins, no organic life.
It is entirely possible that we are here because universe happens to be the way it is, without no divine (or infernal for that matter) entities affecting the processes of Universe.
As a slightly related tangent, the ancient Greeks had a very interesting way of putting religious and mundane world together; they called it cosmos; basically translates as "place of order". Despite their polytheistic beliefs of a pantheon of strong beings living in Olympos and affecting the life and times of people on Earth, they all lived in cosmos and they all had to obey the same basic cosmic rules. We would call them laws of nature or physics. This view of world, incidentally, was probably what triggered the surge in natural philosophy in ancient Greek; other places were still using the Gods of the Holes to explain everything, while the Greeks figured that even their Gods were part of the same reality and thus couldn't simply be attached to every unknown thing. Or at least the people who dedicated their lives to thinking these things through did.
-
A grand total of two people have been resurrected. Jesus, and Jesus's brother Lazarus.
It's bad enough that we have to explain science to you but do we really have to explain your own holy book to you?
Lazarus wasn't Jesus' brother.
God didn't do that back then.
But he certainly knew he had the power to do so and chose not to do it. That's what makes it a dick move.
Oh, I dunno, maybe NOT giving him more kids. That would pretty much take the cake.
:rolleyes:
Oh so because he didn't do an even bigger dick move that makes it okay?
Suppose I make a bet with you that I can break into your house. I walk in, break your alarm off the wall, shoot your dog and then walk out. I use the money I win from you to buy you a new dog.
Find me one person who wouldn't say that was a dick move. Your argument is akin to saying it wasn't a dick move cause I could have not bought you a new dog, Or cause I ddn't burn your house down on the way out.
Shooting your dog is a dick move. Giving you a new dog doesn't bring the old one back. Your dog is dead.
God had a choice and decided not to bring Job's children back to life. That's an A grade dick move.
Furthermore, notice how Job does NOT blaspheme against God even then.
So either Job is the kind of heartless bastard who didn't care that his children died or he's so used to the fact that God is a dick that killing his children is within the accepted bounds of dickery from God and he doesn't feel the need to get cross about it.
But just cause he isn't annoyed doesn't prevent it from being a dick move. Killing Job's animals etc is one thing but his children are free willed individuals with their own souls. And God was willing to let Satan kill them just to win a bet.
God let Satan do everything in order to win a bet
Except kill or hurt Job, you missed that part.
I didn't miss it at all. If Satan had killed Job he couldn't win the bet now could he? Pretty hard for Job to blaspheme when he's dead sn't it? :rolleyes:
Unless you want to claim Satan also has the power to raise the dead so he could bring him back to do it.
-
Harumph....let me just state, once and again, that there is NO WAY that you can prove God doesn't exit. Nada. Niet.
Nor can you prove that your logic is applicable to God, nor that it's infallible, nor that your starting assumptions are correct. Which leaves us with what exaclty? Nothing at all.
-
Harumph....let me just state, once and again, that there is NO WAY that you can prove God doesn't exit. Nada. Niet.
I believe that there is no God. Your anti-logic does not stand a chance against it.
-
Similarly there is no way you can prove he exists either. So the sensible solution is to proceed as if he doesn't. There is as much evidence for God as any other major religion after all.
-
So the sensible solution is to proceed as if he doesn't
So that even if he does, you go to Hell, and if he doesn't, you just stop existing.
I find both of those choices to be of less than perfect solutions. I would reference Pascal's Wager, but I'm pretty sure that if you think that, it wouldn't help anyway. For those people reading the thread, but not engaging in the conversation, Pascal's Wager is thus:
paraphrased a bit, but mostly still here (let me know if I leave out something important)
1) If God exists, he is incomprehensible
2) God exists, or He does not
3) Everyone must pick one or the other
4) You have two things to lose: the true and the good, and two things to stake: your reason and your will. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.
5) if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you,
Basically all summed up: the existence or non-existence of God is not provable by reason. Since reason cannot answer, one must "wager" by guessing or making a leap of faith. That being the case, one then must decide it according to their happiness... by weighing the gain and loss in believing that God exists. He contends the wise decision is to wager that God exists, since "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing", meaning one can gain eternal life if God exists, but if not, one will be no worse off in death than if one had not believed.
-
*looks up*
You seem to be missing something there, buddy. :rolleyes:
-
We did Pascal's Wager in the other thread.
It only works if there's only one religion that says "follow us or you burn."
The whole thing crumbles into nothing once you realize that your particular flavour of Christianity is not the only alternative to god's nonexistence.
-
Pascal's Wager is a fallacy that assumes that the dogma of Hell (or other negative consequences) is true if God exists.
In fact it is valid if and only if God exists AND there are negative consequences for not believing in him. So the wager doesn't actually say anything about whether or not believing in God is the safest bet, it says that if you believe there are (or might be) negative consequences on believing in God, you should believe in God, which isn't very strong argument as you surely can see.
I could just as well postulate the following, let's call it Herra Tohtori's Wager; believing in God might have negative consequences (which actually is more accurate assumption than the one made in Pascal's Wager and has actual observable evidence in many occasions, though not all), so you shouldn't believe in God because it's safer not to.
This is, of course, valid if and only if there are negative consequences for believing in God. Are there? That is a totally different question than whether God exists or not. And same applies to Pascal's Wager.
-
Sorry, pressed enter and it hit "post" and not skip line.
-
There is as much evidence for God as any other major religion after all.
That's pretty much my position... if someone says "Do you believe in god?" the proper response is "Which one?"
As far as Pascal's Wager goes... no matter what you believe, you must believe that at least two thirds of the planet is wrong. It ought to put your beliefs into perspective.
So, anyway, did we ever come to a resolution on the Epicurian Paradox? Because I actually have an answer that should please parties of all beliefs.
-
It only works if there's only one religion that says "follow us or you burn."
Have any of you read the rest of the Pensees? That would be the rest of Pascal's notes. In it he looks at how mankind fares with and without belief in God. One the one hand, he explores man's inherent wretchedness without God, then shows the opposite. Throughout the rest of the writings, he comes to the conclusion that Christianity is the most likely to be correct of any religion.
your particular flavour of Christianity
They read the same book, and most if not all (possible exceptions for Calvinism) agree on how to get there. Catholocism is more ritualized, to be sure, and others are less so. The particular "flavor" of Christianity is irrelevant.
believing in God might have negative consequences
*snip*
so you shouldn't believe in God because it's safer not to.
Such as? If there is not God, you just die. Nothing else, zip, nada. If there is, and you do not believe or follow, you are separated from Him (a.k.a. Hell). If there is, and you do believe and follow, you go to heaven. What negative consequences could there be? (Wow, that sounds just like 'what else could go wrong' :lol:)
That's what makes it a dick move.
even bigger dick move
that was a dick move
it wasn't a dick move
That's an A grade dick move
God is a dick
being a dick move
You say 'dick' seven times in your last post. Could you at least try to be polite? Maybe follow the Golden Rule (:lol:).
-
He contends the wise decision is to wager that God exists, since "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing", meaning one can gain eternal life if God exists, but if not, one will be no worse off in death than if one had not believed.
This never made any sense to me. How can one "decide" to believe something? You either (think you) know something or you go by the gut feeling,.
In this case you can't know (and you know it), so the only true belief is by emotion. But if one decides to believe.. assuming God exists, wouldn't it be pissed off by such pretense?
-
To Galemp: I had an answer a couple pages ago that no one seemed to even notice. I re-posted it in one of my earlier posts, but I can post it again here.
Okay, thought I would re-align the discussion a little bit (feel free to continue as we have been, bit I wanted to actually discus the reason for the thread ).
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
My big problem with this is that it assumes that if God does not do every single thing in his power to keep anything that could possibly be construed as bad from happening to you, he is malevolent. To illustrate my point: Would you call a parent that does not keep their child from every single scrape or bruise, that does not allow them to experience both aspects of the world malevolent? We would be unable to fathom the concept of good if nothing evil or bad ever happened to us. Some people may critisize me for saying this, but pain is one of the world's best teachers. By seeing what evil or bad(ness?) is, we develop more of an appreciation for goodness.
Is he able, but not (always) willing?
Then he is a teacher.
:blah: (I wish they had a [profound] smiley)
"Do you believe in god?" the proper response is "Which one?"
Looks like I posted a couple seconds after you. Check reply #154.
-
It only works if there's only one religion that says "follow us or you burn."
Have any of you read the rest of the Pensees? That would be the rest of Pascal's notes. In it he looks at how mankind fares with and without belief in God. One the one hand, he explores man's inherent wretchedness without God, then shows the opposite. Throughout the rest of the writings, he comes to the conclusion that Christianity is the most likely to be correct of any religion.
Nah. Religion has nothing to do with wretchedness, it's a cultural feature. Faith in God is not guaranteed to make the culture any less wretched (just take a look at catholic church before the reformations and Islamic world in general), and faith is not necessary for reducing the wretchedness of a culture.
your particular flavour of Christianity
They read the same book, and most if not all (possible exceptions for Calvinism) agree on how to get there. Catholocism is more ritualized, to be sure, and others are less so. The particular "flavor" of Christianity is irrelevant.
But different sects of Christianity have different criteria on getting to heaven as well as plenty differences in theology otherwise as well. Mormonism for example is pretty much like scientology but without the celebrities.
believing in God might have negative consequences
*snip*
so you shouldn't believe in God because it's safer not to.
Such as? If there is not God, you just die. Nothing else, zip, nada. If there is, and you do not believe or follow, you are separated from Him (a.k.a. Hell). If there is, and you do believe and follow, you go to heaven. What negative consequences could there be? (Wow, that sounds just like 'what else could go wrong' :lol:)
Well, I might believe in God so much that I might accept any instruction from a religious authority (after all they do have God to guide them so obviously they are right, right?), and go conquer the Holy Land back, maybe cut off some infidels' heads along with several thousand other crusaders. Or I might believe in God so much that I explode myself on the street to honour him. There are plenty of examples where faith in God has led to rather grievous consequences.
Not all consequences need to be post-mortem. But as far as those go, God's criteria for getting rewards might not be faith after all, so just having faith for faith's sake (or in hope of avoiding punishment and gaining salvation) might not actually be what he wants after all.
In addition, the assumption that not believing in God would result in separation from him is just that, an assumption. No one knows that any more than whether or not God exists in the first place.
I would also like to point out that Herra Tohtori's wager is not meant to be taken any more seriously than Pascal's Wager; it was meant to point out the logical fallacy in Pascal's Wager (false dilemma).
A lot more serious proposition would be Atheist's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist%27s_Wager) which could be also called Person's Wager since it makes plenty of sense to anyone regardless of your personal beliefs, though it does have it's own criticism.
-
That's what makes it a dick move.
even bigger dick move
that was a dick move
it wasn't a dick move
That's an A grade dick move
God is a dick
being a dick move
You say 'dick' seven times in your last post. Could you at least try to be polite? Maybe follow the Golden Rule (:lol:).
Given that he's a banned forum member I can flame him as much as I like. :p
The subject under discussion was whether or not God was a dick. Pretty hard to argue he is without using the word.
I notice you didn't actually refute the argument.
-
It only works if there's only one religion that says "follow us or you burn."
Have any of you read the rest of the Pensees? That would be the rest of Pascal's notes. In it he looks at how mankind fares with and without belief in God. One the one hand, he explores man's inherent wretchedness without God, then shows the opposite. Throughout the rest of the writings, he comes to the conclusion that Christianity is the most likely to be correct of any religion.
your particular flavour of Christianity
They read the same book, and most if not all (possible exceptions for Calvinism) agree on how to get there. Catholocism is more ritualized, to be sure, and others are less so. The particular "flavor" of Christianity is irrelevant.
It definitely does matter. For example, the Westboro Baptist Church believe that everyone that is not part of the Westboro Baptist Church is going to hell.
I'm skeptical of this "Christianity is most likely to be right" nonsense. I do believe Mr. Pascal might be somewhat biased.
-
Well, I might believe in God so much that I might accept any instruction from a religious authority
Those people are not God, and once again, I reference Jeremiah 14:14b. If you read into it, Radical Islam is just that, completely radical. fewer than one percent are actually willing to do that.
There are plenty of examples where faith in God has led to rather grievous consequences.
Most of which happen at the hands of the criminal, the psychotic, and the radical.
(after all they do have God to guide them so obviously they are right, right?
