[Flipside]

True, but there's social aspects involved as well, the framework of marriage that we work under has helped create definitons of 'love' that are as much based on people's ability to not break social taboos than anything else.

[Mongoose]

Mongoose, he invited people to post their own opinions here. And yes, that does give everyone who is so inclined leave to post their opinions, even those that disagree with the original sentiment expressed here. It's only when things really get abusive that we should moderate this.

Fair enough.  I didn't feel like this was the vein of response that G0atmaster was looking to get, but if he's fine with it, I won't continue to make an issue of it.

[G0atmaster]

Interesting note, the very first Milky Way shot, at 00:32, was shot as a sandstorm hit him from the Sahara.  He left his camera up, and even though he was SURE the shot was ruined, the sandstorm added the golden glow effect, because it was backlit by the Grand Canary Island, and despite this, the camera still caught the light of the stars.

[Marcov]

I don't think GOatmaster is fundamentalist enough to bring about a science-ranter bashing the supposedly Bible-thumper.

also what you think science is may not be everything lol

[Bobboau]

well, if you WANT to talk about it, and if (as I said earlier) you would want to now if you were wrong, then I suppose the next thing to ask would be: would you agree that out of all possible explanations for anything the one that produces the most accurate description for how the world works, has the fewest coincidences, and the least number of 'just because's would be the best one to accept? not that there are any explanations that are completely devoid of holes, but once you have a model that has predictive utility, it makes seance to assume that one is more right than one that does not.

If you were to get to a point where the only way you could maintain your beliefs was to take a position that God made the world exactly like it is for no human perceivable reason, in such a way that it fits all sorts of independent models that describe where things came from and are currently used to plan for where they will go. Yet these models despite being demonstratively and measurably accurate are wrong about the past, because 'God did it' that way. Would you be willing to recognize at this point that this was an indefensible position that you have no reason to believe it anymore than any of the other myths in the universe, the flying spaghetti monster, or possibilities like we are all stuck in a matrix, or the universe was made five minutes ago (complete with our fabricated memories of the last few decades) and that said models do provide a more accurate description with fewer coincidences and 'just because's?

In other words saying "God could have..." for any piece of evidence followed by 'you can't know the mind of God' when asked why God would have done that, and every bit of additional evidence is met with an ever more contrived set of things God 'could have' done, without having any way of determining if he did or not, is a sign that you are probably wrong.

If not then I would have to wonder why you would chose your current set of beliefs over the alternatives, and walk away as there is no point arguing with the man in the cave who is sure the shadows on the wall are all there is to reality if he refuses to believe his eyes when he turns around.

[G0atmaster]

Bobboau, I believe in using the proper tools for the job at hand.

To explain how the universe works, I use empirical, scientific discovery.  To explain why the universe works, I look to the Bible.  To prove a fact in the Bible, I would use archaeological exploration or scientific experimentation.  To prove the existence of God, I would use an in-depth analysis of the human condition and the evidences of such laid within the very soul of every man, woman and child alive.  I recognize that there are things Science has not explained at this time, and I actually quite dislike it when people see Christianity or any other belief structure as a means to be lazy about exploration, resigning it to "Because God said so, and we don't need to understand it." 

Bobbau, in reading your post, I am left with a conclusion that may or may not be true: That you have walked this road before with someone you trusted and were left frustrated and dissatisfied.

Furthermore I believe you are speaking of the story of Genesis and the creation of the World.  I have, in recent months, undertaken a few in-depth studies in the narrative themes of the Bible and its works, and am fully confident when I say that it is OK to not believe 100% that the poetic literature found in Genesis chapter 1 is a literal description of the beginning of the world.  The point of Genesis is that God made the cosmos, and God made it good.  But something went wrong, and we became fallen and broken.  Yet despite our brokenness, God is willing to work with us and use broken people to do amazing things, forgiving them as they go- even murderers.  Cain should have been killed Lamech should have been killed.  Abraham effed things up on so many levels...  Genesis shows, like much of the rest of the Bible, that God is a personal God that works with broken people despite their brokenness.  Genesis chapter 1 was written apologetically, and by its very nature trumps creation accounts of other near-eastern religions, such as the Babylonians and their 'mortal gods'.

When you consider one part of the Bible in light of the rest of the Bible, rather than isolating it and pulling it out of its context, you can no longer call it just a bunch of tribal fairytale mythologies.  In fact, upon doing a comparative analysis between the Bible and the myths of pretty much everything else, the narrative of the Bible is found to be quite unique indeed.