According to the Bible, so do you. That said, you are not always right. people are by their nature imperfect and subject to temptations (even Jesus was tempted) If you assume that any priest, pastor, etc. has the divine right of God to tell you to do somethingm suicidal or murderous, you are being a stupid misguided idiot. :p
the Westboro Baptist Church believe that everyone that is not part of the Westboro Baptist Church is going to hell.
That would fall under the heading of 'radical'
the assumption that not believing in God would result in separation from him is just that, an assumption. No one knows that any more than whether or not God exists in the first place.
The Bible is quite firm on the concept of Hell. My own view of Hell is eternal separation from Him. Others may prefer to see it as a fire and brimstone scenario. However, my point stands that the 'not believeing in God' section would have serious consequences (read: Hell).
I notice you didn't actually refute the argument.
That's because I can see by the tone of his arguments that he would be more the subject of that House quote last page than a religious person. You just can't reason with him (her? I can never tell on forums). I prefer not to engage in the ultimately futile that would serve no purpose whatsoever. Thinking God is a dick (while still meaning that in some way he/she believes He exists) is an opinion, and people have a right to have those. I personally hold the opposite opinion.
I do believe Mr. Pascal might be somewhat biased.
As is every single other person in the world. the definition is: an inclination of temperament. Everyone has thier own inclinations.
-
To Galemp: I had an answer a couple pages ago that no one seemed to even notice. I re-posted it in one of my earlier posts, but I can post it again here.
*snip*
Hm... interesting. That's sort of the point of the Book of Job, and meshes with what a lot of people here have been saying about free will. But I base my answer on something more fundamental: the premise that evil exists.
The way I see it, there is no cosmic, absolute basis for defining Good or Evil. What some see as evil others may not. Mass murder, pedophilia, and slavery, for example, were both condoned in ancient times and are still practiced in modern times, and even institutionalized (formally or informally) by religious groups.
Hence, my Rorschach post earlier in the thread. Epicurius' paradox goes away if we eliminate Evil as an absolute.
Of course that's moral relativism, and would get me beheaded in any other century. :p
*hopes for replies*
-
Harumph....let me just state, once and again, that there is NO WAY that you can prove God doesn't exit. Nada. Niet.
Nor can you prove that your logic is applicable to God, nor that it's infallible, nor that your starting assumptions are correct. Which leaves us with what exaclty? Nothing at all.
Equally, there's no way you can prove God didn't create the universe 5 minutes ago. Being a omnipotent being that defies logic, I would certainly expect him to fake a few billion years of history to make it look like there was a history at all.
-
Equally, there's no way you can prove God didn't create the universe 5 minutes ago. Being a omnipotent being that defies logic, I would certainly expect him to fake a few billion years of history to make it look like there was a history at all.
For that matter, you could just be a brain in a vat with electrical impulses feeding you all your experiences.
Sheesh. Nobody can seriously debate this sort of thing unless they've done their philosophical homework.
Trashman's right though-- it is impossible to prove. We can determine probabilities though.
-
Why did god give us the free will and intelligence to question his existence in the first place? Or do you believe we stole the intelligence by eating an apple from the tree of knowledge? Why did the bible portray Eve the flawed one by listening to the serpent? What happened to the lost scriptures of the thirteenth disciple, Mary Magdelene?
-
Wobble: That's off-topic. Try finding a priest/pastor/preacher/cleric and asking them.
Sorry, trying to re-kindle the discussion here...
-
Equally, there's no way you can prove God didn't create the universe 5 minutes ago. Being a omnipotent being that defies logic, I would certainly expect him to fake a few billion years of history to make it look like there was a history at all.
For that matter, you could just be a brain in a vat with electrical impulses feeding you all your experiences.
Sheesh. Nobody can seriously debate this sort of thing unless they've done their philosophical homework.
Trashman's right though-- it is impossible to prove. We can determine probabilities though.
Of course its impossible to prove, you can't prove a negative. The burden of proof would be on me to prove that the universe was created 5 minutes ago.
-
Well, I might believe in God so much that I might accept any instruction from a religious authority
Those people are not God, and once again, I reference Jeremiah 14:14b. If you read into it, Radical Islam is just that, completely radical. fewer than one percent are actually willing to do that.
Actually, there is not radical/fundamental Islam, there's just radical people who choose to follow Islam as it is interpreted by the radical authorities, and then there are non-radical people who don't follow Islam's all the bloodiest orders but still call themselves moslems, but that's neither here nor there. Suffice to say that the basic tenets of Islam actually do aim to completely Islamic world with no other religions, and that's the basic line where that religion stands.
And I would also like to raise the question, if you know that priests, clergymen and whatnot are not God, why then Bible is? Did you know personally the people that wrote the Bible and formed the canon of Bible as we know it? I certainly didn't. And even if I had known them I still couldn't be sure if the text came from them or God.
You're still stuck in the loop of circular reasoning. There is no way we can know whether or not the Bible actually was written under divine influence.
There are plenty of examples where faith in God has led to rather grievous consequences.
Most of which happen at the hands of the criminal, the psychotic, and the radical.
And how is their faith different from yours?
Or is it so that true faith only causes positive things, and thus bad things seemingly caused by faith are actualle results of false faith?
If that is what you think, it stinks.
(after all they do have God to guide them so obviously they are right, right?
According to the Bible, so do you. That said, you are not always right. people are by their nature imperfect and subject to temptations (even Jesus was tempted) If you assume that any priest, pastor, etc. has the divine right of God to tell you to do somethingm suicidal or murderous, you are being a stupid misguided idiot. :p
Well right back at you, if you assume that the authors of Bible, every prophet and historian and rabbi and apostle in Bible, and the Council of Nicaea, and all the theologists that have been deciding what the Bible means had the divine right of God to tell you to do or not do something, you are being stupid misguided idiot.
I'm certain you can see where this is going. The basic assumption that the Bible is correct is based on the Bible itself. There's no source criticism here at all, so let's practice it a bit:
Assuming that the Bible is from God does not make it certain. Quite like reading something in the Internet doesn't make it true. Or like Siddhartha Gautama said, don't believe in old stories just because they are written down. The whole thing with religions is built on cascading evidence, and if the basic assumption is abandoned, the whole thing loses a lot of it's certainty. After questioning the origins of religions, taking things like "you go to hell if you don't believe in God" at face value seems rather silly, and instead one starts to think why would I go to hell if I didn't believe in God. And after questioning the divine truth of the Bible, the traditional explanations of Christian theology - that man is inherently flawed and needs the faith to be salvaged from his sins - become compromised and unconvincing.
the Westboro Baptist Church believe that everyone that is not part of the Westboro Baptist Church is going to hell.
That would fall under the heading of 'radical'
Well they believe so, why is their belief wrong?
The Bible is quite firm on the concept of Hell. My own view of Hell is eternal separation from Him. Others may prefer to see it as a fire and brimstone scenario. However, my point stands that the 'not believeing in God' section would have serious consequences (read: Hell).
The Bible can tell me many things but it can't prove itself to be true. The question is, why would not believing in God have serious consequences. Try to explain it without using the Bible as a source. Why would God put so much importance on faith that it alone would decide your fate in the assumed afterlife?
-
I present the following visual aids to help this discussion
(http://i39.tinypic.com/2z6v2nk.jpg)
(http://i44.tinypic.com/2dlt3zt.jpg)
-
You know what? I've had it with the stupid flaming.
I realize that there are religious people who piss people off, but you know what? It's not religious people who piss people off: It's assholes, and there are plenty of assholes everywhere who believe in everything.
A self righteous hedonist is just as annoying as a self righteous methodist, IMHO. Why argue about religion? Discuss, sure, compare yes, but there's no reason to have giant war of the bandwagons.
-
I present the following visual aids to help this discussion
*snip*
Stop it. :[
-
Harumph....let me just state, once and again, that there is NO WAY that you can prove God doesn't exit. Nada. Niet.
Nor can you prove that your logic is applicable to God, nor that it's infallible, nor that your starting assumptions are correct. Which leaves us with what exaclty? Nothing at all.
Equally, there's no way you can prove God didn't create the universe 5 minutes ago. Being a omnipotent being that defies logic, I would certainly expect him to fake a few billion years of history to make it look like there was a history at all.
Technicly He doesn't need to fake anything when He can change reality at a whim. With a snap of His finger he CAN make the universe 5 minutes old. Or change reality in any other way convievable and inconcievable.
What I wanted to say is that our meager minds cant describe or explain Him fully. Hard to explain what I mean exactly.
Herra, regarding your universe graaphs, when you say "Everything", you go far beyond our known and mesurable universe - we're talking other dimensions (where completely other laws may apply) and possible other universes and "places" like heaven and Hell, which certanly defy any scientific mesures, and probably even logic to a good degree.
So is God Everything. Well yeah. Are we all, in a sense, a part of God? Yeah, after all He created us.
Does that mean that we form God and that out thoughts, our existance forms God? No.
While God may act logicly (if He so wishes), using our logic to describe Him from questionable premises is simply doomed to faliure.
That said, given that there is a large vocal majority of atheists on this forums (with powers to boot) I have no desire to continue this discussion thing.
-
Question: Seeing as how God is all-powerful, can he make a triangle with 4 sides?
-
I think 'blaming the moderators' when I've deliberately left this thread open regardless of personal feelings on the matter is a bit off.
Edit: Particuarly when you consider that both Goober and Sandwich are not Atheists, but are Admin.
-
Question: Seeing as how God is all-powerful, can he make a triangle with 4 sides?
but that's just silly, he'd either be making a quadrilateral or redefining a triangle
-
I think 'blaming the moderators' when I've deliberately left this thread open regardless of personal feelings on the matter is a bit off.
Edit: Particuarly when you consider that both Goober and Sandwich are not Atheists, but are Admin.
I'm not blaming anyone from anything.
I just fear, that as usual, religious threads will end up in a flame war and bannage, and for what? Nothing. Not worth it.
Oh, and from my experience on other forums, HLP does come off as more "atheist" than most...If I can use that expression
-
Question: Seeing as how God is all-powerful, can he make a triangle with 4 sides?
but that's just silly, he'd either be making a quadrilateral or redefining a triangle
So the answer is no, he cannot make a triangle with 4 sides. Therefore, unless there is some insane way to make a triangle with four sides, God is subject to logic in the way that he cannot create paradoxes. So I guess you can apply logic to God. Huh, that's not what Trashman said.
-
I think 'blaming the moderators' when I've deliberately left this thread open regardless of personal feelings on the matter is a bit off.
Edit: Particuarly when you consider that both Goober and Sandwich are not Atheists, but are Admin.
I'm not blaming anyone from anything.
I just fear, that as usual, religious threads will end up in a flame war and bannage, and for what? Nothing. Not worth it.
Oh, and from my experience on other forums, HLP does come off as more "atheist" than most...If I can use that expression
Threads get locked based on the behaviour of the people in it, not the views. As for this forum being 'Atheist', I'd personally say it's actually more 'scientific', there seems, to me, to be a far higher percentage of qualified and scientifically minded people on this Forum than most others I go to.
I think a lot of people here don't rule out the possibility of a God, since there is no actual scientific evidence to disprove Him, but DO rule out the possibility that the Bible, the Quoran or any book is the definitive description of Him. That's, at least for my part, how I feel.
I certainly wouldn't want anything to do with a God who creates us in His image and then spends all eternity judging us, I suspect we invented the Judgement part all by ourselves, because we love to judge other people by our own standards.
Personally, I'd say the one essence of humanity that most resembles Godhood is the urge to create, which leads me to the conclusion that if God did 'create man' he didn't do it to judge us, he did it because he could, nothing more. We are, in effect, God's high-poly amoeba. And even then, I suspect the effect is more procedural than design.
-
Oh, and from my experience on other forums, HLP does come off as more "atheist" than most...If I can use that expression
Well, we're sci-fi geeks, and as a whole our demographic tends to be young, highly educated, and well-grounded in science, which overlaps significantly with the non-religious.
Part of it self-selection, too. The moderate and indifferent almost never poke around in these threads, yet the opinionated always do. And they're the ones who have the strongest thoughts and feelings about their beliefs. :D
-
Part of it self-selection, too. The moderate and indifferent almost never poke around in these threads, yet the opinionated always do. :D
If he didn't these theads would just kind of go away, cause we'd all agree or something, and then nobody would comment anymore.
Where's the fun in that?
-
Personally, I'd say the one essence of humanity that most resembles Godhood is the urge to create, which leads me to the conclusion that if God did 'create man' he didn't do it to judge us, he did it because he could, nothing more. We are, in effect, God's high-poly amoeba. And even then, I suspect the effect is more procedural than design.
There was an interesting thought about that in another religion debate I was reading awhile back. The "God made Man his in image" may have been referring to the way God gave Man the ability to freely create. I like that angle, which goes with a quote I really like from "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"
Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks--those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and
fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest.
If there was a God, I'd like to be around that kind of guy.
Why yes I did discover that quote from Alpha Centauri. I love that game sooo much.
-
Discussion doesn't necessitate differing viewpoints, Fluffy.
-
Discussion doesn't necessitate differing viewpoints, Fluffy.
Yes it does.
-
Part of it self-selection, too. The moderate and indifferent almost never poke around in these threads...
*raises hand*
-
[off topic]
"God made Man his in image"
I always like to think of this with an analogy. Imagine a kid making little stick people on a piece of paper. He makes the stick figures in 'his own image' because he makes them as like to him as he can. Sure, they're flawed, but the kid created them, and he takes pride in his little picture.
:D
[/off topic]
So the answer is no, he cannot make a triangle with 4 sides.
Yes he can. But when he did, the feeble-minded people went insane. He then named it a quadrilateral. :D
I can't see the other posts atm. I'll post again tomorrow.
-
2 + 2 = 5
-
[off topic]
"God made Man his in image"
I always like to think of this with an analogy. Imagine a kid making little stick people on a piece of paper. He makes the stick figures in 'his own image' because he makes them as like to him as he can. Sure, they're flawed, but the kid created them, and he takes pride in his little picture.
:D
[/off topic]
I like that actually. A creator cannot create more than him. It also demonstrates a tragic flaw in God. He cannot create an equal, all his creations will be flawed in some degree. If God takes up 50.000...1% of the universe, the best he can do is make something that is 49.999...%. It would even passed on to us, one man cannot make another. We require someone else to help.
-
Part of it self-selection, too. The moderate and indifferent almost never poke around in these threads...
*raises hand*
I don't post in these threads because:
#1: They're ultimately pointless and don't change anyones view on anything.
#2: I personally could care less where we came from or where we go when we die. We should be focusing on our progression as a species, and religion certainly doesn't seem to have helped that very much.
-
That said, given that there is a large vocal majority of atheists on this forums (with powers to boot) I have no desire to continue this discussion thing.
Then explain why you've been banned by Goober just as often as by me. :p
If you can manage to be a part of an adult discussions you're in no danger. If you can't discuss the subject like an adult then I'll agree you should leave before you get yourself monkeyed again.
This thread has managed 10 pages so far without the need to ban anyone. If people can keep their heads it can continue.
-
There are plenty of examples where faith in God has led to rather grievous consequences.
Most of which happen at the hands of the criminal, the psychotic, and the radical.
A bit late perhaps, but for your education, I wish to point out this is a formalized logical fallacy. No True Scotsman (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/No_True_Scotsman)
-
#2: I personally could care less where we came from or where we go when we die. We should be focusing on our progression as a species, and religion certainly doesn't seem to have helped that very much.
Oh really? So seeing as how it's possible for you to care less, it could be said that you care more than the minimum amount. Therefore, it can be said that you do care. :p
-
#2: I personally could care less where we came from or where we go when we die. We should be focusing on our progression as a species, and religion certainly doesn't seem to have helped that very much.
Oh really? So seeing as how it's possible for you to care less, it could be said that you care more than the minimum amount. Therefore, it can be said that you do care. :p
(http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/1/1f/NO_U.png)
-
Well, this is dying, so I feel a need to prod someone on answering my questions about the morality of God and Hell, Scotty perhaps, since Trash wasn't very good at directly addressing any of my arguments. Because I want an answer dammit! Explain to me why I should worship a being who blamed those least cuplable, thus creating original sin, who is an enormous asshole with or without a lake of fire because he advocates eternal punishment. As an episode of West Wing put it, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FScv89J6rro) years ago, and which I had the good fortune to stumble upon yesterday: Cruciatus in crucem. To Hell with your punishments.
-
Are you familiar with the concept of Limbo? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo) It's not official doctrine, but it's supposed to be the fate of all virtuous pagans. It kinda fits the whole 'not with God, but not in the lake of fire' thing you're asking for. Try reading Dante, his conversations with Virgil address your concerns.
-
a being who blamed those least cuplable, thus creating original sin
God told them "Do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it, you will surely die." Genesis 2:17
God told them not to. They did. Granted, they were tempted by the serpent, but they ate it anyway. If you read the rest of the book of Genesis, God punishes the serpent by forcing it to slither on its belly on the ground. You can read that however you want if you believe in evolution or believe that God doesn't exist, but He does not just punish man. (Genesis 3:14)
Explain to me why I should worship...
Because His son died for you. If your life was rescued by a cop who was killed protecting you, would you express your condolences to the parents of that cop? "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16) Similarly, would you spite and hate your biological father, simply because he can ground you if you don't obey him?
To Hell with your punishments.
There is only punishment if you disobey him. Perhaps I have been mis-wording my posts earlier. Believing and having faith in God is not the way to heavan (though it is a pre-requisite). Accepting Jesus's sacrifice on the cross is what does it. To explain, Jesus took the blame for anything you may do or have done against God.
Wow, that sounded really preachy. Sorry if I offend anyone. :D
:eek2: 10 pages without a banning?! Impossible! We're under our quota. :lol:
-
I don't think Scotty's arguments make any sense unless you already believe in God and Jesus.
-
I answered NGTM-1R's question, which, to be answered, requires assuming God exists.
I don't think Scotty's arguments make any sense unless you already believe in God and Jesus
Wow, that sounded really preachy
Do you not believe Jesus lived? There are Roman records that he was crucified from the year 33 A.D. It is actual fact that Jesus lived and died.
-
a being who blamed those least cuplable, thus creating original sin
God told them "Do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it, you will surely die." Genesis 2:17
God told them not to. They did. Granted, they were tempted by the serpent, but they ate it anyway. If you read the rest of the book of Genesis, God punishes the serpent by forcing it to slither on its belly on the ground. You can read that however you want if you believe in evolution or believe that God doesn't exist, but He does not just punish man. (Genesis 3:14)
Explain to me why I should worship...
Because His son died for you. If your life was rescued by a cop who was killed protecting you, would you express your condolences to the parents of that cop? "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16) Similarly, would you spite and hate your biological father, simply because he can ground you if you don't obey him?
To Hell with your punishments.
There is only punishment if you disobey him. Perhaps I have been mis-wording my posts earlier. Believing and having faith in God is not the way to heavan (though it is a pre-requisite). Accepting Jesus's sacrifice on the cross is what does it. To explain, Jesus took the blame for anything you may do or have done against God.
Why did God give us freedom of choice if we'd be condemned to eternal damnation for not obeying him? I'd rather not have freedom of choice and automatically go to heaven than be stuck here and have to not utilize my ability to do what I want and still probably go to hell for something that I did wrong.
-
I answered NGTM-1R's question, which, to be answered, requires assuming God exists.
I don't think Scotty's arguments make any sense unless you already believe in God and Jesus
Wow, that sounded really preachy
Do you not believe Jesus lived? There are Roman records that he was crucified from the year 33 A.D. It is actual fact that Jesus lived and died.
That doesn't mean you have to believe he died for anything more than his own beliefs/convictions/delusions, whatever you prefer.
You're using Christian dogma -- Christ died for our sins -- as a reason to believe in Christian dogma.
I mean, why don't you believe in Mohammed? He came after Jesus, and he knew all about Jesus and thought he was a great guy, and he did crazy stuff for God. Shouldn't we just all update to that latest Abrahamic patch and convert to Islam?
It's all just tales in the end. Human spirituality is very important, but no one narrative should gain primacy or be treated as the correct one.
-
You must have missed part of that. (Not you, Battuta)
Accepting Jesus's sacrifice on the cross is what does it. To explain, Jesus took the blame for anything you may do or have done against God.
Why did God give us freedom of choice
Because God doesn't want a group of automatons to mindlessly voice praises and accolades to Him. I think TrashMan said something about that a few pages ago.
I'd rather not have freedom of choice and automatically go to heaven than be stuck here and have to not utilize my ability to do what I want and still probably go to hell for something that I did wrong.
And it's your choice to think that. :p
have to not utilize my ability to do what I want
What are you wanting to do that would be so frowned upon? :wtf: Repent! :D </joke>
still probably go to hell for something that I did wrong
I repeat, Jesus died for you and accepted the blame. If you accept his sacrifice, and live a life of (relative) innocence (nobody's perfect, except Jesus), you go to heaven. That's what's written. (I realize that you have to believe in God and Jesus to accept that explanation, but that's what I see written in the Bible).
there is a large vocal majority of atheists on this forums
Taking back the General Discussion in the name of God! :lol:
-
I mean, why don't you believe in Mohammed?
Because he (and the religion that follow him), holds some pretty discriminatory and violent ideas. For example, a non-muslim may not give testamony against a muslim. That is tantamount to racism, but on a religious matter. Another is that apostasy is prohibited on pain of death, meaning that if one is a muslim, if for any reason changes, that person may be put to death. That, said, I do not dislike the Islamic faith, just feel that it is a little belligerent (I don't hold Extremist behavior as an example for Islam. Those people are nuts, and every religion has its fair share. Hell, Islam probably has a little more than most.)
You're using Christian dogma
Yes, I am. I defined dogma earlier in the thread. It is, quite simply, an established opinion.
It's all just tales in the end.
That would be dogma too. It's your established opinion.
-
Dogma is not a synonym for opinion. It is a more specific term for an institutionalized opinion.
-
Accepting Jesus's sacrifice on the cross is what does it. To explain, Jesus took the blame for anything you may do or have done against God.
Why did God give us freedom of choice
Because God doesn't want a group of automatons to mindlessly voice praises and accolades to Him. I think TrashMan said something about that a few pages ago.
I'd rather not have freedom of choice and automatically go to heaven than be stuck here and have to not utilize my ability to do what I want and still probably go to hell for something that I did wrong.
And it's your choice to think that. :p
still probably go to hell for something that I did wrong
I repeat, Jesus died for you and accepted the blame. If you accept his sacrifice, and live a life of (relative) innocence (nobody's perfect, except Jesus), you go to heaven. That's what's written. (I realize that you have to believe in God and Jesus to accept that explanation, but that's what I see written in the Bible).
So essentially, everyone everywhere goes to heaven regardless of what they've done because Jesus died for them? That's not what I've been told.
From what I been told at 8 years of Christian grade school, this situation with God, sin and free will is pretty much like a Parent giving a kid a computer and saying "I am leaving the room; I don't know when I'll be back. You are to play with this computer, but you may not turn it on."
-
Accepting Jesus's sacrifice on the cross is what does it. To explain, Jesus took the blame for anything you may do or have done against God.
Why did God give us freedom of choice
Because God doesn't want a group of automatons to mindlessly voice praises and accolades to Him. I think TrashMan said something about that a few pages ago.
I'd rather not have freedom of choice and automatically go to heaven than be stuck here and have to not utilize my ability to do what I want and still probably go to hell for something that I did wrong.
And it's your choice to think that. :p
still probably go to hell for something that I did wrong
I repeat, Jesus died for you and accepted the blame. If you accept his sacrifice, and live a life of (relative) innocence (nobody's perfect, except Jesus), you go to heaven. That's what's written. (I realize that you have to believe in God and Jesus to accept that explanation, but that's what I see written in the Bible).
So essentially, everyone everywhere goes to heaven regardless of what they've done because Jesus died for them? That's not what I've been told.
From what I been told at 8 years of Christian grade school, this situation with God, sin and free will is pretty much like a Parent giving a kid a computer and saying "I am leaving the room; I don't know when I'll be back. You are to play with this computer, but you may not turn it on."
You missed this part:
live a life of (relative) innocence
I never said anyone and everyone goes to heaven just because they accept that. It isn't a get out of jail free card to just go on doing what you were before.
but you may not turn it on
Maybe play some solitaire, but no porn sites for you. :p
-
The point is, Scotty, that you're an atheist; we're all atheists.
You're just an atheist about one fewer god than everyone else.
In the end it doesn't matter what we believe -- it's all stories. What matters is our actions.
-
Well, no, because “atheist” means that one believes in no gods at all. I believe the term you’re looking for is “monotheist.”
I agree with your final sentiment, however.