Another noteworthy thing to understand about the Bible, before this goes any further:  The Bible, while I do believe it was written for everyone, everywhere, at any time, much of it was not written to us, right now.  This is important to keep in context.  God spoke through Ezekiel to the Israelites.  We can look at that, and from that, gain understanding about the kind of people the Israelites were, and the kind of God my God is, and gain understanding based on the arguments therein.  I cannot, however, pull out random messages and verses and apply them to myself.    For example, a lot of people use the following verse from Ezekiel to make some sort of statement about America being a Christian nation, Ez 36:28:

"Then you will live in the land I gave your ancestors; you will be my people, and I will be your God."

But upon examination and general historical knowledge, God, through Ezekiel, is speaking to the nation of Israel, not the nation of America.


BTW the whole thing about the serpent and Eve's seed is not a tribal story to explain away humanity's primal fear of snakes - it's actually the first prophecy of Christ found in the Bible.  As is the story of Isaac.  Also, Abraham arguably takes communion with a character called "Melchizedek," a priest of "God Most High," long before there was ever a Passover feast, which is what the Disciples were eating when Christ instituted communion.  Also interesting, the book of Hebrews says that Jesus is the "High Priest in the Order of Melchizedek."  Make of that what you will.  Speaking of Passover, the ENTIRE celebration, along with that of the Day of Atonement, the two most important holidays in the Jewish calender, are both rife with symbolism that foreshadows Christ.  I can go into detail about these if you like. 

Additionally, the entire set of laws in the Pentateuch that deal with ritual uncleanliness (which is, btw, different from moral impurity, or sin), such as the verse from Deuteronomy 22 in your signature, have a very specific purpose.  If you'll take the time to examine them, you'll find that there are a certain, specific set of things that can make a person ritually unclean.  Sex, childbirth, death, bodily fluids, skin infections, mold and mildew, foods and clothing.  What do you notice about all of these things?

There's a joke I heard once.  The difference between Man and God is that God doesn't have to be reminded that he is not Man.

These laws about ritual purity all have to do with things that people have to deal with, and are in fact oftentimes unavoidable (such as menstruation and death), that God never experiences.  These are a constant reminder as to the separation that exists between Man and God.  That is the whole point of the entirety of the law of ritual purity.  This, too, has incredible significance when it comes to Christ.

In Christ, God became Flesh.  God did indeed become Man.  In so doing, God, Himself, became ritually unclean. Christ touched dead things. Christ kept company with lepers.  Christ was touched by a woman who had menstrual issues.  All of these things and more made Christ ritually unclean.  While being ritually unclean was not sinful, entering the presence of God while in a state of uncleanliness was.  Worshipping, feasting, etc. were not allowed.

Yet Christ, in fullness, was God.

Christ becoming ritually unclean is a breakdown of the separation between Man and God, just as was the curtain being torn in the temple that separated people from the Holy of Holies.  Because such is God's love for us.  Which, by the way, is the single defining unique thing about the Christian faith that sets it apart from all others, which, in my opinion, makes it worth believing: That God loves us.  Instead of climbing a ladder of "Pray>meditate>do good things, and maybe you'll get to God," God himself came to us.  God forgives us, God loves us, and we did nothing to earn this, and we can do nothing to unearn it.

As to your closing statement, I would say the same to you.  Don't be quick to refuse to poke your head out of the cave because you're so sure that the cave is all there is.  The number one most common reason people give me for not having read the Bible is, well, that they don't believe in it.  I tell you the truth, I do not believe in Lord of the Rings, yet I have still read the trilogy.  I guarantee you that if you honestly take the time to examine what's been given, you'll find there's much more to it than you've heard.

[watsisname]

To prove the existence of God, I would use an in-depth analysis of the human condition and the evidences of such laid within the very soul of every man, woman and child alive.

[Bobboau]

In fact, upon doing a comparative analysis between the Bible and the myths of pretty much everything else, the narrative of the Bible is found to be quite unique indeed.

No actually it is quite remarkably similar to a number of other mythologies from around the time. read up about Enuma Elish (creation myth) and Gilgamesh (Noah's flood ect). but this irrelevant to it's factuality.
interesting video on the early parts of the bible second part

now, the basis of all of what you just said is constructed on assumption that you are right. you claim to prove God, by examining the soul, but the soul is just as insubstantial (i.e. lacking in substance, not physical) as God is. how would you first prove the soul? by examining the qualities of God? I hope you see how circular that is, and the fact that you are already using the soul to prove god shows you have an assumption and are trying to find evidence to fit to it, rather than looking at the evidence and deciding what it implies.