-
Accepting Jesus's sacrifice on the cross is what does it. To explain, Jesus took the blame for anything you may do or have done against God.
Why did God give us freedom of choice
Because God doesn't want a group of automatons to mindlessly voice praises and accolades to Him. I think TrashMan said something about that a few pages ago.
I'd rather not have freedom of choice and automatically go to heaven than be stuck here and have to not utilize my ability to do what I want and still probably go to hell for something that I did wrong.
And it's your choice to think that. :p
still probably go to hell for something that I did wrong
I repeat, Jesus died for you and accepted the blame. If you accept his sacrifice, and live a life of (relative) innocence (nobody's perfect, except Jesus), you go to heaven. That's what's written. (I realize that you have to believe in God and Jesus to accept that explanation, but that's what I see written in the Bible).
So essentially, everyone everywhere goes to heaven regardless of what they've done because Jesus died for them? That's not what I've been told.
From what I been told at 8 years of Christian grade school, this situation with God, sin and free will is pretty much like a Parent giving a kid a computer and saying "I am leaving the room; I don't know when I'll be back. You are to play with this computer, but you may not turn it on."
You missed this part:
live a life of (relative) innocence
I never said anyone and everyone goes to heaven just because they accept that. It isn't a get out of jail free card to just go on doing what you were before.
So I'm lead back to my original confusion, why did God give us Freedom of Choice if he's just going to limit what we should do without limiting what we are capable of doing, and hold it against us?
-
Well, no, because “atheist” means that one believes in no gods at all. I believe the term you’re looking for is “monotheist.”
I agree with your final sentiment, however.
Yeah, but that raises the question of what a god is and what counts as a god.
Better to handle it on a case-by-case basis, in which case we're all atheists about just about everything.
It works just as well with 'unbeliever'.
-
Well, I believe someone summarized my sentiments on the matter of religions long ago.
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
It's been surprising to notice that I'm pretty close to being a Buddhist without knowing... :shaking:
So. Do I believe that Jesus' teaching about doing unto others as you would prefer done to you? Yes, because it agrees with reason.
Do I believe that God was involved in conception and life and death of Jesus? No. It's possible, but unlikely and unproven and I don't have any reason to believe that, I can respect and agree with Jesis' basic idea of making nice with people even without thinking that God had to be involved.
Do I believe everything else in the Bible because it's in the Bible? No, not as such; if it makes sense to me I don't specifically need to believe in it to agree with it. And for example the concept of original sin, and God as he's portrayed in the Bible, largely does not agree with reason and more importantly, it is on many occasion not conductive to the good and benefit of one and all. Even if Bible would tell it is, I can not agree with that point of view on various things. The mechanisms for salvation are the one of the biggest thing I disagree with on the Bible; I can not believe that God would place such inordinate amount of attention and importance on our faith and I disagree with the basic concept of being "sinful" by default simply as a consequence of something a supposed ancestor did. These things do not agree with my reason.
Always, always consider the source. As soon as something tells you that it can't be wrong, you should have warning bells ringing in your head immediately. Especially when it comes to non-falsifiable claims.
Ironically, I'm quite certain that if God does exist and there's some kind of afterlife, he would be quite understanding of this kind of view of world rather than judgemental, jealous personality that he is portrayed in Christianity. Personally I think that even if God exists, it's not him that would be jealous, but the priests and clergymen that have taken over the basic idea of religions and converted them into their personal tools of controlling people. Not every one of them, but enough that I have no reason to believe in any established religion, I rather make my own mind about things like this and take my chances with my own opinion than put all my chips for someone else's opinion because it's what I've been told from child, one religion of the hundreds available.
If I'm wrong, at least it's my mistake and not someone else's.
After all, this might be what happens just as well as any other option. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UbqZ_oN5do&fmt=18) :lol:
So I could say that I have more trust even in the possibility of God than I have faith (nevermind trust) in the traditional portrayal of God in christianity and other major religions.
EDIT: Of course quoting Buddha is dangerous business because probably a lot more has been lost in translation than with Jeshua of Nazareth, but regardless that quote makes a lot more sense to me than Bible as a whole... as do other quotes supposedly from this person.
-
Yeah, but that raises the question of what a god is and what counts as a god.
Better to handle it on a case-by-case basis, in which case we're all atheists about just about everything.
It works just as well with 'unbeliever'.
But why not let people define their own beliefs as they see fit? A person believes in some entity, and calls it a god. He believes in only one such entity. The most accurate term for his beliefs, then, is monotheist. I suspect that many such people would object vehemently to being termed atheists, and I don’t see how attempting to redefine their beliefs from an external perspective is in any way productive.
-
Yeah, but that raises the question of what a god is and what counts as a god.
Better to handle it on a case-by-case basis, in which case we're all atheists about just about everything.
It works just as well with 'unbeliever'.
But why not let people define their own beliefs as they see fit? A person believes in some entity, and calls it a god. He believes in only one such entity. The most accurate term for his beliefs, then, is monotheist. I suspect that many such people would object vehemently to being termed atheists, and I don’t see how attempting to redefine their beliefs from an external perspective is in any way productive.
Okay.
Anyway, the point is that Scotty firmly believes that his God is real and that Jesus died for the sins of mankind. But billions of other people across thousands of years have believed equally crazy stuff, with equally valid reasons, and in the end it has all fallen into dust and half-remembered myths that we find entertaining and sometimes relevant.
What matters is how you act here and now.
-
God told them "Do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it, you will surely die." Genesis 2:17
God told them not to. They did. Granted, they were tempted by the serpent, but they ate it anyway. If you read the rest of the book of Genesis, God punishes the serpent by forcing it to slither on its belly on the ground. You can read that however you want if you believe in evolution or believe that God doesn't exist, but He does not just punish man. (Genesis 3:14)
Except: they had no concept of good and evil. They were told not to. But they literally had no concept that disobeying was wrong. This is akin to placing a cookie in front of a one-year-old and acting surprised when they eat it despite what you said. They did not know of Good and Evil, so how could they possibly be expected to act in a moral manner? The doctrine of original sin is the story of God blaming those who cannot reasonably be blamed.
Because His son died for you. If your life was rescued by a cop who was killed protecting you, would you express your condolences to the parents of that cop? "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16) Similarly, would you spite and hate your biological father, simply because he can ground you if you don't obey him?
False dichotomy. To an omnipotent being, all possible things are equal. Citing Jesus of Nazareth in that case proves only two things: Jesus was a stand-up guy, and it didn't need to be the way it was, thereby managing to make God look like an even bigger asshole. He didn't need to have His Son nailed to a cross to do what He did, He's God, and for that matter if you go into the divinity of Jesus, Jesus didn't need to get Himself nailed to the cross either to accomplish it, but did so out of loyalty to His Father.
Which proves that the Son is worthy of respect, and the Father isn't.
There is only punishment if you disobey him. Perhaps I have been mis-wording my posts earlier. Believing and having faith in God is not the way to heavan (though it is a pre-requisite). Accepting Jesus's sacrifice on the cross is what does it. To explain, Jesus took the blame for anything you may do or have done against God.
Wow, that sounded really preachy. Sorry if I offend anyone. :D
The supreme irony of this is that by those standards I am saved, though I believe in the violent destruction of the Supreme Being as soon as we have the means.
-
Except: they had no concept of good and evil. They were told not to. But they literally had no concept that disobeying was wrong. This is akin to placing a cookie in front of a one-year-old and acting surprised when they eat it despite what you said. They did not know of Good and Evil, so how could they possibly be expected to act in a moral manner? The doctrine of original sin is the story of God blaming those who cannot reasonably be blamed.
That's how I see it, it's like locking a puppy in a room all day and then punishing it for peeing on the carpet!
-
Also, if you consider the Serpent as well, it means that Humanity got punished for being naive and trusting someone that God Himself trusted up to that point, he was, after all, an Angel before he got thrown out. God's supposedly Omniscient, but he didn't see that one coming, did he? And if He did, then that just makes matters worse.
-
I suspect that many such people would object vehemently to being termed atheists
If you are a theist with respect to one theology you are atheist with respect to the others as they are for the most part mutually exclusive. So we are all, to some extent, atheist. I myself am happy to have shown the independence of thought to resist indoctrination by my parents and draw my own evidence based conclusion about the practically certain nonexistence of god. My lack of faith leaves me uninfluenced by the less positive aspects of religion and not investing time in a group delusion leaves me with more time to spend on learning and other forms of self improvement. This could be why a person's religiosity is inversely proportionate to their intelligence (MENSA research) although admittedly this could be a chicken and egg scenario.
-
This could be why a person's religiosity is inversely proportionate to their intelligence
I'm assuming this is an average, and not an absolute. Pride may be one of the deadly sins, but I'm still guilty of it. I like to think that I'm not that stupid. I also have a friend named Hal, who was captain of the debate team, forensics (competitive acting team), Knowledge Bowl team, valedictorian, and one of the most religious people I have ever met.
My lack of faith leaves me uninfluenced by the less positive aspects of religion
And also less influenced by the more positive aspects of religion.
Except: they had no concept of good and evil. They were told not to.
Anyone can see that. Look at the name of the tree. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The point is that they were told not to, and deliberately disobeyed him.
it's like locking a puppy in a room all day and then punishing it for peeing on the carpet
So if a puppy pees on the carpet you just let it do it? Punishing it is how it learns. Granted, that's not a perfect analogy, but it works for now.
though I believe in the violent destruction of the Supreme Being as soon as we have the means.
I don't know if I can carry on a conversation about this. As others have noticed, I am a fairly religious person, and if you hold this opinion there is nothing I really feel like saying to you. Apart from this of course. No hard feelings. :)
-
I would be curious as to your opinion of my last few posts.
So long as you don't try to tell me or anyone else how to act (i.e. gay marriage/abortion issues) and restrict your faith to guiding your own personal life, I don't see why anyone should have any problem with your religion.
-
a-thee-ist (n): 1) someone who denies the existence of God.
I firmly believe in God. Many other people do as well. Billions of other people may believe in a God as well. Judaism, Christianiy, and Islam all believe in roughly the same God. Others, such as Hinduism, does not, and instead believes in many gods. I think that Hindus are wrong, but that does not make me an atheist.
I suspect that many such people would object vehemently to being termed atheists
I am one such. Please do not do so. I will have to get vehement if you call me one again. :)
gay marriage/abortion issues
against/against, but that's my opinion. Never have I told anyone to act any way or another that they aren't already. Don't call me an atheist, and I won't tell you how to act. I will give suggestions though. It makes me feel better.
-
I am curious as to your opinion of this statement:
Yeah, but that raises the question of what a god is and what counts as a god.
Better to handle it on a case-by-case basis, in which case we're all atheists about just about everything.
It works just as well with 'unbeliever'.
But why not let people define their own beliefs as they see fit? A person believes in some entity, and calls it a god. He believes in only one such entity. The most accurate term for his beliefs, then, is monotheist. I suspect that many such people would object vehemently to being termed atheists, and I don’t see how attempting to redefine their beliefs from an external perspective is in any way productive.
Okay.
Anyway, the point is that Scotty firmly believes that his God is real and that Jesus died for the sins of mankind. But billions of other people across thousands of years have believed equally crazy stuff, with equally valid reasons, and in the end it has all fallen into dust and half-remembered myths that we find entertaining and sometimes relevant.
What matters is how you act here and now.
That clarifies what I was saying about you being an atheist and about the importance of action rather than belief.
-
What matters is how you act here and now.
This is true. In my belief, if you do not act good here and now, farther down the road will not be pleasant.
James 2:17 ...In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
Yes, how you act is what matters.
But billions of other people across thousands of years have believed equally crazy stuff, with equally valid reasons, and in the end it has all fallen into dust and half-remembered myths that we find entertaining and sometimes relevant.
And equal (maybe a little less) have believed what I do and in the end, it has not fallen into dust and half-remembered myths.
EDIT: Dang, I wish this forum counted for posts. I'd have about a hundred by now.
-
And equal (maybe a little less) have believed what I do and in the end, it has not fallen into dust and half-remembered myths.
Well, except for all the various versions of Christianity that have.
It's a powerful myth structure in a historiographic sense, certainly, but it has no more claim to validity than the Egyptian or Norse or Greek pantheons did.
-
a-thee-ist (n): 1) someone who denies the existence of gods.
Fixed that for you.
It's nothing personal, y'see?
-
:confused: What did you fix?
EDIT: Did you add an s to God(s)?
-
And lowercased it. They're important distinctions.
See? It's not your specific god that's being denied, it's all of them, from Allah to Zoroaster. So don't take it personally if we're not 'saved' as there's a couple hundred other religions that haven't 'saved' us either.
-
Be Excellent to each other, and party on dudes.
-
Atheism can mean two things, actually:
1. the doctrine or belief that there are no gods
2. disbelief in the existence of gods
Which I don't like. They're different. Believing that there are no gods is the same to me as believing there are. It makes much mroe sense to just not believe in gods because you don't think they exist.
But maybe it's just semantics.
-
it's like locking a puppy in a room all day and then punishing it for peeing on the carpet
So if a puppy pees on the carpet you just let it do it? Punishing it is how it learns. Granted, that's not a perfect analogy, but it works for now.
No, I wouldn't punish the puppy, as it's not the puppy's fault, it would be my fault for locking it in the room all day. You can't blame an animal for following nature. They know no better, as did Adam and Eve, (if there were such people!)
-
In fact most dog trainers specifically tell you not to punish dogs for peeing on the carpet. Firstly the dog didn't know it was wrong. Secondly if your dog pees on the carpet before being trained not to it's your fault, not the puppy's. Dogs don't spontaneously learn to go outside. You have to take them outside, encourage/reward them when they do pee outside and gradually teach them that outside is acceptable while inside is not.
It's called taking responsibility. The Adam and Eve story is a massive case of God not taking responsibility for the mess he allowed to happen. It's exactly like the incompetent/abusive dog owner rubbing the dogs nose in it thinking that this teaches them something.
Besides, **** free will. If God is omnipotent he knew damn well that Satan was busy tempting Adam and Eve yet he did nothing. That is the same as watching a car pull up next to your five year old and letting the driver offer them sweets safe in the knowledge that you told your kids not to take sweets from strangers and if they get abducted it was their fault. No responsible parent would ever do that. Any sensible parent would chase off the car, call the police and then explain to the kids again why they can't talk to strangers.
Without knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve were as innocent and naive as children. To expect them to understand that they had to obey God's orders with no more concept of right and wrong than a child was unreasonable. To apply a punishment that applied beyond them is ridiculous. It's like punishing the next litter of puppies even before any of them pees.
-
Anyone can see that. Look at the name of the tree. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The point is that they were told not to, and deliberately disobeyed him.
And again, I say unto thee: "But they literally had no concept that disobeying was wrong."
Kara lays it out better than I am inclined to above.
-
This totally makes one wonder about the predictability of the tree of knowledge in the garden of eden. Had adam and eve not eaten from it, eventually one of their future offspring would. It really seems that tree being there and humans eating from it was meant to happen.
-
I thought the tree and fruit and such was just a metaphor for us getting smart, then using our smartness to invent clubs and swords and guns and nukes.
-
The Old Testamanet is mostly metaphores and stuff.
Meh. God by definition defies logic.
I mean, to describe Him we use the word omnipotence. That word in itself is illogical (remember the old "create a stone you yourself cannot lift" thing), so that should clearly point the futility of such excercises.
-
The universe is omnipotent; it can do anything that is possible to happen in universe. Now, whether or not it does this consciously or not is the question, isn't it?
-
The Old Testamanet is mostly metaphores and stuff.
And Adam and Eve is a metaphor for what then? What is Original Sin a metaphor for?
-
I think god is a metaphor.
-
I think god is a metaphor.
Metaphor phor what?
-
Dunno.
Maybe the bible is trying to say that authority figures are self-centered dicks who only want people worshiping them.
-
According to the new way to interpret the Bible the whole Adam and Eve affair is to be considered a metaphor.
No doubt a few hundred years ago thing were completely different - and this bugs me.
-
Meh. God by definition defies illogic.
That's not what you said before.
-
The universe is omnipotent; it can do anything that is possible to happen in universe.
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
Isn't it still constrained by what is possible to happen in the universe? True omnipotence means that there are NO limits or constraints whatsoever.
-
I think god is a metaphor.
Metaphor phor what?
fear of change, ignorance of the natural world, oppression of people who aren't just like you
-
"God is absence. God is the solitude of man."
--Who else but Sartre?
-
"God is absence. God is the solitude of man."
--Who else but Sartre?
"God, the absent landlord" - Bill Hicks
-
I think god is a metaphor.
Metaphor phor what?
Dunno.
:lol: Out of context but so funny.
-
Actually, that's pretty much in context. :P
-
Just FYI - saying God sux, is stupid or similar things openly in front of religious people, is basicly like saying their mother is a whore in their faces. Not nice.
While you may argue that it's different or it's just your oppinion, let me say that:
- blacks suck is also an oppinion, yet you wouldn't yell that in public and make fun of black people, would you?
- no, for most religious pople it's not really different. God is called Heavenly Father for a reason.
-
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
Isn't it still constrained by what is possible to happen in the universe? True omnipotence means that there are NO limits or constraints whatsoever.
Yeah, but if we think of universe as everything that IS, your extended omnipotence only comprises things that ARE NOT.
-
Just FYI - saying God sux, is stupid or similar things openly in front of religious people, is basicly like saying their mother is a whore in their faces. Not nice.
While you may argue that it's different or it's just your oppinion, let me say that:
- blacks suck is also an oppinion, yet you wouldn't yell that in public and make fun of black people, would you?
- no, for most religious pople it's not really different. God is called Heavenly Father for a reason.
In the case of racism you can prove that it's an argument based on generalisations and stereotypes and therefore bollocks.
In the case of calling your mother a whore, if I can point out that I've seen sweaty sailors leaving her house and then handing over money on the doorstep then I might feel justified to point that fact out. Especially if people frequently tell me what a chaste woman she is.
Similarly this entire thread has been about how God is responsible (according to his own publicity!) of a series of astoundingly large dick moves. Either prove that they weren't or quit complaining when people say that they are dick moves.
-
In the case of racism you can prove that it's an argument based on generalisations and stereotypes and therefore bollocks.
You can only prove it to me if I want you to.
Let's try another example shall we?
"All Jews are evil. The world is better off without them" - let's see you try to prove that one wrong, given how subjective good and evil are (according to a lot of people anyway)
In the case of calling your mother a whore, if I can point out that I've seen sweaty sailors leaving her house and then handing over money on the doorstep then I might feel justified to point that fact out. Especially if people frequently tell me what a chaste woman she is.
In which case you only got your own word and no real evidence, since you never checked what you saw. Were they really sailors? What did they do? What oyu do is called "jumping to conclusions".
Similarly this entire thread has been about how God is responsible (according to his own publicity!) of a series of astoundingly large dick moves. Either prove that they weren't or quit complaining when people say that they are dick moves.
How about this?
"You made a series of large dick moves. You suck. Prove to me you don't. Good luck." - now if I said something like that, do you really think you could prove to me otherwise?
God was guilty in your minds long before this thread ever started. Threads like these serve to find others who think likewise so one can get a pat on the back and a ego boost - at least that's the vibe I'm getting from them.
Whens the last time a religious members started a "God is wonderful thread"? Strange, isn't it?
-
In the case of racism you can prove that it's an argument based on generalisations and stereotypes and therefore bollocks.
You can only prove it to me if I want you to.
Let's try another example shall we?
"All Jews are evil. The world is better off without them" - let's see you try to prove that one wrong, given how subjective good and evil are (according to a lot of people anyway)
Simple. Unless you have examined each and every Jew in the universe and found him/her to be evil (Whatever your definition of evil is), it is an overgeneralization and therefore quite possibly wrong.
-
The god of any major religion is a dick by human standards. That's pretty much all there is to it. You can argue for otherworldly standards for god all day long, but god is still basically a petulant child with a magnifying glass and a whole planet full of ants.
And you know what? I don't like jews, blacks, OR your mother either. So there.
-
You can only prove it to me if I want you to.
And there, there is the heart of the matter. You admit, in so many words, that you are not open to rational thought! Like the man who believes he is Napeleon, you cannot be reasoned with because you are unwilling to reason!
The downward spiral is amazing, you've gone from admitting this is not something you can argue rationally to admitting you're not even rational at all.
Let's try another example shall we?
"All Jews are evil. The world is better off without them" - let's see you try to prove that one wrong, given how subjective good and evil are (according to a lot of people anyway)
This doesn't prove anything. You've actually used a racist example trying to rebut a remark disproving you on grounds of racism, which is the height of folly. It's like you didn't even read it somehow.
How about this?
"You made a series of large dick moves. You suck. Prove to me you don't. Good luck." - now if I said something like that, do you really think you could prove to me otherwise?
Prove to you otherwise? No, because you are by your own admission incapable of rational argumentation on this issue or any other. But could I prove to Kara otherwise? I'm almost certain of it. Unless, of course, he turns out to be correct and I did make a large series of dick moves. In that case no amount of rational argument will help because, well, there is no amount of it. You can't make a mountain out of nothing.
God was guilty in your minds long before this thread ever started.
Heaven forfend we actually have an opinion. But then, wtf does this matter to the discussion? Oh wait. That's right. It doesn't.
Threads like these serve to find others who think likewise so one can get a pat on the back and a ego boost - at least that's the vibe I'm getting from them.
Whens the last time a religious members started a "God is wonderful thread"? Strange, isn't it?
One might think they didn't have a case. Craaaaazy, huh? But, in any case, this is a Non Sequitor, and unrelated to the argument at hand. Thus, we should ignore any further attempt by you to extend this line of thought, because it's bull****.
That's "Bull****, n.: The art of deceit through obfustication."
-
You can only prove it to me if I want you to.
Let's try another example shall we?
"All Jews are evil. The world is better off without them" - let's see you try to prove that one wrong, given how subjective good and evil are (according to a lot of people anyway)
Don't have to. We have actual Jewish members on this board so your comment would constitute a flame and be banworthy for that alone. In fact the main reason why racism results in a ban is nothing to do with the fact that it is racism (as repugnant as that is) and more to do with the fact that it is
a) Trolling
b) Flaming
If God wants to log on and claim that members of the board have been flaming him I'll be happy to tell people to knock it off. Soon as he proves that it is Him of course. :p
In which case you only got your own word and no real evidence, since you never checked what you saw. Were they really sailors? What did they do? What oyu do is called "jumping to conclusions".
His book claims he's great but is full of evidence of how he's a dick. That's like having your mum write an autobiography and mention that she's had sex with a lot of sailors and mention how her income is completely in cash yet never mention a job. If you want to claim that it's a conclusion I jumped to, fine. But given that her own evidence tallies with my own observation it's up to you to point out where I went wrong.
Unless you don't care that I think your mum's a whore. In which case why did you complain it was such an insult?
How about this?
"You made a series of large dick moves. You suck. Prove to me you don't. Good luck." - now if I said something like that, do you really think you could prove to me otherwise?
I'd agree with you. I've made all kinds of stupid mistakes in my life. However I can admit that, I'm not infallible, unlike God where a single dick move brings down the whole house of cards.
But yeah, I could at least prove what my motivations where for any of your comments.
Whens the last time a religious members started a "God is wonderful thread"? Strange, isn't it?
Last September (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,56298.0.html). GOatmaster has been fairly quiet since then so we haven't had more (he started others) but since he started posting again 3-4 days ago we might get another one soon.
-
Personally I consider claims like "God is evil" just as inaccurate as "God is good". We don't have first hand information either way. We have interpretations of interpretations of impressions, which are called religions, but none of them offers anything that another religion couldn't offer regarding the accuracy of their information. Whether gods of these religions are good or evil, that is a different matter and subject to human judgement. For example, the God of old testament does a lot of things that would be classified as evil (genocide being probably most prominent on several occasions), as well as several other occasions of general dickery like the events that led to the concept of original sin, and the application of original sin to the whole humanity. Actually I think the most "good" thing credited to this God are some personal miracles and stuff that actually benefited a very small portion of humanity (which is strange considering all humanity was supposed to be God's creations).
Even you have to admit that had it been anyone else doing what God has supposedly done, he would be hauled to Hague and convicted of crimes against humanity. Actually, that would be a pretty interesting trial. Might be interesting to see what the defense would have to say about these things...
Also, supposed creation of the world doesn't really count as good or bad in my opinion, it would just... be. Like Douglas Adams said, "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." :P
So yes, if I were to define the hypothetic God based on what christianity tells me his actions have historically been, "dick" would be one of possible ways to describe his character. However, it's important to notice that this judgement is based on my interpretation of Christians' interpretation of old texts which were someone's interpretation of some events (maybe) and therefore I would rather come to the conclusion that it's likely Christianity that is wrong about this supposed God. Generally I extend this doubt to all religions since the vast majority of them includes some major dickery done by their God.