This also is moving in an unproductive direction, there very well could be a deist God that has not interfered with the universe since it's creation and set the universe up in such a way that discovering it would be impossible, arguing about an inability to disprove this is as useless as trying to disprove that we are in the matrix. The whole thing is rigged by definition such that it is unfalsifiable, and is therefore a useless concept as far as I am concerned. What I am interested in is not the things we cannot disprove, but the things we can (within reason) prove, and the means by which we determine their factuality.

now addressing each other holistically is not going to accomplish anything, I doubt either one of us wants to read over reams of the others idea of poetic treatment of their own beliefs, so let me try to determine a few simple things to see where you draw the line between poetic literature and factual recounting of history in the bible.

So, I believe you have stated point blank that you do not accept evolution, so does that mean that you wholly reject it or do you accept it to some degree?

do you accept common decent (all organisms on the planet were descended from a single common ancestor), or are you among those who believe that God made a certain set of 'kinds' which have since differentiated into the current diversity, or do you believe that all species on earth were created as they are now and have not changed at all since their creation?

do you accept the concept of heredity (offspring are similar to their parents)?

do you accept the concept of mutation (offspring will have some small random unique amount of difference not accounted for between the parents)?

do you accept the concept of natural selection (the creatures that fail to produce successful offspring will not have their traits expressed in future generations)?

how old do you think the earth is?

[G0atmaster]

(2 posts up) I have that effect on people sometimes.  True story.

[G0atmaster]

In fact, upon doing a comparative analysis between the Bible and the myths of pretty much everything else, the narrative of the Bible is found to be quite unique indeed.

No actually it is quite remarkably similar to a number of other mythologies from around the time. read up about Enuma Elish (creation myth) and Gilgamesh (Noah's flood ect). but this irrelevant to it's factuality.

I spent a couple weeks comparing them.  The gods of the Enuma Elish are, by all measures, mortal.  They need people to feed and sustain them.  They had to work hard to create the world.  The world was born out of sexual interaction.  The heavens and the earth was born out of cleaving a sea monster in half.

In Genesis, God said "Let there be stuff," and stuff happened. The God of Genesis didn't break a sweat.

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Flood happened, by all accounts, because the gods wanted it to. They just got a whim one day and said, "hey, let's destroy the world and kill everyone."  The God of Genesis surveys the world, and upon seeing the wickedness of Man, decides to wipe it out.  But he finds an upstanding citizen and uses him and his ilk to keep things going.  In Gilgamesh, one of the gods finds a crafty way to tell a man, also for no apparent reason, about the flood after swearing not to.  The God of Genesis so far is much more upstanding, and much more powerful, than the gods of Sumeria.

now, the basis of all of what you just said is constructed on assumption that you are right. you claim to prove God, by examining the soul, but the soul is just as insubstantial (i.e. lacking in substance, not physical) as God is. how would you first prove the soul? by examining the qualities of God? I hope you see how circular that is, and the fact that you are already using the soul to prove god shows you have an assumption and are trying to find evidence to fit to it, rather than looking at the evidence and deciding what it implies.

This also is moving in an unproductive direction, there very well could be a deist God that has not interfered with the universe since it's creation and set the universe up in such a way that discovering it would be impossible, arguing about an inability to disprove this is as useless as trying to disprove that we are in the matrix. The whole thing is rigged by definition such that it is unfalsifiable, and is therefore a useless concept as far as I am concerned. What I am interested in is not the things we cannot disprove, but the things we can (within reason) prove, and the means by which we determine their factuality.

Of course I see how circular that is.  So instead, I examine purely the behavior of people.  For example, everyone everywhere believes for some reason or another that there is a "right" way to live and a "wrong" way.  There is no "naturalistic" explanation for this. For example, if two people were walking, and were mugged at gunpoint, it would be considered selfish and wrong for one man to leave his friend to become a victim instead of staying and helping him fight off the attacker.  In this instance, the "herd instinct" and the "self-preservation instinct" are in conflict.  Something else, something entirely different than any inborn instinct, causes us to choose one of these two instinctual responses as being a more just course of action.  Why?  This is not to say that everyone, everywhere, proscribes to an identical moral code.  But we ALL do proscribe to SOME moral code, and we all readily admit to the fact that we CANNOT, no matter how hard we try, live up to our own ideal behavior.  We are all, by our own measure, failures.

That's just one example of what I mean.  There's plenty more.

now addressing each other holistically is not going to accomplish anything, I doubt either one of us wants to read over reams of the others idea of poetic treatment of their own beliefs, so let me try to determine a few simple things to see where you draw the line between poetic literature and factual recounting of history in the bible.