Like I said before, I don't especially have any faith in God and I certainly don't believe in any religion for the aforementioned reasons, and others.
Regarding omnipotency, castor summarized it pretty well...
And despite your claims to contrary, defining Universe as "everything that exists" is not inaccurate at all. This is not a difficult concept. If God exists, he is part of things that are, therefore belonging to universe. Refer to the charts in an earlier message for clarification on how God is part of the existence of universe if he exists, one way or another. As far as definitions go, existence of a thing requires that the thing affects the universe in some manner. For this very same reason, it can be shown that concept of supernatural is extremely silly - since everything that happens, happens in universe, an immediate conclusion is that everything that happens is a natural process, therefore supernatural would be something that does not happen in universe or happens outside it without any effect or connection to the universe, which means lack of existence in all meaningful terms. Unknown or unexplicable would be better terms for so-called "supernatural" phenomena.
-
You can only prove it to me if I want you to.
And there, there is the heart of the matter. You admit, in so many words, that you are not open to rational thought! Like the man who believes he is Napeleon, you cannot be reasoned with because you are unwilling to reason!
The downward spiral is amazing, you've gone from admitting this is not something you can argue rationally to admitting you're not even rational at all.
Don't be stupid man.
Wasn't exactly my point that in order to prove something to someone, the other party must be open to listening or accepting?
And you translate that general comment towards myself. Interesting. ...and then you call me irrational. :lol:
This doesn't prove anything. You've actually used a racist example trying to rebut a remark disproving you on grounds of racism, which is the height of folly. It's like you didn't even read it somehow.
No, I just an example which is more difficult, since similar to God, it's based on some notions and principles that can't really be mesured.
One might think they didn't have a case. Craaaaazy, huh?
If that's the only conclusion you can come to... There are others, but f'course, you're not even capable of seeing them, let alone pondering over them.
-
but f'course, you're not even capable of seeing them, let alone pondering over them.
Just one more of those and you're getting monkeyed for flaming. If you're going to make insulting comments about how he is incapable of thinking about a subject then you're gone.
Quite frankly it adds nothing at all to the discussion and is simply an underhanded way of insulting someone by claiming that they haven't the intellect to understand something.
Oh and just to prove I'm not picking sides, NGTM-1R is also monkeyed if he responds with a flame rather than a counter-argument. Not that I think he would but I figured I might as well say it.
-
Personally I consider claims like "God is evil" just as inaccurate as "God is good". We don't have first hand information either way.
Aren't Christ's teachings based on the fact that "God is good" and loves us all? Maybe we're discussing two separate gods?
-
Personally I consider claims like "God is evil" just as inaccurate as "God is good". We don't have first hand information either way.
Aren't Christ's teachings based on the fact that "God is good" and loves us all? Maybe we're discussing two separate gods?
Nothing you mentioned constitutes first hand evidence.
-
Don't be stupid man.
Wasn't exactly my point that in order to prove something to someone, the other party must be open to listening or accepting?
And you translate that general comment towards myself. Interesting. ...and then you call me irrational. :lol:
:wtf: This reminds me of a claim I once heard about how the joke about the joke was on me. Well, no, sorry, that's not how it works. Either way, the joke is still on you because you made it. It doesn't matter if you meant it as a joke, you didn't clearly delinate that it was. This is straight out of the Andrew Schafly School of Argument. It's ridiculous.
But worse than that, it's simply not true.
If you had offered a rationalization, anywhere, in this entire thread, it might have made sense that it is what you say it is. But you haven't. You haven't even tried to invoke God having an Omniscient Morality License (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OmniscientMoralityLicense) so He can do this sort of thing "for the greater good", you've just repeatedly stated "He's God". You admitted that you were not prepared to argue this on its rational merits once already.
From your behavior and your existing admissions, it is not at all a stretch to conclude that you are neither willing nor ultimately able to discuss this subject in a rational manner. So no, my friend. The Pacific Northwest Areboral Octopus (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:Pacific_Northwest_Arboreal_Octopus) is on you, after all.
No, I just an example which is more difficult, since similar to God, it's based on some notions and principles that can't really be mesured.
Only it isn't. To argue moral relativism, with me, in this context, is the height of folly. If anyone was ever deserving of moral relativism on their own traits rather than on the situation itself, God would be that "anyone", because, as I said, Omniscient Morality License.
Yet here you argue moral relativism on the traits of a person rather than their situation with me, when I have just rejected the very concept totally and utterly.
If that's the only conclusion you can come to... There are others, but f'course, you're not even capable of seeing them, let alone pondering over them.
Actually, I am. You probably wish to invoke the persecution complex here in your own mental defense (nobody else is going to be very impressed with it, I suspect, as it's rather old hat). Only it's not our fault, so sorry.
Now, the great pity of this is that we do not shout them or ban them or suppress them. The oroblem are not capable of answering us in a reasonable, rational fashion. A man can only make so many ad hoc assumptions to uphold his beliefs before it becomes a concious effort, and at that point it becomes what was termed in a blog I like to read "chosen to pretend to believe" because, in making a concious effort to continue to believe this, they know on some level that what they believe is wrong.
And to avoid either entering this state, or reminding themselves they are in it, the religious in our midst suppress themselves.
In the battle of reason and magical thinking, reason has forever met magical thinking and demolished it, much as science and engineering have destroyed faith on the battlefield. (Which is considerably more inclusive then mere religious faith; Guadalcanal could be considered American engineering demolishing Japanese racial faith for example.) That is our victory, won perhaps on our terms, but our terms were equitable and fair.
Ours is not an illegitimate trimuph, much as you might like to imagine, and as you have previously tried to claim by insulting the moderating team. It is, perhaps, an easy one; Scotty is the most capable opponent we've had in some time, probably since Liberator (who, despite his easiness to goad, was actually a reasonably good debater when he kept his cool). But victory won easily is still victory. It is not the fault of those who came prepared that the other side did not.
-
Nothing you mentioned constitutes first hand evidence.
Well I was told that Christ continuously said "Dio è buono"("God is good").
Proof: the "old" Hebrew God was evil, when needed, while the Christian God is always supposed to be good. Another proof: the Jew tradition has no reference to the Devil because God fullfilled the roles of godo and evil entity.
-
While I agree with most of your points, NGTM-1R, I bet the Japanese engineers who built all those miles of fortifications and tunnels on various Pacific islands would be a bit miffed. :p
-
Which is why I didn't cite them, just Guadalcanal. :P
-
The "old" Hebrew God was evil, when needed, while the Christian God is always supposed to be good.
<Lewis Black>
"I dunno, maybe the birth of His son mellowed him out or something."
</Lewis Black.>
:lol: :lol:
:wtf: This reminds me of a claim I once heard about how the joke about the joke was on me. Well, no, sorry, that's not how it works. Either way, the joke is still on you because you made it. It doesn't matter if you meant it as a joke, you didn't clearly delinate that it was. This is straight out of the Andrew Schafly School of Argument. It's ridiculous.
But worse than that, it's simply not true.
If you had offered a rationalization, anywhere, in this entire thread, it might have made sense that it is what you say it is. But you haven't. You haven't even tried to invoke God having an Omniscient Morality License so He can do this sort of thing "for the greater good", you've just repeatedly stated "He's God". You admitted that you were not prepared to argue this on its rational merits once already.
From your behavior and your existing admissions, it is not at all a stretch to conclude that you are neither willing nor ultimately able to discuss this subject in a rational manner. So no, my friend. The Pacific Northwest Areboral Octopus is on you, after all.
I invoke the ancient right of forcing other people to drop the stupid arguments of a thread.
You probably wish to invoke the persecution complex here in your own mental defense (nobody else is going to be very impressed with it, I suspect, as it's rather old hat). Only it's not our fault, so sorry.
And yet, I see a marked amount of anti-God or God-is-a-dick discussions and threads. Maybe you don't see many "God is awesome" and such because the people who would post that kind of thing are al ittle bit more polite to other people's beliefs.
In the battle of reason and magical thinking, reason has forever met magical thinking and demolished it
Of course it has. That's why we use spiritual reasoning. They are different.
Scotty is the most capable opponent we've had in some time
Awww, thanks. :)
I bet the Japanese engineers who built all those miles of fortifications and tunnels on various Pacific islands would be a bit miffed.
Possibly the same way that scientists are a bit miffed that they still don't know where the matter for the big bang came from, or why it happened.
-
The "old" Hebrew God was evil, when needed, while the Christian God is always supposed to be good.
<Lewis Black>
"I dunno, maybe the birth of His son mellowed him out or something."
</Lewis Black.>
:lol: :lol:
This better not be true. I can only imagine what the consequences of my birth on his mood are like. :p
-
Which is why I didn't cite them, just Guadalcanal. :P
Fair enough!
Possibly the same way that scientists are a bit miffed that they still don't know where the matter for the big bang came from, or why it happened.
Wait, what? Who's miffed? 'Intensely curious', perhaps. But there are always unanswered questions. And they get answered. You can't point and laugh and say 'science fails!' just because existing theories have holes. That's how we make forward progress -- which you have to thank for electricity, refrigerators, GPS, nuclear power, and a hell of a lot more.
Science and faith must coexist. Which means faith shouldn't a) try to compromise scientific reasoning or b) cite unknowns in scientific theory as reasons that science in general has failed. Similarly, science shouldn't give spiritual advice in areas it has not yet explored.
But Scotty, you have to drop the idea that the Big Bang is some kind of scientific failure. There are dozens of theories about where that matter has come from, and if you had the mathematical and physical knowledge to explore those theories, I bet you'd be fascinated. Brane theory, for instance, suggests that the Big Bang occurred due to a collision between membranes floating in a higher-dimensional space. Until you delve into high-order math, you can't speak the language necessary to discuss and understand these questions.
As it is, we don't have the mathematical tools to explore the initial moments of the universe because quantum physics and general relativity are mathematically incompatible. We've been working on better models for some time now, which is why we need tools like the LHC to test predictions. Why do you have to ridicule science for not immediately having all the answers? That's why science is great -- it answers unanswered questions. If we didn't have any more questions, we wouldn't need science.
Lastly, what the heck does the issue of the Big Bang have to do with Japanese military engineering? Linking those two seems a bit like trolling, as if you just wanted to come back to your own talking point. Did you think I was trying to make some kind of point about faith with that remark? It wasn't linked at all, so there's no need to get defensive.
And I think NGTM-1R does have a point when he says that reasoning has always crushed faith. I think that's why so many people get so defensive about religion: after centuries of giving ground, ceding to science, it must seem like some kind of desperate hour. But there is no good reason that science should ever drive faith to extinction, nor any reason the two can't coexist, so long as faith stops trying to tell science its limits and then ruefully later conceding it was wrong.
A scientist wonders why the big bang happened and goes out to try to figure it out; or, alternatively, she wonders why Darwin's finch populations show such diverse beak phenotypes (a great example of evolution in action.) It often seems like religious apologists would rather have us say 'the cell is irreducibly complex; we give up!' or 'something can't come from nothing; we better give up!'
But you can't prove the existence of God by reason, as these critiques of science so often try to do. You have to have faith. That's why attacks on science are so absurd.
-
:wtf: This reminds me of a claim I once heard about how the joke about the joke was on me. Well, no, sorry, that's not how it works. Either way, the joke is still on you because you made it. It doesn't matter if you meant it as a joke, you didn't clearly delinate that it was. This is straight out of the Andrew Schafly School of Argument. It's ridiculous.
But worse than that, it's simply not true.
If you had offered a rationalization, anywhere, in this entire thread, it might have made sense that it is what you say it is. But you haven't. You haven't even tried to invoke God having an Omniscient Morality License (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OmniscientMoralityLicense) so He can do this sort of thing "for the greater good", you've just repeatedly stated "He's God". You admitted that you were not prepared to argue this on its rational merits once already.
From your behavior and your existing admissions, it is not at all a stretch to conclude that you are neither willing nor ultimately able to discuss this subject in a rational manner. So no, my friend. The Pacific Northwest Areboral Octopus (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:Pacific_Northwest_Arboreal_Octopus) is on you, after all.
You must have taken a wrong turn somewhere in this thread, cause I have no idea where you come up with this stuff.
So you make a claim that I can't be be discussed with rationally (you oppinion), and I replay with that as far as I can see, I could say the same for you, and you come up with this?
Only it isn't. To argue moral relativism, with me, in this context, is the height of folly. If anyone was ever deserving of moral relativism on their own traits rather than on the situation itself, God would be that "anyone", because, as I said, Omniscient Morality License.
Yet here you argue moral relativism on the traits of a person rather than their situation with me, when I have just rejected the very concept totally and utterly.
You can reject any concept as much as you want, doesn't mean people will simply stop debating it, just cause you rejected it.
And again, I'm bit lost as to what you're exactly trying to accomplish here.
God isn't mesurable, he operates on a level unfanthomable for us...unimaginable, I could say. We're playing with words and concepts we do not fully comprehend or have trouble even defining.
That is why "good" and "evil" area very good comparison - because you have a very hard time defining them as well.
Actually, I am. You probably wish to invoke the persecution complex here in your own mental defense (nobody else is going to be very impressed with it, I suspect, as it's rather old hat). Only it's not our fault, so sorry.
Persecuation complex? Oh, you mean the atheistic atmosphere? Well, don't knock it if ti's true. Altough that has little to no bearing on this discussion on itself, other than there are more people willing to bash God/religion on this forum than not.
Now, the great pity of this is that we do not shout them or ban them or suppress them. The oroblem are not capable of answering us in a reasonable, rational fashion. A man can only make so many ad hoc assumptions to uphold his beliefs before it becomes a concious effort, and at that point it becomes what was termed in a blog I like to read "chosen to pretend to believe" because, in making a concious effort to continue to believe this, they know on some level that what they believe is wrong.
And to avoid either entering this state, or reminding themselves they are in it, the religious in our midst suppress themselves.
Ahh..the old "you're a mindless fool, deluding yourself. You close yourself deliberately to the truth."
Heck, if I didn't know it any better, I could swear you were preaching here.
You missed your mark, sorry.
In the battle of reason and magical thinking, reason has forever met magical thinking and demolished it, much as science and engineering have destroyed faith on the battlefield. That is our victory, won perhaps on our terms, but our terms were equitable and fair.
Ours is not an illegitimate trimuph, much as you might like to imagine, and as you have previously tried to claim by insulting the moderating team. It is, perhaps, an easy one; Scotty is the most capable opponent we've had in some time, probably since Liberator (who, despite his easiness to goad, was actually a reasonably good debater when he kept his cool). But victory won easily is still victory. It is not the fault of those who came prepared that the other side did not.
Ours...victory..opponent. Interesting choice of words. You'd think there's a real war out there between atheists and religious people, wouldn't you?
There's not much to say except that you're victory (or what you percieve as one) my not be a victory at all, and that you may not be as rational as you think you are..
Fixed the quotes - Karajorma
-
You can't point and laugh and say 'science fails!'
Not even here? :( Awww.
quantum physics and general relativity are mathematically incompatible.
Science and faith must coexist.
I agree. If I came off as a "science is the devil" raving lunatic, I apologize. I only have issues with evolution because of one man (Dr. Richard Dawkins, because he is the author of The God Delusion and thinks faith should die in the wake of science :mad:), and the big bang theory because I already have answered that question, at least to myself, and that science refuses to accept the possiblity of God in that respect.
cite unknowns in scientific theory as reasons that science in general has failed.
I don't recall implying that. I have two general issues, that is all.
But Scotty, you have to drop the idea that the Big Bang is some kind of scientific failure.
Okay. I didn't mean to say that anyway. If I did, sorry.
Did you think I was trying to make some kind of point about faith with that remark?
A little.
It wasn't linked at all, so there's no need to get defensive.
Okay.
it must seem like some kind of desperate hour
Truly it does (see: The God Delusion mentioned above). I see a world falling apart due to religious conflicts and the destruction of morals advocated, directly or indirectly, by the increasing dominance of science on society.
But there is no good reason that science should ever drive faith to extinction, nor any reason the two can't coexist, so long as faith stops trying to tell science its limits and then ruefully later conceding it was wrong.
I agree. Mr. Dawkins does not (I hope you realize that I really do not like that guy). Similarly, science must stop telling faith its limits.
But you can't prove the existence of God by reason
Nor can you disprove Him. </no argument>
-
Right, God is outside reason.
I'm glad to see you don't largely have a disagreement with science. Dawkin's arguments are certainly inflammatory.
With respect to the 'disintegration of the world', there are a number of measures which suggests the world is better off than it has ever been.
Science doesn't have a moral component, and if you take a purely scientific view of the universe, morality doesn't exist. It's up to us to use the fruits of science in a responsible and harmonious way. Science, for the most part, can't tell us how to do that, although some branches of behavioral genetics, political science, and social psychology are certainly getting there.
Scientists I work with are careful to point out that the empirical, calculating worldview of science isn't everything; it's simply very useful. While everyone could stand to learn scientific thinking, there's no reason you have to stop there.
Scotty should get some kind of award for good conduct in emotionally charged debate. Perhaps a title: 'Scotty: He's No Trashman!' (I mean it lovingly, Trash.)
-
I already have answered that question, at least to myself, and that science refuses to accept the possiblity of God in that respect.
When's the last time the real answer to a physics question has actually been god? Every time people claim that god is the answer, a few years later, we figure out that lightning really is just an electrostatic discharge, or that objects with lots of mass attract other objects.
There's a trend in our knowledge of the universe: We continue to discover more and more, and in the course we have more questions. The difference here is that I see knowledge filling in those gaps one day, and you see god filling them in.
-
With respect to the 'disintegration of the world', there are a number of measures which suggests the world is better off than it has ever been.
Never before have people so far away been able to hate each other with such abandon. As an added bonus, they can now kill from that far as well. We now have weapons that can destroy the world. There are hypotheses that a killer flu similar to the influenza epidemic of 1918 will come rampaging back. AIDS. A new bush war in Africa every week (This week is Congo/Uganda). Widespread famine.
Talking about this gets me depressed. :(
Where are the things that make us better off?
-
I already have answered that question, at least to myself, and that science refuses to accept the possiblity of God in that respect.
When's the last time the real answer to a physics question has actually been god? Every time people claim that god is the answer, a few years later, we figure out that lightning really is just an electrostatic discharge, or that objects with lots of mass attract other objects.
There's a trend in our knowledge of the universe: We continue to discover more and more, and in the course we have more questions. The difference here is that I see knowledge filling in those gaps one day, and you see god filling them in.
And that is my faith. I'm still interested that people don't think God can be responsible for something even if we know how it works. Think of a modern machine, a car maybe. It looks like it just runs, and maybe a kid thinks God makes it run. He later finds out it runs through complex mechanical interactions. He may know how it works, but someone still made it work. I think that God is what makes science work the way it does.
-
With respect to the 'disintegration of the world', there are a number of measures which suggests the world is better off than it has ever been.
Never before have people so far away been able to hate each other with such abandon. As an added bonus, they can now kill from that far as well. We now have weapons that can destroy the world. There are hypotheses that a killer flu similar to the influenza epidemic of 1918 will come rampaging back. AIDS. A new bush war in Africa every week (This week is Congo/Uganda). Widespread famine.
Talking about this gets me depressed. :(
Where are the things that make us better off?
Improved measures of longevity, wealth, and happiness across the human population. Decreased infant mortality rates. Progress on women's rights. A general fall in violent deaths (believe it or not.) A decrease in deaths by disease. A dramatic decrease in the number of armed conflicts (almost 40% since the end of the Cold War.) Plummeting instances of genocide. A decrease in human rights abuses. Heck, even the Doomsday Clock is a bit improved.
I know all of these are hard to believe, because it's easy to point out cases where things are getting worse. But the global trends are, in fact, positive.
I already have answered that question, at least to myself, and that science refuses to accept the possiblity of God in that respect.
When's the last time the real answer to a physics question has actually been god? Every time people claim that god is the answer, a few years later, we figure out that lightning really is just an electrostatic discharge, or that objects with lots of mass attract other objects.
There's a trend in our knowledge of the universe: We continue to discover more and more, and in the course we have more questions. The difference here is that I see knowledge filling in those gaps one day, and you see god filling them in.
And that is my faith. I'm still interested that people don't think God can be responsible for something even if we know how it works. Think of a modern machine, a car maybe. It looks like it just runs, and maybe a kid thinks God makes it run. He later finds out it runs through complex mechanical interactions. He may know how it works, but someone still made it work. I think that God is what makes science work the way it does.
Something of a deist?
-
And yet, I see a marked amount of anti-God or God-is-a-dick discussions and threads. Maybe you don't see many "God is awesome" and such because the people who would post that kind of thing are al ittle bit more polite to other people's beliefs.
I've already posted a link to the last of those threads. Are you going to claim that Goatmaster is less polite when it comes to other people's beliefs? Cause while I must say that I frequently disagreed with him I certainly never had to complain about his politeness AFAIK.
Secondly while I respect your right to believe whatever you want I do NOT have to respect your belief. Madness lies that way.
-
And yet, I see a marked amount of anti-God or God-is-a-dick discussions and threads. Maybe you don't see many "God is awesome" and such because the people who would post that kind of thing are al ittle bit more polite to other people's beliefs.
I've already posted a link to the last of those threads. Are you going to claim that Goatmaster is less polite when it comes to other people's beliefs? Cause while I must say that I frequently disagreed with him I certainly never had to complain about his politeness AFAIK.
Secondly while I respect your right to believe whatever you want I do NOT have to respect your belief. Madness lies that way.
I said 'most.' No where did I say that it does not happen. I do however, see that quite a few people ARE NOT polite on these threads. I try my best, and admit I don't always make it.
Secondly, I can respect your beliefs too. I do respect your belief, and I choose not to ridicule it. You could try to do the same.
'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Matthew 22:38b
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you - The Golden Rule
-
Something of a deist?
Not quite. I believe the Bible is God's word, that miracles can happen. I believe, about science, that God created the ways of the universe. He made it, how it works, and what that work does. God set in motion the universe, and we find out what we will about it. I find it odd that, aside from you, on BOTH sides of the argument assume that it must work one way or the other. Either God exists and made and controls everything, or he is a product of our imaginations and to be forgotten or destroyed at the soonest opportunity. I am deeply saddened by that kind of thinking.
-
With respect to the 'disintegration of the world', there are a number of measures which suggests the world is better off than it has ever been.
Never before have people so far away been able to hate each other with such abandon. As an added bonus, they can now kill from that far as well. We now have weapons that can destroy the world. There are hypotheses that a killer flu similar to the influenza epidemic of 1918 will come rampaging back. AIDS. A new bush war in Africa every week (This week is Congo/Uganda). Widespread famine.
Talking about this gets me depressed. :(
Where are the things that make us better off?
Hmmm. Let's see. Europe has been peaceful (No major war) for 60 Years now. Looking back at History, that is completely unexpected. Yes, Technology has enabled us to kill on a far grander scale than ever before, but so far, we have managed to avoid any large-scale Holocaust. Highly virulent diseases capable of devastating countries have been with us since forever, and while modern airtravel gives these an added danger, modern Medicine puts us in a position there these diseases are actually survivable. Africa.....Well, Africa has been a mess ever since the end of the colonial era (Not that I'd recommend bringing that back), largely due to us Europeans botching the transition.
In every generation, there are people who believe that everything was better in the past, and that mankind, if it continued, would surely desintegrate messily in just a few more years. It hasn't. It won't(*). Just because some things change, doesn't mean everything is going to Hell.
(*) Thats as close to a religious statement I'm about to make.
-
I already have answered that question, at least to myself, and that science refuses to accept the possiblity of God in that respect.
When's the last time the real answer to a physics question has actually been god? Every time people claim that god is the answer, a few years later, we figure out that lightning really is just an electrostatic discharge, or that objects with lots of mass attract other objects.
There's a trend in our knowledge of the universe: We continue to discover more and more, and in the course we have more questions. The difference here is that I see knowledge filling in those gaps one day, and you see god filling them in.
And that is my faith. I'm still interested that people don't think God can be responsible for something even if we know how it works. Think of a modern machine, a car maybe. It looks like it just runs, and maybe a kid thinks God makes it run. He later finds out it runs through complex mechanical interactions. He may know how it works, but someone still made it work. I think that God is what makes science work the way it does.
Then why do you think science refuses to accept the possibility of god? Science does not meddle in the affairs of religion. Since god is unmeasurable, we cannot hold his supposed interference into account, and so we cut him off of every theory. In the end, it may be god pulling the strings, but that is irrelevant for the theories that are built.