So, I believe you have stated point blank that you do not accept evolution, so does that mean that you wholly reject it or do you accept it to some degree?

In all honesty, Bobbau, this is something left unreconciled within me at this point in time.  My lean is toward Genesis as fact, but that's only because it's what I consider a safer bet, as everything else I know about the entirety of the Bible and about God has indeed been proven true in my own life.   I do not argue this with anyone, however, as I really don't find the whole matter all that important to begin with.  Salvation hinges on the grace offered by the Son of God, not by how I believe the Earth came into being.  What I do know is that, while a somewhat reasonable (however, incomplete) theory of how things change and progress, Evolution's king failure next to Genesis is in explaining how things began in the first place.  That is still a big questionmark, and for that, I have heard no answer greater than, "in the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth."  And if I believed in the entirety of the Theory of Natural Selection, this would still remain true.

So let's move on to the particulars, as you have asked them:

do you accept common decent (all organisms on the planet were descended from a single common ancestor), or are you among those who believe that God made a certain set of 'kinds' which have since differentiated into the current diversity, or do you believe that all species on earth were created as they are now and have not changed at all since their creation?

I probably fall more into the category of the former.  I do not doubt in any way the ability of species to adapt to their environments, even to the point where they could conceivably be classified differently than when they began.

do you accept the concept of heredity (offspring are similar to their parents)?

Yes.

do you accept the concept of mutation (offspring will have some small random unique amount of difference not accounted for between the parents)?

How could I not? Genetic manipulation through radioactive isotopes has proven this to be true.  Cancer, also, has proven this to be true, and able to happen in a single generation, rather than simply with the offspring.

do you accept the concept of natural selection (the creatures that fail to produce successful offspring will not have their traits expressed in future generations)?

I agree with this.  The problem I have, however, is in combining this with the idea of mutation to create a theory of evolution.  How can mutations that are supposed to be random be guaranteed to bring about beneficial change?  By Natural Selection, you say.  Well then, what is to say that those same mutations won't reoccur later down the line?  Why does there seem to be an overall trend of what we would call advancement or progressiveness in increasing complexity?  Any designer will tell you that the more complex something is, the LESS likely it is to run efficiently, the LESS likely it may survive.  Furthermore, I find the whole argument itself to be rather circular.  "The Environment changes to better meet the needs of the changing environment."  WTF?  Plus, this does nothing to account for the onset of what we call sentience, consciousness.


Scientific Method states that you cannot get something from nothing.  Something has to have ALWAYS existed.  Physics (as best I understand it) calls this the Higgs Boson, the factor they decided to use to fill in all the "wtfs" in the standard model.  I call it God.  God Himself declares it, stating that he is the great "I AM."  "Before Abraham was, I AM," says Jesus.  When Moses asked God, revealed in the Burning Bush, what his name was, The Hebrew text, translated to English, states that he calls himself, "I AM THAT I AM."  Now, Hebrew thinking is somewhat Eastern when compared to the US, so let's go with the Greek thought on the matter.  The Septuagint was the Hebrew laws and scriptures translated into Greek.  The wording used for "I AM THAT I AM" in the Septuagint literally translates to, "I AM THE ONE THAT IS."  This is a very deliberate thought, speaking to the permanence of God.  "Before anything was, I AM.  There is no beginning to me, nor any anding. I am not, "I was."  Rather, I AM.  Always."

how old do you think the earth is?

I am wholly comfortable saying I have no effing clue.

[newman]

Nothing a brief google search couldn't fix. 4.5 to 4.6 billion years, measured using scientific methods developed at Aperture Laboratories. For the people who are still alive.

[G0atmaster]

I don't always have enough faith to believe some random internet dude that Google points me to.

[G0atmaster]

I also like how you answered after a whole 6 mins, while doing a google search... did you even read my whole post or did you just zone in on that one thing so you could make a snide remark?

Respect is a 2 way street, good sir.

[jr2]

Anyone want to do some quick math?   Measure the amount of decay in the rotation speed of the Earth.  Now measure the amount of decay in the magnetic field of the Earth.  Now calculate back 1,000,000 years.

More?

Ok, measure the rate of supernovae...  now count the supernovae remnants.. calculate backward.

Measure the amount of sediment at the mouth of the major rivers on the Earth.  Calculate back.

Measure the rate at which topographical features such as mountains erode.  Calculate back.

The age of the Earth isn't a certain thing.

[G0atmaster]

Oh and Mongoose, I reread the first two pages.  Just wanted to point out that it's really only "taboo" to talk of religion and politics in the US.  Everywhere else it's pretty much everyday dinner-table and bar conversation, and they're totally civil about it.

[G0atmaster]

Also, to Jr2's point:  Slashdot posted an article about a year back stating, essentially, that radioactive decay is not the universal constant that it was once thought to be.  In fact, radioactive decay on Earth has to do with the Earth's distance from the sun.  How trippy is that?

[The E]

Seriously?

The age of the Earth being around the 4.5 billion years mark is relatively firmly established (for a quick overview, see wikipedia).

I agree with this.  The problem I have, however, is in combining this with the idea of mutation to create a theory of evolution.  How can mutations that are supposed to be random be guaranteed to bring about beneficial change?  By Natural Selection, you say.  Well then, what is to say that those same mutations won't reoccur later down the line?

Nothing. Mutations, by their definition, are random.

Why does there seem to be an overall trend of what we would call advancement or progressiveness in increasing complexity?

Here we go. Science debate 101: Cite proof. Give examples of increasing complexity.

Any designer will tell you that the more complex something is, the LESS likely it is to run efficiently, the LESS likely it may survive.

Well, thing is, lifeforms aren't designed. Also, evolution does not work that way. If increased complexity increases the fitness of a species, then you get increased complexity.

Furthermore, I find the whole argument itself to be rather circular.  "The Environment changes to better meet the needs of the changing environment."  WTF?  Plus, this does nothing to account for the onset of what we call sentience, consciousness.

First, you got the argument wrong. Species change to meet the needs of surviving in a changing environment. And second, as I said before, if an increase in complexity in one area yields an increase in overall fitness, then that is what is going to happen. The development of higher-level response mechanisms in hominids allowed them to increase their adaptability for a range of environments. As a result, they were able to colonize an entire planet.

Also, to Jr2's point:  Slashdot posted an article about a year back stating, essentially, that radioactive decay is not the universal constant that it was once thought to be.  In fact, radioactive decay on Earth has to do with the Earth's distance from the sun.  How trippy is that?

As the wiki says, [Citation needed]. Posts on /. are not a good reference.

[karajorma]

For example, everyone everywhere believes for some reason or another that there is a "right" way to live and a "wrong" way.  There is no "naturalistic" explanation for this. For example, if two people were walking, and were mugged at gunpoint, it would be considered selfish and wrong for one man to leave his friend to become a victim instead of staying and helping him fight off the attacker.  In this instance, the "herd instinct" and the "self-preservation instinct" are in conflict.  Something else, something entirely different than any inborn instinct, causes us to choose one of these two instinctual responses as being a more just course of action.  Why?  This is not to say that everyone, everywhere, proscribes to an identical moral code.  But we ALL do proscribe to SOME moral code, and we all readily admit to the fact that we CANNOT, no matter how hard we try, live up to our own ideal behavior. 

For once you have made a testable claim.

If the same behaviour can be observed in chimps would you agree that your logic is flawed or that chimps must possess a soul too?

[G0atmaster]

Very good question.  I suppose I must also state that I believe that, as the Bible claims, we are God's "masterpiece." His work of highest value.  Now I also believe that the greater the "stuff" we are made of, the better, or worse, we can be.  An amoeba cannot be very evil, nor can it be very good.  A dog, on the other hand, can be vicious or nice.  A human can be Hitler or Mother Theresa.  Chimps obviously fall in there somewhere, and as a close genetic match to humans, I would say that they are a creature that has an essence that closely resembles a human soul.

Yet, they are not set apart like you or I. They do not contain within them the "pneuma" of God.

[newman]

I don't always have enough faith to believe some random internet dude that Google points me to.

I also like how you answered after a whole 6 mins, while doing a google search... did you even read my whole post or did you just zone in on that one thing so you could make a snide remark?

I was just posting something informative. I posted after I saw the post. I wasn't trying to be snide or anything. I'm sorry if you thought otherwise, but that's entirely your problem. And no, I didn't bother reading your entire post - I'm at work and was just taking a short break - I didn't have time to wade through all of that. Of course, posting in a topic you didn't read in it's entirety is usually a bad idea and that part is entirely my bad. I saw the age of earth thing and thought maybe some hard data on it could be helpful, so no need to go on a Crusade here.

Respect is a 2 way street, good sir.

Actually, respect is earned. Given as how we both just learned of each other's existence, respect is probably a bit much to expect right now. In the mean time, however, some good, old fashioned politeness usually does the trick nicely. A good start would be not assuming everyone's having a go at you when they're not.