-
Even if it is irrelevant for the theories, that does not mean that God has to be cut off of every single theory. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Science does not meddle in the affairs of religion.
Seriously? Once again, I refernce Dr. Richard Dawkins. Science, or its proponents, does meddle.
On a completely unrelated note, when God is referenced in the single as an entity, the G should be capitlaized. </unrelated>
-
Even if it is irrelevant for the theories, that does not mean that God has to be cut off of every single theory. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Science does not meddle in the affairs of religion.
Seriously? Once again, I refernce Dr. Richard Dawkins. Science, or its proponents, does meddle.
On a completely unrelated note, when God is referenced in the single as an entity, the G should be capitlaized. </unrelated>
Dawkins is not science, nor does he represent the scientific community, nor any scientific consensus. Science is not by any means monolothic in its ideology. Dawkins is just one man, and scientists are largely concerned simply with continuing their research and applying for grants. Most scientists only get involved in politics or religion to make sure their work isn't hindered or compromised.
There is no systematic campaign behind Dawkins, and many scientists disagree with him (see the excellent book 'The Faith of a Physicist'.)
-
I need to check that book out.
Science is not by any means monolothic in its ideology
Don't we all know it.
Perhaps a title: 'Scotty: He's No Trashman!'
At last I have achieved significance! :lol:
-
I only have issues with evolution because of one man (Dr. Richard Dawkins, because he is the author of The God Delusion and thinks faith should die in the wake of science :mad:)
Can you not see the idiocy of that statement? So if Dawkins said puppies are cute that makes them not cute? You're basically saying that you disagree with something because of the person who said it.
Whether you agree or disagree with what Science says on a subject should be down to a careful examination of the reasoned argument for the theory. It should never be based on a personal like or dislike of the person. Just cause you dislike someone doesn't mean that they can't be right.
the big bang theory because I already have answered that question, at least to myself, and that science refuses to accept the possiblity of God in that respect.
Science refuses to accept "God made the Big Bang" happen as the be all and end all of how the universe is created. Going back to your example of the car it's like the kid saying "No, God made it run" and refusing to accept the workings of the internal combustion engine. Science never says God can't exist. That's a philosophical question not a scientific one.
Secondly, I can respect your beliefs too. I do respect your belief, and I choose not to ridicule it. You could try to do the same.
I refuse to respect your beliefs. If someone tries to tell me he believes the Earth is flat I'm going to tell him he's full of ****. If someone tries to tell me that the sun orbits the Earth I'm going to call that nonsense. And if someone tries to tell me that they've stuck their fingers in their ears, refused to learn anything about physics or biology and then have the sheer arrogance to tell me that they think they know it better than those who have, you can bet they're going to hear about it from me. You don't get a pass simply because your belief is about God. If it conflicts with science I've got no respect for it.
You can believe it all you want. I'm not going to force you not to believe. I'm not going to censor your opinions. You can insist it is true all you want and you can post that it is as often as you like. And every time you do I'm going to be right there to say it's bollocks. Because if I have to respect your belief, I also have to respect that of the flat Earther.
-
Even if it is irrelevant for the theories, that does not mean that God has to be cut off of every single theory. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I certainly agree that they are not mutually exclusive, because plenty of people find places in their worldviews for both. But science and religion deal with separate aspects of existence, and I strongly believe that they should remain separate. Science cannot provide any answers in matters of faith, because faith is concerned with things that must be accepted, rather than proven. Likewise, religion has no place in scientific theories. They are scientific theories because they are based on empirically verifiable observations about the universe.
-
Even if it is irrelevant for the theories, that does not mean that God has to be cut off of every single theory. The two are not mutually exclusive.
If god is unmeasurable, how do you plan to test that the theory works with or without god intrusion? Ask for a time off? The existence of god is irrelevant, it contributes nothing to the theory.
Also, as soon as you mention god in any theory, you suddenly have a lot more things to prove than otherwise. And with Occam's razor and all that...
Regarding capitalization, it's pretty much irrelevant in this case, since I could be referring to any mythology's god.
-
Can you not see the idiocy of that statement?
I can now. :blah: I can see your point, but I still hold some reservations.
I refuse to respect your beliefs.
You just wait. The tolerance nazis will get you eventually :lol:
If someone tries to tell me he believes the Earth is flat I'm going to tell him he's full of ****.
That's not nice. You don't have to personally insult the guy to tell him he's wrong. His belief may very well be full of it, but you don't have to call him that.
If someone tries to tell me that the sun orbits the Earth I'm going to call that nonsense.
So will I, but I won't call him an idiot for even thinking it.
If it conflicts with science I've got no respect for it.
All hail the magnificence of science, huh?
And every time you do I'm going to be right there to say it's bollocks.
And that exactly is what turns stuff like this into flame wars. You can't have a rational discussion with someone if every time you say something that conflicts ever so slightly with their beliefs they just say "it's bollocks" and walk away. (Who was it that said something about this earlier? :rolleyes:) Before you try to turn that right back this way, I try to be accepting of your opinions and most certainly HAVE NOT just plugged my ears and tried desperately not to hear it.
-
science isn't beliefs
-
I believe, about science, that God created the ways of the universe. He made it, how it works, and what that work does. God set in motion the universe, and we find out what we will about it.
Then why disbelieve in evolution? If God set the universe in motion why do you not believe that he left it for 14 billion years until evolution had created humans? Especially when there is good evidence for evolution? Why do you insist on clinging onto other explanations even though you obviously don't actually understand the scientific one?
I find it odd that, aside from you, on BOTH sides of the argument assume that it must work one way or the other. Either God exists and made and controls everything, or he is a product of our imaginations and to be forgotten or destroyed at the soonest opportunity. I am deeply saddened by that kind of thinking.
Incorrect. I've already said that my argument about whether God exists to give the universe meaning is a philosophical one. My problem is when instead of sticking to the philosophical arguments people insist on trying to use God to argue against science. This thread is a very good example of that. It was a debate about a philosophical point. Why did evolution\the big bang ever have to enter into it?
-
You just wait. The tolerance nazis will get you eventually :lol:
"Tolerance Nazis" seems like a bit of an oxymoron, doesn't it?
-
Godwin's Law?
-
I can now. :blah: I can see your point, but I still hold some reservations.
Then read up on the subject. Usually I'd suggest reading The Selfish Gene but if you don't like Dawkins for his philosophical arguments against God you probably won't like it. I'm sure someone can recommend a good book on the subject though.
That's not nice. You don't have to personally insult the guy to tell him he's wrong. His belief may very well be full of it, but you don't have to call him that.
Okay, his belief is a load of ****.
So will I, but I won't call him an idiot for even thinking it.
Nor would I.
If it conflicts with science I've got no respect for it.
All hail the magnificence of science, huh?
Nope. The science could be wrong but out of all the answers we have it is the one most likely to be correct. I simply don't see any sense in rejecting an answer that is more likely to be correct in favour of one that is less likely.
And that exactly is what turns stuff like this into flame wars. You can't have a rational discussion with someone if every time you say something that conflicts ever so slightly with their beliefs they just say "it's bollocks" and walk away. (Who was it that said something about this earlier? :rolleyes:) Before you try to turn that right back this way, I try to be accepting of your opinions and most certainly HAVE NOT just plugged my ears and tried desperately not to hear it.
Nor have I. I've always given you a counter argument and explained why yours was nonsensical. Hell I've asked questions fairly often too whenever someone has said something I was interested in hearing more about.
-
:lol:
Then why disbelieve in evolution?
Never have I said I disbelieve in evolution (If I actually did say that about 10 pages ago, well, that's what these threads are for, but I'm pretty sure I didn't). I am completely sure that evolution occurs. I said it has some problems with it. ALL scientific THEORIES have some problems.
If God set the universe in motion why do you not believe that he left it for 14 billion years until evolution had created humans
See above. Also, ~4 billion years </nitpick>. Finally, that is just about exactly what I believe. Just about, but not entirely. Interestingly enough, the Bible actually has some support for this. While it says 'on this day' or 'on that day', the order of appearance of different creatures is similar. The Bible specifically gives the order for the creation. First, plants (not counting uni-cellular evolution here, becuase we didn't even know about those until the late 1700s), then fish, birds, mammals, and finally man.
Why do you insist on clinging onto other explanations
Is that (up) another explanation? It's evolution.
people insist on trying to use God to argue against science.
I try not to argue against science simply on the basis of God.
Why did evolution\the big bang ever have to enter into it?
I dunno. You can check way back when in the thread for that.
It was a debate about a philosophical point.
Sure was. If you want to go back to that, go ahead. I was enjoying this conversation. :D
-
If God set the universe in motion why do you not believe that he left it for 14 billion years until evolution had created humans
See above. Also, ~4 billion years </nitpick>.
I said universe. The Earth is ~4 billion years old. The universe is much older than that.
Finally, that is just about exactly what I believe. Just about, but not entirely. Interestingly enough, the Bible actually has some support for this. While it says 'on this day' or 'on that day', the order of appearance of different creatures is similar. The Bible specifically gives the order for the creation. First, plants (not counting uni-cellular evolution here, becuase we didn't even know about those until the late 1700s), then fish, birds, mammals, and finally man.
Completely stuffs up the order of creation for other things though. Plants first and then the stars, moon and sun? The last two might work if you believe in panspermia but plants before the stars? How would that even be possible without stars to make the heavy atoms in the first place?
-
I was only pointing out the order of the creation of living things.
-
Still wrong. Birds are descended from dinosaurs but Genesis has them before any land animals. Similarly it has whales before land animals. It has birds before reptiles for that matter.
-
:nervous:
Probably the Bible was mistranslated thousands and thousands of times over the ages, thus today's interpretation is just a piece of FUBAR'd crap that is nothing like the true word of God.
-
Or probably (read almost certainly) all the stuff on it was invented from scratch thanks to the notable efforts of a few random storytellers(then turned into writers)...
:nervous:
-
Or probably (read almost certainly) all the stuff on it was invented from scratch thanks to the notable efforts of a few random storytellers(then turned into writers)...
:nervous:
Come on, at least give it the credit it deserves as a compilation and adaptation of thousands of years of human myth and superstition. It probably wasn't very easy adapting Odin and Horus into Jesus
-
That was my point about the supposedly lost scrolls of Mary Magdelene, the pothesised thirteenth apostle/disciple. The biblr has been edited and and adapted and translated for thousands of years. Many things are lost in translation!
-
[Tigh voice]The thirteenth apostle... a Cylon apostle![/Tigh voice] :nervous:
-
Or probably (read almost certainly) all the stuff on it was invented from scratch thanks to the notable efforts of a few random storytellers(then turned into writers)...
:nervous:
Come on, at least give it the credit it deserves as a compilation and adaptation of thousands of years of human myth and superstition. It probably wasn't very easy adapting Odin and Horus into Jesus
Mine was pure approach led by Science. The Bible is likely to be a superb example of human-made stuff several groups of individuals point out as "Made thanks to divine inspiration".
And lol, I'd really like to read an article about Science's vision of the Bible's development. No Physics, no Astronomy on that article...only Psychology and Parapsychology and notable explanations on how and why the Bible succeeded.
You know, they don't like evolution despite the fact that the way religion has emerged in the past thousand years matches natural selection.
:rolleyes:
-
Come on, at least give it the credit it deserves as a compilation and adaptation of thousands of years of human myth and superstition. It probably wasn't very easy adapting Odin and Horus into Jesus
I'm pretty sure Odin is, at best, contemporary with Jesus.
-
Horus? Odin?
Pfft...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra
Looks that God, during his efforts to create a son(who is God himself, I mean the son is God despite the fact that it's virtually impossible to acknowledge Jesus' role as is his father) got inspired by Mithra. :drevil:
:lol:
-
"God does not play dice".
Albert Einstein for the quantum theory. (So far he is wrong).
-
Horus? Odin?
Pfft...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra
Looks that God, during his efforts to create a son(who is God himself, I mean the son is God despite the fact that it's virtually impossible to acknowledge Jesus' role as is his father) got inspired by Mithra. :drevil:
:lol:
THE DEVIL IS TRYIN TO MISLEAD YOUS! Like wit dem 'fossil' thingies.
-
(remember the old "create a stone you yourself cannot lift" thing)
I hate this old saying, only for the reason that i think it would have been much better portrayed and updated in a different scenario.
God could create a hot chick that He could not get with. :lol: