God exists [Archive] - SciForums.com

(L)

07-09-03, 08:49 AM

"What created God? You argue that we are to complex to be from evolution, but I would think that god is infinitely more complex than a simple human. It must have taken a God God to make it!"

God wasnt created. He always existed and he will always exist.

"Couldn't you see religion being created as an answer for what we don't understand?"

We dont understand many things, but is it true that 20 000 years humanity is going in wrong way, i mean
20 000 years we belive in something that actually doesnt exist ?

"It's hard to just accept that you are no more once you die, so we make ourselves believe that we will be reincarnated, or that we will pass a test with St. Peter and play cloud shuffleboard for all eternity."

I agree, but thats lameness of people. St. Peter and other were, no doubt, great people, but things like, reincarnation,
hell, heaven, eternity, are just product of peoples imagination.Because they`re afraid to die...

"I just think that for humanity as a whole we will move past this part of human history and start to actually look and see what's out there instead of believing what people 3000 years ago told us about the universe."

I dont think humans will ever figure out universe.Some things are just to big for our minds.
People in Bible werent talking about Universe. You dont know how to read Bible.
If you read "God created Universe in 7 days", that doesnt mean that he actually did that in 7 days, 7 days are just a
symbol for something.You dont read Bible as you read Lord of the Rings.

"One more point, if God is all knowing, all powerful and without time then he knows everything that has happen and everything that will happen. Wouldn't you say that we are talking about destiny? If there is destiny then God just fooled you in to thinking that you have free will."

If God is all knowing, all powerful and without time, and he knows everything that has happened, and that will happen,
it is not neccesary that he is playing with us like with toys.He simply lets us to have free will.

"If God loves to create then what was he doing before he made us?"

Universe is really complicated. Is there more than one Universe ?

"If I could give God a present, I would give him a surprise."

You wouldnt, because he would know what is your present.

Ectropic

07-09-03, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by (L)
God wasnt created. He always existed and he will always exist.
I think that the Universe always existed and has always existed. There is no need for a god.

We dont understand many things, but is it true that 20 000 years humanity is going in wrong way, i mean 20 000 years we belive in something that actually doesnt exist ?
Correct.

I agree, but thats lameness of people. St. Peter and other were, no doubt, great people, but things like, reincarnation,
hell, heaven, eternity, are just product of peoples imagination.Because they`re afraid to die...
But most religions teach that you have to believe in what they are telling you to get in to heaven. Not to mention repenting sins and hoping you make it to church before you die with a sin on your back.

I dont think humans will ever figure out universe.Some things are just to big for our minds. People in Bible werent talking about Universe. You dont know how to read Bible. If you read "God created Universe in 7 days", that doesnt mean that he actually did that in 7 days, 7 days are just a symbol for something.You dont read Bible as you read Lord of the Rings.
I understand that you have to read teh symbolism in the bible. If you really believe that too then you can see that the bible is giving us poor saps a father figure to keep us under control. I'm not a conspiracy nut or anything like that, but I can see how rulers would benefit from a book like the Bible being worshipped. People are easier to control when eterninty in a fiery pit is at stake.

If God is all knowing, all powerful and without time, and he knows everything that has happened, and that will happen,
it is not neccesary that he is playing with us like with toys.He simply lets us to have free will.
You cannot have free will when the future is already determined. I might as well just lay around and do nothing because the same thing will happen no matter what I do.

Universe is really complicated. Is there more than one Universe ?
I don't know. Yes? Is there more than one God? How many universes are enough for God to create? Does that mean that humans aren't special at all? Does that hean that God gave a son to every civilization in all of infinity? I think that the if that were true this phrase would be in the bible for John 3:16 and maybe not too many goof balls at monster truck rallys would hold up signs telling us to read it.

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave one out of his infinite supply of Sons, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

You wouldnt, because he would know what is your present.
Yeah, that was a joke....

Cris

07-09-03, 10:52 AM

L,

Welcome to sciforums.

Some quick notes.

We don’t know what caused the BB.

We don’t know if the BB is the only BB or if it is just one within an infinite number of BBs.

If you argue for cause and effect then you must explain who caused God and the creator of the creator of the creator etc. Otherwise you may as well say the universe is infinite and hence there is no need for a creator god.

The evolutionary processes that gave rise to humans do explain how complexity arises from simpler states. There is no evidence that anything complex was ever designed by anything intelligent.

Primitive peoples created the idea of a god because they were ignorant about the laws of physics and didn’t know any better.

As science makes progress fewer and fewer people believe the superstitions of religion.

Without proof of god all you have is a worthless imaginative fantasy equal in value to leprechauns, fairies, and Santa Claus.

There is every reason not to believe in gods since it is a total waste to time that people could be using to solve real problems.

Zero Mass

07-09-03, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by (L)
You were talking about santa claus, aliens...But anyway what makes God different from them ?

Nothing, god, santa, aliens visiting Earth, ghosts, pyschics, loch ness monster, faith healing, and big foot are all myths created by the irrational, illogical, "magic" part of out mind. The same parts of the human brain believes in superstitions.
God was created by man to fulfill his inadequacies about human existence. God is the ultimate myth, the end all answer to the life we live.
“Why do people die? Why did the volcano erupt? Why do good things happen to bad people?” All can be simply answered by one unifying thought process- There is an all-powerful, all-knowing invisible force that bends his will over the cosmos. He has reasons for everything that happens in your life.
God is used to control people, “If you are good in this life, then you will be eternally rewarded in the afterlife.”
God is comforting, to have a God looking out for you makes you feel protected and safe.
God is only in our minds. It is a myth.

Originally posted by (L)
But lets go back to big bang.What caused "Big Bang" ? When you are playing at home with explosive devices, you have to
do something to cause explosion.Nothing happens without "cause". God is "cause" of everything.

I believe some of the other sciforumers answered this question very well. First off, the Big bang might be a circular process, and then there is always the “what created god” argument. Although I have already answered that- Man’s over active and fragile mind created god.

Originally posted by (L)
Just try to figure out what gave you the power, to be the way you are (probably highly intelligent creature).
Billions years ago there were only very primitive forms of life on Earth. Today, around us we see extremly complicated
forms of life.

The theory of evolution more than explains how we can get from simple to complex life forms, no outside force is needed

Originally posted by (L)
Is "mother nature" enough powerful to do that ? No.

Originally posted by (L)
20 000 - 30 000 years ago, people in caves, were drawing some things wich were presenting God.

Yes, the idea was assuring and mainly played into the “magic” side of our primitive minds

Originally posted by (L)
They were enough smart to figure out that out there,there is something more powerful than them.Only retarded primitives
werent able to notice that.
And today we still belive in It.

No they were not. I don’t know about you, you dumb retarded primitive, but I like to think that I am smarter than my cave-dwelling ancestors. Today we still believe because we have to hold on to our superstitions of yesteryear even though science has given us significant information in order to go past most modern myths.

Originally posted by (L)
And he exists.Altough we can not prove that, but we also can not prove that he does not exist.
And yeah, why did God created Universe ?
Because God loves to create.And he gave us that, power to create.

Myth, myth, myth. Something that cannot be proven to exist, does not exist. My reasoning is much more sound, man created god to explain away the details of life. My theory is more sound that a omnipotent creator that is impossible to see, hear or taste (thanks DJSupreme)

Originally posted by (L)
You dont tell him " Killing people is bad,my son!". But anyway as he is older, he realises that "killing is bad" .
Why ?
Because he is here to create, not to destroy, and God gave him that power.

No, I think the millions of people who have died at the end of a smoking gun would disagree with that statement.

Originally posted by (L)
There is no reason to not belive in God, you cannot lose anything, and if he exists, better for you.
Sorry on bad english.

This is a very bad reason to abandon reason and embrace superstition. The “If I’m wrong then none’s to blame, If you’re wrong you burn in hell” argument. Thanks, but no thanks idiot.
-ZERO MASS

VitalOne

07-09-03, 04:07 PM

Time to argue once again.......

The theory of evolution more than explains how we can get from simple to complex life forms, no outside force is needed

True, but the theory of evolution doesn't explain why things mutate (randomness) , why things are programmed to survive, reproduce, fear death, and why chemicals work the way they do (the explanation is that they just do).

God is only in our minds. It is a myth.

It is only what is in our minds that exists,

Something that cannot be proven to exist, does not exist.

Then nothing exists ;)

Every superstitution or legend starts from somewhere , a fairy could've been started from a fire fly or something, Santa Claus started from some fat kind guy, so god had to come from somewhere. It is not natural for humans to think of a more powerful higher being. Imagination? Perhaps, but almost every legend started from somewhere.

Zero Mass

07-09-03, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by VitalOne
True, but the theory of evolution doesn't explain why things mutate (randomness) , why things are programmed to survive, reproduce, fear death, and why chemicals work the way they do (the explanation is that they just do).

The theory does explain all that and more (except for the chemical thing, which is a branch of science called CHEMISTRY, under the theory of evolution that information is taken as truth as it deals with another branch of science.) Also chemicals just work because they do? Have you ever taken chemistry in school? Its much more complicated than that genius. Gravity just works? Does that mean god did it? No.
Mutation, or randomness, is the main basis (although not the entirety) of the theory of evolution. Mutation provides for diversification within a species, which provides for adaptability within an ecosphere, which helps to protect the species survival in a harsh and changing environment, like the planet Earth.
Why things are programmed to survive is simple, the will to survive is created with the will to procreate. That ties in with the will to mutate and grow as a species. The reason that an animal changes is so it is the best possible variation for its environment, so their numbers will flourish and they will not become extinct. The will to survive come out of this need to adapt in order to overcome adversity.

Have you ever studied the theory of evolution? Because your questioning an area of science without significant prior study makes you look stupid.

Originally posted by VitalOne
It is only what is in our minds that exists,

That is a question for the philosophy section.
Does the observable need an observer, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there the hear it, does it make a sound?

I am talking about the existence of corporal things (you and I, your computer, a tree) that can be observed and proven to exist in the natural world. Gods and other supernatural phenomenon do not fit under this category.
God is outside the sphere of human knowledge, and so I consider myself academically agnostic, although my beliefs and keen sense of logic (razor-sharp logic) steer me towards atheism.

Originally posted by VitalOne
Every superstittion or legend starts from somewhere , a fairy could've been started from a fire fly or something, Santa Claus started from some fat kind guy, so god had to come from somewhere. It is not natural for humans to think of a more powerful higher being. Imagination? Perhaps, but almost every legend started from somewhere.

Wow, your logical reasoning is about as sharp as fetid cheese. Where did you come up with this theory of all stupid superstitions having a reasonable basis? Even if five million superstitions had such a basis, does that mean that ever-single legend has a basis? No, so your point is moot.
God does come from somewhere; it comes from the frail human psyche that demands explanation for what it cannot understand. Gods, and a number of other superstitions also come from a part of our brain that wishes the impossible to be true, a "magic" side of the human brain that is leftovers from our ape-like ancestors.
Every legend did start somewhere; it was normally a natural occurring phenomenon that was given a supernatural explanation because the natural sciences could not explain it.

Where did that thunderclap come from??? Gods are bowling
Where did my green bowler go??? A dirty leprechaun must have stole it.
This problem persists into our modern age:
What set off the big bang? What sparked life from the primordial soup?
If science cannot explain a factual event or occurrence, then the answer is inexorably placed on God, we as humans still believe in hogwash superstitions, but in no way does that make them real or offer them any validity.
Some people believe eating watermelon seeds makes them grow in your stomach, some people thought the moon was made of cheese...blahblahblah. Some people believe in god, I still don't see any reason to believe in something that does not exist.

-ZERO MASS

Persol

07-09-03, 05:20 PM

Once again Cris shows why the argument fails, and it is just ignored.

Bridge

07-09-03, 05:34 PM

Cris wrote: "As science makes progress fewer and fewer people believe the superstitions of religion."

I humbly disagree.

First of all they're only superstitions to you and like thinkers. Religion doesn't discount one's intelligence. A good number of scientists today are theists. Many of the best minds in scientific history were theists. Many religious people who believe in the theory of evolution do so with one caveat--- they do not accept that the universe and life in general, in all of its immensity and complexity, is the product of a ridiculously impossible number of permutations and combinations all based on chance and coincidence.

The average person doesn't look at a new scientific discovery and say to themselves, "Oh no, that's it, God is dead!"

If your claim is true then I would like to see the corroborating statistics to prove it. Bring it on babe.

Scientific progress has nothing to say about issues of ultimate origin, meaning, or morality. For such answers, science is dependent on the values and personal beliefs of those who use it. Science, therefore, has great potential for both good and evil. It can be used to make vaccines or poisons, nuclear power plants or nuclear weapons. It can be used to clean up the environment or to pollute it. It can be used to argue for God or against Him. Science by itself offers no moral guidance or values to govern our lives. All science can do is show us how natural law works, while telling us nothing about its origins.

Oh, but I forgot, this forum is home to the anti-God squad. :rolleyes: Carry on. :eek:

//drift

07-09-03, 05:46 PM

There is no reason to not belive in God, you cannot lose anything, and if he exists, better for you.
aah, good ol' pascal's wager, hmm?
But if god is all-knowing, then aren't people sticking to this going to have a little bit of trouble explaining their disgustingly selfish 'belief' once they step up to the pearly gates? If you try to believe because if it's all true you'll be better off than if you didn't, doesn't that make you a coward? And won't god see through this and punish you? (I don't think (L) implied that they do use this reasoning for their beliefs, just those that do, I suppose they must be out there for Pascal's wager to be so popular.)
pah.

And he gave us that, power to create.
But really we just rearrange.

Nothing happens without "cause". God is "cause" of everything.

What caused "Big Bang" ?
This seems to be what your average thiest argument boils down to, and i've heard it enough times to make me want to vomit.

HOOWWW can you Possibly talk about cause in Pre-existence/universe terms??????? Pre-universe (if there was even a beginning), there would not have been laws that exist in the current universe. The idea of cause/time/creation pre-'big bang' seems nonsensical to me. I don't even see pre-BB ideas as worth bothering with, as because we DO [apparently] exist, how can you even begin to speculate realistically as to what came before laws of existance and Being ('before' wouldn't even apply, as there will have been no progression of 'moments').
bAaah
:mad: ROARRrr:mad:

VitalOne

07-09-03, 05:46 PM

The theory does explain all that and more (except for the chemical thing, which is a branch of science called CHEMISTRY,

Chemistry explains that chemicals try to become noble gases, it explains that the chemicals want to become stable, it does not explain why they want to become stable (noble gases), where or how all of the elements were created. The need of the need is unknown.

Mutation, or randomness, is the main basis (although not the entirety) of the theory of evolution. Mutation provides for diversification within a species, which provides for adaptability within an ecosphere, which helps to protect the species survival in a harsh and changing environment, like the planet Earth.

Evolution explains how things mutate and what it causes (substitutions, deletetions, insertions) but not why it occurs, it is simply a random act and randomly happens according to evolution.

Why things are programmed to survive is simple, the will to survive is created with the will to procreate. That ties in with the will to mutate and grow as a species. The reason that an animal changes is so it is the best possible variation for its environment, so their numbers will flourish and they will not become extinct. The will to survive come out of this need to adapt in order to overcome adversity.

You basically said, things survive because they want to reproduce. Does that explain why they want to reproduce? No it doesn't , at all. They survive to keep their species alive. That doesn't explain why they want to keep their species alive. If you can't explain why they want to reproduce, then you can't explain the reason for survival (since the reason is to reproduce).

"The reason that an animal changes is so it is the best possible variation for its environment" thats wrong, an animal mutates randomly, and its mutation can either be good or bad. If its mutation is better, then it will survive and flourish, if its mutation is worse, it will die out. It doesn't will itself to evolve and evolve.

Have you ever studied the theory of evolution? Because your questioning an area of science without significant prior study makes you look stupid.

I have , and I do have prior knowledge. You're the one that seems to not have prior knowledge.

Wow, your logical reasoning is about as sharp as fetid cheese. Where did you come up with this theory of all stupid superstitions having a reasonable basis?

I didn't, I never even stated that they had a reasonable basis. I'm just saying that everything comes from something. You said "Where did that thunderclap come from??? Gods are bowling " the idea of gods are bowling came from a thunderclap.

Persol

07-09-03, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Bridge
Scientific progress has nothing to say about issues of ultimate origin, meaning, or morality.
Very good. I accept that science is not good in these areas. I also completely accept your belief in a religion that sticks to these areas. However, no religion does this.

Science, therefore, has great potential for both good and evil.
As does religion, and anything else that requires people to believe without reason.

All science can do is show us how natural law works, while telling us nothing about its origins.
Fine, but this 'ultimate origin' would, ultimately, be before the big bang or whatever else we find. Therefore, don't complain when we disagree when you say something about the here and now which is just plain false.

Zero Mass

07-09-03, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Bridge
First of all they're only superstitions to you and like thinkers. Religion doesn't discount one's intelligence. A good number of scientists today are theists. Many of the best minds in scientific history were theists. Many religious people who believe in the theory of evolution do so with one caveat--- they do not accept that the universe and life in general, in all of its immensity and complexity, is the product of a ridiculously impossible number of permutations and combinations all based on chance and coincidence.

You don't have to be superstitious to believe in god, but like all people who believe in the supernatural, you have to suspend reason and reality, and the same thing happens when a person believes in a superstition.
Many scientists are theists; science has nothing to do with myth however. You cannot prove or disprove something that is supernatural, you can however rationalize that because you cannot prove it to exist, then it probably does not exist-like god.

Scientists who believe in intelligent design are not very intelligent. There is no proof, no logical reason, and oodles of information on the contrary.
Please do not make me repeat myself on the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by Bridge
The average person doesn't look at a new scientific discovery and say to themselves, "Oh no, that's it, God is dead!"

They should if the scientific discovery discounts what god had previously explained. Like creationism, the theory of evolution destroyed creationism, which is a major part of the intelligent design theory. When creationism was destroyed (and it was, thoroughly) there was more than enough reason to not believe in god. Evolution provides an answer to the "How did we get here?" question that before had been in the corner of creationism and religion. So I think that Nietzsche had a right to proclaim that after Darwin published his theory.

Originally posted by Bridge
If your claim is true then I would like to see the corroborating statistics to prove it. Bring it on babe.

Are you denying the fact that a greater percentage of people are atheist today than they were before the theory of evolution? I will hunt for the statistics if you want, but that is common sense.

Originally posted by Bridge
Scientific progress has nothing to say about issues of ultimate origin, meaning, or morality. For such answers, science is dependent on the values and personal beliefs of those who use it. Science, therefore, has great potential for both good and evil. It can be used to make vaccines or poisons, nuclear power plants or nuclear weapons.

Ultimate Origin: It has figured out how human life came into existence (QED, theory of evolution)
Meaning and Morality: These are both totally human constructs based primarily on emotion and not reason/logic, thus they do not fall under the category of science. They are more Philosophical points, and religious philosophers (Like Jesus Christ) have made progress in defining our lives through thought.

Science is not dangerous because it is dependent upon values and personal beliefs; it is actually, in part by definition, very independent of such virtues.
Science is not influenced by good and evil, human beings who use science are influenced by that two-headed viper. Who uses the poison and the nuclear bomb? -Humans

Originally posted by Bridge It can be used to clean up the environment or to pollute it. It can be used to argue for God or against Him. Science by itself offers no moral guidance or values to govern our lives. All science can do is show us how natural law works, while telling us nothing about its origins.

No, science has told us where human life came from, and I agree with you on the fact that it does not in any way produce mores and values, although it does directly influence life and the way we determine to govern our lives. Science can only tell us about the natural world, correct.
It tells us that it is highly unlikely that god exists, so should we live our lives according to a myth? No. Trying to push science away in order to promote religion doesn't work because the two have nothing to do with each other.

Originally posted by Bridge
Oh, but I forgot, this forum is home to the anti-God squad. :rolleyes: Carry on. :eek:

Where do I sign up for this squad? I want to be the parliamentarian

-ZERO MASS

Zero Mass

07-09-03, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by VitalOne
Chemistry explains that chemicals try to become noble gases, it explains that the chemicals want to become stable, it does not explain why they want to become stable (noble gases), where or how all of the elements were created. The need of the need is unknown.

The most stable energy form normally means less energy, and less energy is the "desired" state that the universe tends to favor. But like I said, that is certifiably independent from Evolution.

Originally posted by VitalOne
Evolution explains how things mutate and what it causes (substitutions, deletetions, insertions) but not why it occurs, it is simply a random act and randomly happens according to evolution.

No it is not all randomness. The theory (If you have read it, which I doubt like snow in the Sahara) states that random selection is the method used by Evolution to effect changes in species, but it is adaptability to surrounding that makes a species survive.
It occurs because there is a need to change with the environment, which is constantly changing (tides, seasons, ice ages, continental drift). If the world were the same everywhere and unchanging, then it is quite possible that we would never have evolved at all.

Originally posted by VitalOne
You basically said, things survive because they want to reproduce. Does that explain why they want to reproduce? No it doesn’t, at all. They survive to keep their species alive. That doesn't explain why they want to keep their species alive. If you can't explain why they want to reproduce, then you can't explain the reason for survival (since the reason is to reproduce).

They want to reproduce to ensure the survival of the species, if you go back (theoretically) to the first organism ever, then maybe it didn't have this common animal drive, maybe it was just chance. But whatever the case, over the millennia, the will to survive and reproduce has evolved.

Originally posted by VitalOne
"The reason that an animal changes is so it is the best possible variation for its environment" thats wrong, an animal mutates randomly, and its mutation can either be good or bad. If its mutation is better, then it will survive and flourish, if its mutation is worse, it will die out. It doesn't will itself to evolve and evolve.

No, I am right. The reason that animals mutate is to try to make a better (i.e. more adaptable) version of its former self. If it is more adaptable, then it flourishes, if it doesn't then it goes the way of the dodo. I think that is what I meant even if I didn't type it.

Originally posted by VitalOne
I have , and I do have prior knowledge. You're the one that seems to not have prior knowledge.

Have you read Darwin? I have.

Originally posted by VitalOne
I didn't, I never even stated that they had a reasonable basis. I'm just saying that everything comes from something. You said, "Where did that thunderclap come from??? Gods are bowling " the idea of gods are bowling came from a thunderclap.

But since the superstition is what is not true, but an illogical basis for a natural occurrence, why attribute the natural world to the supernatural idea of god?

-ZERO MASS

fuzztam

07-09-03, 07:14 PM

get a life u tree huging hippies:D :m: THERE IS NO GOD science proov everything, i'll tell u hhwat. any one can proove me wrong.. bring it on

Bridge

07-09-03, 07:22 PM

You don't have to be superstitious to believe in god, but like all people who believe in the supernatural, you have to suspend reason and reality, and the same thing happens when a person believes in a superstition.

How much of reality is determined within the beholders mind?Hawkings didn't suspend his reason and logic when he wrote "A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME" wherein he described black holes and other space oddities. To the best of my knowledge no one has seen a black hole but I'm quite sure you readily believe in them anyhow.

Scientists who believe in intelligent design are not very intelligent. There is no proof, no logical reason, and oodles of information on the contrary.

I guess your academic credentials must be pretty impressive.

Please do not make me repeat myself on the theory of evolution.

Why? Is there anything worth repeating?

Evolution provides an answer to the "How did we get here?"

I'm all ears and eyes....how did we get here?

Are you denying the fact that a greater percentage of people are atheist today than they were before the theory of evolution? I will hunt for the statistics if you want, but that is common sense.

No, I'm saying scientific discoveries, have not and are not persuading people in significant numbers to discard their faith. I'm open to reviewing the statistics if you wish to prove otherwise. Keep in mind people can make statistics say whatever they want them to; if you weren't religious or spiritually inclined to begin with that's a different story, then science may substitute faith in that individual's life.

No, science has told us where human life came from
and I agree with you on the fact that it does not in any way produce mores and values, although it does directly influence life and the way we determine to govern our lives. Science can only tell us about the natural world, correct.
It tells us that it is highly unlikely that god exists, so should we live our lives according to a myth? No. Trying to push science away in order to promote religion doesn't work because the two have nothing to do with each other.

I have yet to read any scientific abstracts or journals which have statistically concluded one way or the other about God's existence. I'm not pushing science away, you're trying to tell us science has answered all our questions and I can't disagree more strongly.

Our universe and life in general is all about contrasts and opposites. Light versus darkness, heat vs. cold, ying and yang, good and evil, life and death. General relativity shows that under certain reasonable assumptions, an expanding universe like ours must have begun as a singularity. Will science determine what "was" before that singularity? Scientific and theological inquiries run parallel courses in the pursuit of satisfying that answer.

Persol

07-09-03, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Bridge
How much of reality is determined within the beholders mind?Hawkings didn't suspend his reason and logic when he wrote "A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME" wherein he described black holes and other space oddities.
The difference is that Hawking's opinions were based on scientific observation, and are falsifiable. (IE: we can eventually tell if he was right) He also fully admitted that he may be wrong, and in some cases was.

To the best of my knowledge no one has seen a black hole but I'm quite sure you readily believe in them anyhow.
We have seen the direct results of them... which is more then can be said of God.

No, I'm saying scientific discoveries, have not and are not persuading people in significant numbers to discard their faith.
I havce to agree with you here. I know of people who did change their mind based on what they learned... but that does not seem to be the majority.

I have yet to read any scientific abstracts or journals which have statistically concluded one way or the other about God's existence.
You can not statistically put a number on the existence of god any more then you can the existence of an invisible pink unicorn. It is pointless to try and support something that has no proof or impact on your life.

Our universe and life in general is all about contrasts and opposites. Light versus darkness, heat vs. cold, ying and yang, good and evil, life and death.
Clasic over simplification. People only percieve life in this way because that is how they were taught the world worked.

General relativity shows that under certain reasonable assumptions, an expanding universe like ours must have begun as a singularity. Will science determine what "was" before that singularity?
Actually GR doesn't, but science may be capable of saying what was before the big bang (not soon though).

Scientific and theological inquiries run parallel courses in the pursuit of satisfying that answer.
Hell with being parallel. They are in completely different domains. One deals with predicting the future (science), on deals with predicting things humans will never see (faith).

Bridge

07-09-03, 08:04 PM

The difference is that Hawking's opinions were based on scientific observation, and are falsifiable. (IE: we can eventually tell if he was right) He also fully admitted that he may be wrong, and in some cases was.

We hope we can eventually tell if he was right.

We have seen the direct results of them... which is more then can be said of God.

That's an opinion you're entitled to hold. My opinion differs slightly: Everything you see is a direct result of God including the blackholes you've never seen.

I havce to agree with you here. I know of people who did change their mind based on what they learned... but that does not seem to be the majority.

I appreciate your candor and honesty.

You can not statistically put a number on the existence of god any more then you can the existence of an invisible pink unicorn. It is pointless to try and support something that has no proof or impact on your life.

Yeah, that's what I was implying too with exception of that last part about impacting your life. What the heck is it with unicorn's and santa clauses ever time God gets dragged into the debate? ;)

Clasic over simplification. People only percieve life in this way because that is how they were taught the world worked.

Life was meant to be simple, we tend to do our complicating.

Actually GR doesn't, but science may be capable of saying what was before the big bang (not soon though).

According to Hawkings it does, but that's not my forte. String Theory dabbles into what may as well be labelled supernatural.

Hell with being parallel. They are in completely different domains. One deals with predicting the future (science), on deals with predicting things humans will never see (faith)

Einstein said it best: "Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind."

mountainhare

07-09-03, 08:54 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not make me repeat myself on the theory of evolution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? Is there anything worth repeating?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evolution provides an answer to the "How did we get here?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
I'm all ears and eyes....how did we get here?

Bridge, there is a bit of a problem here.
Do you know why evolution is not worth repeating? Because fundamental christains don't bother listening to the explaination. They have an opinion beforehand. They are stubborn and have their 'faith'. Therefore, it is a waste of my (and others) time to try and explain it. A leopard can't change its spots.

But, I'll give you a brief summary.
Big Bang
Chemicals combine
Cell formed
Cell evolves into complex life.

Maybe you should try showing some REAL interest in evolution. Go and read a book about evolution or the true origin of the universe. Maybe "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins would be a good start.

No, I'm saying scientific discoveries, have not and are not persuading people in significant numbers to discard their faith

Actually, it has. God is becoming unnecessary. God is dead.

General relativity shows that under certain reasonable assumptions, an expanding universe like ours must have begun as a singularity.

Does it really? I think you should give us an explaination, and post your references. Just so we know that you aren't taking them out of context.

Yeah, that's what I was implying too with exception of that last part about impacting your life. What the heck is it with unicorn's and santa clauses ever time God gets dragged into the debate?

Unicorns = No evidence. Do you believe?
Santa = No evidence. Do you believe?
God = No evidence. If you don't believe in unicorns or santa, why do you believe in God?

Einstein said it best: "Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind."

I disagree. Look at Creationism. That is science with religion, and it makes a mockery of science.

Zero Mass

07-10-03, 09:59 AM

Top notch mountainhare, you said just about everything I wanted to say to Bridge.
There is no middle ground between science and religion, and there shouldn't be because the two are completely different.

-ZERO MASS

Bridge

07-10-03, 10:20 AM

Dear mountainhare:

I'm not a fundamentalist so feel free to go into more detail. Interestingly enough you made two comments which I feel apply just as easily to those who unflinchingly accept Universal Darwinism as an explanantion for our origins.

They have an opinion beforehand. They are stubborn and have their 'faith'.

Everybody has an opinion. Just because some Christian fundies ignore mainstream science and believe in a young earth, etc. is no reason to give up on them. They just don't know how to reconcile some faith issues. Perhaps if you told them that all truth is God's truth then you'd have a platform to change their way of thinking. I'd submit that none of us truly knows the answers to these questions so we at least have some common thread there.

Allow me to make another observation about your synopsis of creation:

"But, I'll give you a brief summary."

Indeed! Very brief!

"Big Bang"

Yeah, those big bangs, don't you just love 'em? Heeheheheee, seriously though, reading Hawkings and other books, exploring the question with others involved in astronomy, one can't help but become a little humbled by the scope of things. The Big Bang shouldn't conflict with creationists in my opinion, but apparently I'm wrong.

Christians believe God spoke creation into "being"......when you get down beyond the electrons, protons and neutrons scientists have theorized the existence of "quarks" and "strings". Strings vibrate in 10-dimensional space. Your basic vibration is acoustic is it not? Vocal? Hello? Alright, anyway it's just a thought.

"Chemicals combine"

Study up young Padiwan. The Miller-Urey experiments didn't create life. Pastuer's experiments disproved spontaneous generation. Seems to me alot of people are putting some heavy faith in miracles based on "chance".

"Cell formed"

Ah! Perhaps this is the famed "LUCA*" Darwinists so foundly speak of? (*Last Universal Common Ancestor) Just realize science has not established empirical evidence if life started from a parokyotic or eukaryotic source. Again, add some faith that this will all be resolved but also rest assured it is not at this time, hence the theory of evolution remains theory.

"Cell evolves into complex life."

Cells are complex life in and of themselves. Minature marvels. Too bad no one can figure out how the heck they got that way. Chance enters the picture again.

Maybe you should try showing some REAL interest in evolution. Go and read a book about evolution or the true origin of the universe. Maybe "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins would be a good start.

Maybe you should get an attitude adjustment. I've spent the last 5 or 6 years doing just that. Dawkin's book was a good read, very entertaining. His spiritualism is like that of a Christian only the object of his worship is a combination of natural selection and blind chance. I can understand the affection towards natural selection, but the faith in chance is so unscientific. I pity the man actually. The existing evidence for the creative power of natural selection is somewhere between weak and non-existent. Artificial selection of fruit flies or domestic animals produces limited change within the species, but tells us nothing about how insects and mammals came into existence in the first place. No one denies changes occur. That ToE explains many things is correct. That it explains our origins is wishful thinking.

Actually, it has. God is becoming unnecessary. God is dead.

Maybe for you He is. Thank God you have a choice in the matter.

Does it really? I think you should give us an explaination, and post your references. Just so we know that you aren't taking them out of context.

Stephen Hawkings, "A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME". Read it yourself Mr. Know-it-all with an attitude.

I disagree. Look at Creationism. That is science with religion, and it makes a mockery of science.

Actually, some of them make a mockery of themselves.

Sefter

07-10-03, 10:37 AM

I claim otherwise. It is actually unsurprising that we are here after 5 billion years of evolution. Given that there is only 6000 years of recorded history, we can guess that humans have been around for 7000-8000 years. Now if we assume that the age of reproduction (nearer the beginning because there was no contraception etc) was around 15 fifteen years old, then that means there have only been around four hundred and sixty six generations since then. This is assuming that humans have been here for seven thousand years, and it does not even take into account the fact that from a certain age (time-period) contraception was widely available which could make this figure significantly smaller. Can anyone see evolution taking us from monkeys to what we are today in four hundred generations? I know it's possible and that we must have been humans already seven thousand years ago, so nothing says that much evolution has occured since then, just that we have been humans since then.

VitalOne

07-10-03, 11:38 AM

Zero Mass,

No it is not all randomness. The theory (If you have read it, which I doubt like snow in the Sahara) states that random selection is the method used by Evolution to effect changes in species, but it is adaptability to surrounding that makes a species survive. It occurs because there is a need to change with the environment, which is constantly changing (tides, seasons, ice ages, continental drift). If the world were the same everywhere and unchanging, then it is quite possible that we would never have evolved at all.

With the exception of X-rays, Cosmic rays and Nuclear radiation mutations are all caused by Random chemical reactions in the cell. You're right about some stuff though, if the world was never changing, nothing would ever happen, nothing would move so nothing would evolve (this is kind of obvious...). If you mean that the environment is constant, then you're wrong, mutations would still occur since X-Rays, Cosmic rays, Nuclear radiation, and random chemical actions would still be there.

The most stable energy form normally means less energy, and less energy is the "desired" state that the universe tends to favor. But like I said, that is certifiably independent from Evolution.

Your explanation is the universe tends to favor less energy, thats really scientific. The universe just favors things to happen, no reason why it just favors it. Chemical reactions have nothing to do with evolution? Wait, they do have A LOT to do with evolution...

They want to reproduce to ensure the survival of the species, if you go back (theoretically) to the first organism ever, then maybe it didn't have this common animal drive, maybe it was just chance. But whatever the case, over the millennia, the will to survive and reproduce has evolved.

Still no explanation to why organisms want to reproduce to ensure the survival of the species, "...maybe it was just chance..." . That sounds pretty scientific to me (sarcasm)..... There is no debate to whether the will to survive and reproduce has evolved, the debate is over why it wants to reproduce, survive, and keep its species alive.

No, I am right. The reason that animals mutate is to try to make a better (i.e. more adaptable) version of its former self. If it is more adaptable, then it flourishes, if it doesn't then it goes the way of the dodo. I think that is what I meant even if I didn't type it.

According to evolution thats wrong. There is no evidence that animals consciously/subconsciously mutate.

But since the superstition is what is not true, but an illogical basis for a natural occurrence, why attribute the natural world to the supernatural idea of god?

I was just saying that every superstitution comes from some idea..........

I haven't read Darwin's orgin of man, but some of his information is old and outdated, so I'd rather use modern sources instead of ancient ones....

If you don't believe me about the mutations thing, look at http://people.howstuffworks.com/evolution4.htm

Btw, you are supporting the idea of a designed universe.......

Mystee

07-10-03, 10:38 PM

Ok first the head stuff.

Mystee's theory of evolution/BB theory. Here's how I think it went. God said "let there be light" BOOOOOOOM there's the universe. God proceeds to make planets and raise land from the water of one particular planes called Earth. He then decides to create life. (This is why evolution looks so probable. Keep in mind this is just my theory there may be faults.) So God creates a cell, the first life. He takes a good hard look and sees that it is good. So he sticks a few together. Cool bacteria. He then continues to stick them together and design new ones crafting skillfully until there are WAY to many different kinds. So he decides to make a REALLY complex creature and give it free will so it can name them all. Ok that's just it's first task, the real job of the human is to live up to the image we were created in and love our creator.
As for the time line for all this. God said it was 7 days. Usually when someone said something took 7 days he means it took 7 days. The thing is, it was 7 days as we would perceive it. God is timeless he has and infinite amount of hours in a day. This also explains how he can be everywhere at once and how he can answer so many prayers.
Now this time thing brings up another issue that someone (I forget who) has constantly been bringing up. Ok so God can see the past present and further all at the same time. Why shouldn't He? He is God after all. So with the idea of free will verses predestination we have a bit of a conflict. The thing is that yes God knows what will happen to us. He knows that if we get in that car we are going to get in a accident or whatever, but that doesn't mean he is being cruel by not stopping us. For one thing we do have free will. Also we can kind of relate (Not really because we can't see all, but we can sort of get an idea) lets say for the sake of argument you are all women (bare with me). Ok you have a boy friend and a best friend. Boyfriend turns out to be a loser and a womanizer and he eventually dumps you. Your best friend is suddenly taken by him. She goes out with him and gets hurt the same way. Did you know what was going to happen (at least to some probability)? YES. But is it your fault she was hurt? NO. You see just because God knows something is going to happen doesn't mean he makes it happen. The future IS based on our choices. Just because God knew I was going to give my life to him a year and a week ago didn't mean he made me. If God was going to make us do stuff there wouldn't be people fighting over his existence and there would only be one religion. Don't you agree?

Ok now to the heart stuff.

One thing that is rarely mention on these threads is the idea that maybe God isn't all bad. Ok another example. Let's say for the sake of argument the there was a pair of perfect parents. What would they be like. Anyone with some maturity would agree that they would discipline occasionally. But why? Because the child would ultimately hurt himself. Why do parents stop young children from playing in the road? Because though the child doesn't understand and may even be angry at the parents, the parents just wanted to keep there child safe. If the child had gotten hit by a car and seen the consequences he would have wished he had listened to his parents. The thing is, even though you don't understand God's actions or his rules, He really does have your best interests in mind. And though you may not see the consequences in your life time there is REAL danger in living a godless life. We are all His creation, His children, and He doesn't want to see us hurt. My heart breaks for all of you who say you don't know God or seem to think God has betrayed you. Open your eyes and your heart He's still here, and He loves you. I know because he has given me a love for all of you that I don't quite understand yet.
Anyway I'm done. Sorry it's so long. Please take it to heart. I'm not crazy. I'm not deceive. And I'm not living a fantasy. If you've tried everything else this world has to offer why not give God a try. He's been waiting.

With more love than I can understand,

Mystee

Cris

07-11-03, 02:15 AM

Mystee,

God said "let there be light" BOOOOOOOM there's the universe.Why? How do you know? How do you know the universe isn’t infinite? How many big bangs have there been?

So God creates a cell, the first life. He takes a good hard look and sees that it is good.Why so much junk in the DNA though?

the real job of the human is to live up to the image we were created in and love our creator.Why?

and how he can answer so many prayers.Can you quote any important prayer he might have answered?

Ok so God can see the past present and further all at the same time. Why shouldn't He? He is God after all. So with the idea of free will verses predestination we have a bit of a conflict.This is true, they can’t coexist.

You see just because God knows something is going to happen doesn't mean he makes it happen. It does if he is the creator and the designer of everything.

The future IS based on our choices. Just because God knew I was going to give my life to him a year and a week ago didn't mean he made me.If he is omniscient then at the moment of creation he would know every action you are ever going to take, and every outcome. How then, since you didn’t exist at the time of the creation could you now claim your apparent choices are yours, since they were known long before you existed? They would be known before you make them which effectively means you were entirely destined to make those apparent choices, in reality you would have had no real choice, since if you could have chosen something different then God could not be omniscient.

Very simply if your choice is known long before you make it then it isn’t your choice, since you would be powerless to do anything else.

If you have real free will then God cannot be omniscient. If he is omniscient then you are just a mindless puppet in the hands of a monster.

If God was going to make us do stuff there wouldn't be people fighting over his existence and there would only be one religion. Don't you agree? If he is cruel enough to create horrendous diseases then I’m sure he is psychotic enough to play other cruel mind games.

And though you may not see the consequences in your life time there is REAL danger in living a godless life. We are all His creation, His children, and He doesn't want to see us hurt. And if he doesn’t want us to be hurt what was his purpose in creating atrocious diseases? Why trust something that causes so much agony?

My heart breaks for all of you who say you don't know God or seem to think God has betrayed you. Don’t worry I don’t think any such things. There is little point trying to know something that doesn’t exist, and such things aren’t capable of betrayal anyway.

Open your eyes and your heart He's still here, and He loves you. And your proof is?

I know because he has given me a love for all of you that I don't quite understand yet.Perhaps you are just a happy optimistic person, and you’d be just as good if you could understand yourself rather than apparently be dependent on a fantasy crutch.

And I'm not living a fantasy. How do you know? What is your proof?

Jenyar

07-11-03, 03:18 AM

I like your description Mystee! I have some thoughts of my own to add:

This also explains how he can be everywhere at once and how he can answer so many prayers
Ever thought about what "here" means? If you are "somewhere", it usually means the relative location where anybody who shares that location could experience *you*. "You are" wherever you can "experienced to be". If you could physically be seen by everybody right around the world, you would be "here" in China just as much as you would be "here" in Africa. But at the same time you would have to be "nowhere" in particular... but I'm making it too complicated now :)

To Cris:

Why? How do you know? How do you know the universe isn’t infinite? How many big bangs have there been?
You, Mystee and I know just as much or just as little about these things. None of us can even comprehend infity, much less prove it to be a physical reality. For all you know, there were a series of "big bangs", which we can't tell from one another becomes "time" did not exist until "time" had passed. Mystee and I believe God exists outside of "time" - being timeless and eternal - and therefore no theory about "time" or "big bangs" could shake our belief as much as you'd like it to.

What we "know", we know by faith - I know it isn't valid "knowledge" by scientific standards, but the reality is that nobody could prove or disprove how much it does correspond with reality, symbolically, metaphorically or physically. It makes no difference either way, except in the conclusion, or consequences that belief has. The 'consequence' of what we believe is: God is the creator. The consequence of your belief is 'the universe was a cosmic accident'. Conclusions are valid consequences, and they do make a difference in life...

Why so much junk in the DNA though?
Why is the universe as big as it is? Why are there so many stars? Why did dinosaurs become extinct? Why do we have an appendix? Just because we haven't figured it out doesn't mean it's junk. You're a man of science, you should appreciate that. Science is the closest we'll ever come to knowing anything. It is both our only tool and our only limitation.

[the real job of the human is to live up to the image we were created in and love our creator.] Why?
Because perfection is the opposite of entropy (arguably). Nobody strives to be the worst they can be - at least not sanely.

Can you quote any important prayer he might have answered?
Not one that would impress you.

[Ok so God can see the past present and further all at the same time. Why shouldn't He? He is God after all. So with the idea of free will verses predestination we have a bit of a conflict.]This is true, they can’t coexist. ...
It does if he is the creator and the designer of everything.
There is only philosophically perceived conflict. Look around you: there is no perceived "struggle against our destinies" - we live as we think best - yet at the same time we are struggling against suffering, poverty, hatred... sin and it's consequences - we are simultaneously opposing God's will and not opposing God's will. The degree to which God's will is perceived in the world corresponds directly to the degree to which it is carried out. His unperceived Plan is still being carried out as He intends it to. From our perspective His decisions seem like predestination, but our choices can't be known before they are made since there is nothing to know. But God knows our hearts, our intentions, what moves us to decision - who knows what this perfect knowledge about us implies... In practice, we are free to be bound to His plan or not, and His plan has been salvation from the beginning.

In the Bible, when God was angry about the sins of people, He "left them to their own devices, so that they might know the consequences of their sin". That is the 'freedom' people hold so dear these days. Submission to God's will means praying that He doesn't leave us to follow our natural inclinations, and then doing what He commands: base every decision on love for Him and love for each other.

And if he doesn’t want us to be hurt what was his purpose in creating atrocious diseases? Why trust something that causes so much agony?
You won't entertain the thought that God created you, but you have no problems about saying He created disease? Now that is a leap of faith.

If you believe so much in natural processes and evolution, then "diseases" - viruses, bacteria, etc. have just as much right to carry out their evolved functions as you do, and "it is merely by an extension of chance and circumstance that we are affected by certain organisms". Why favour your own existence above theirs? It is only after belief of our own significance that this becomes problematic.

Perhaps you are just a happy optimistic person, and you’d be just as good if you could understand yourself rather than apparently be dependent on a fantasy crutch.
Perhaps it is precisely because we know ourselves - our weaknesses, what we are capable of, what we are or could be guilty of - that we appreciate the amount of love we are able to give and experience. And when you do something that distances you from this love it is almost traumatic - you become oversensitized to it. You realize you can't give enough and you try to give more, you realize you can't appreciate enough and you try to appreciate more, you can't say enough and you try to say more...

How do you know? What is your proof?
Sorry to disappoint you - even as a valid experience, it's unfortunately all very irrational and subjective.

Gravage

07-11-03, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by DJSupreme23
God is but a word.

I have not seen a God or any actions of a goc, that cannot be explaimed by science or psychology.

Neitehr have I heard, tasted, smelled or felt any such inputs.

"Is "mother nature" enough powerful to do that ? No." [create advanced life in 5 bln. years].

I claim otherwise. It is actually unsurprising that we are here after 5 billion years of evolution.

A simple increase in complexity ( a given scale, you could define it as, say shemical or molecular complexity), of, say 1% every one million years, would evolve very rapidly after just one billion years. And yet, 5 have passed.

I have no problems with living in a universe, where my life seems liek a coincidence.

The same goes with me.Completely agreed.

Mystee

07-11-03, 12:59 PM

Jenyar,

Thank you SO mouch for covering that. It is such a releif to hear another Christian stand up for what they believe in.

Cris,

Again you have responed by picking apart my every word, asking for more proof, and acusing me of living in a fantasy. Though I apreciate the lack of insults this time, I was hoping you would stop asking the same questions and get to some meat, but if this is your game, have at it.
I know what I believe is true because I have felt it and experienced it in my own life. The only reason I can feel it is because I first excepted it. God had his hand in my life VERY strong for the year before I was a Christian. Yet I didn't see it until I took a leap of faith and just prayed one night. All it took was asking "God, if you're real, come into my life, I want you here" and suddenly everything is new and different. Even through my doubt in his very existence I was still changed just by taking that one step in faith. I will never be the same, Thank God. There is no more proof I can give you than what I know in my life and what we have been told through the Bible and creation itself. I wish that was enough for you. It would be if you just took a closer look and experienced it for yourself.

EvilPoet

07-11-03, 01:46 PM

"It is an insult to God to believe in God. For on the one hand it is to suppose that he has perpetrated acts of incalculable cruelty. On the other hand, it is to suppose that he has perversely given his human creatures an instrument—their intellect—which must inevitably lead them, if they are dispassionate and honest, to deny his existence. It is tempting to conclude that if he exists, it is the atheists and agnostics that he loves best, among those with any pretensions to education. For they are the ones who have taken him most seriously." -Galen Strawson (http://www.bartleby.com/66/45/56645.html)

mountainhare

07-11-03, 09:55 PM

Study up young Padiwan. The Miller-Urey experiments didn't create life. Pastuer's experiments disproved spontaneous generation. Seems to me alot of people are putting some heavy faith in miracles based on "chance".

I studied up ages ago, oh great Sith lord.
The Miller-Urey experiments (and many like them) created amino acids, the elements of life. They also created microspheres out of these amino acids. These spheres are not alive, but they have internal chemical reactions which are analogous to those of a living cell. They divide and multiply in the same manner that living cells employ (The Rise of Life, by John Reader).

"And the chances of life forming from chemicals is quite high. The 29 essential characters were present by the million in every teaspoonful of the waters on the primitive Earth, and there was not just one lifespan available for ther chance combination there were a hundred million life spans. On this scale, odds of billions to one are not at all unreasonable. It only had to happen once. From the moment that some of the 29 characters spelled out the first word, the first living cell, the logic of biochemistry took over the composition of life's story" (The Rise of Life, by John Reader)

Ah! Perhaps this is the famed "LUCA*" Darwinists so foundly speak of? (*Last Universal Common Ancestor) Just realize science has not established empirical evidence if life started from a parokyotic or eukaryotic source. Again, add some faith that this will all be resolved but also rest assured it is not at this time, hence the theory of evolution remains theory.

You clearly have no understanding of the scientific method. If you did, you would know that evolution is not 'just' a theory. A theory in science is an accepted explaination backed up by a mountain of evidence. In science, you can never prove a theory. There is always a .00001% chance that it wrong.

Gravity is theory (as well as fact). What about the nuclear theory? Why don't you go to Hiroshima and tell them all to 'get over it, it was only a theory!'. Do you fly in a plane, Bridge? Guess what, it's the THEORY of aerodynamics that is keeping that plane in the air. Do you feel save, knowing that ONLY A THEORY is keeping you alive.

And evolution is fact and theory. So what if evolutionists can not agree on fine details? That means nothing. Things evolved from a single celled organism. That simple.
When evolutionists disagree, they are quibbling, and evolution is wrong. When they agree, they are conspiring. It's a lose/lose situation for them.

So, let me summarize. Theories are explainations. You can never prove explainations. Evolution is an EXPLAINATION of how things EVOLVED. That's why it will ALWAYS remain a theory (although it is also fact.)

Cells are complex life in and of themselves. Minature marvels. Too bad no one can figure out how the heck they got that way. Chance enters the picture again.

Actually, they have almost solved this mystery.

They have had, ooohhh, about 50 years to research. And you've had over 5000 years to provide evidence of a supreme Creator. And they have made FAR more progress that people who believe in the 'divine' ever had.

Maybe you should get an attitude adjustment. I've spent the last 5 or 6 years doing just that. Dawkin's book was a good read, very entertaining. His spiritualism is like that of a Christian only the object of his worship is a combination of natural selection and blind chance. I can understand the affection towards natural selection, but the faith in chance is so unscientific. I pity the man actually. The existing evidence for the creative power of natural selection is somewhere between weak and non-existent.

WHAT THE FUCK?

Okay, it is obvious you haven't read Dawkin's book. If you had, you would know two things...

- The problem with anti-evolutionists is that they THINK they know what evolution is.
Dawkins says "I suppose one trouble with Darwinism is that, as Jacques Monod perceptively remarked, everybody THINKS he understand it.
- Natural selection IS NOT BLIND CHANCE! Is it blind chance that when you throw objects into a hole, those smaller than it pass through, and those larger that don't? The size of the hole (the mutation) is random, but what pass through (what natural selection 'selects' is not chance). If you had read Dawkin's book (which you obviously haven't) you would know this.

You obviously need to reread and attempt to understand Dawkin's book.

That it explains our origins is wishful thinking.

Evolution is both fact and theory.
Speciation has been observed.
The fossil record clearly shows an evolutionary trend.

How do you think we got here, bridge? God clicked his fingers, and we just appeared? Or do you believe a lazy god guided creation? Do you have any evidence? I didn't think so.

Maybe for you He is. Thank God you have a choice in the matter.

Maybe you should provide evidence to support your fantasy.

Stephen Hawkings, "A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME". Read it yourself Mr. Know-it-all with an attitude.

I have, and what you quoted is not in ABHOT. And I'm a know it all with an attitude? Look who's talking!

You said above that you pity Dawkins. I don't. He is a great man.

I pity you, Bridge. You believe some macho god created everything. Do you have a scrap of evidence? Nope.

You claim to have read Dawkins. You show clearly that you haven't. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying that natural selection was 'chance'. That is rubbish, plain and simple.

You say that chemicals combining was chance? Not totally. They were GUIDED (but not intelligently) by the laws of chemistry and physcics.

Evolution is GUIDED (but not intelligently) by the laws of chemistry, physcics and natural selection.

Evolution is fact. Things chance. New species are made. Whales lost their legs. Birds were once reptiles. FACTS.

You choose to ignore the facts, and common sense. You choose to 'pity' Dawkins. Dawkins has more common sense in his little finger than you do in your entire body. You know why? His 'faith' is backed by evidence.
Dawkins does not join his hands with evolutionists every Sunday and sing "I believe in Evolution. Yes I do! Things evolve! I must believe! I must be strong!"
They save that type of stuff for fanatics who have no evidence (aka. You.)
Until you get some evidence to support the existence of a divine creator, your 'theory' is worth nothing.

Mystee

07-11-03, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by EvilPoet
"It is an insult to God to believe in God. For on the one hand it is to suppose that he has perpetrated acts of incalculable cruelty. On the other hand, it is to suppose that he has perversely given his human creatures an instrument—their intellect—which must inevitably lead them, if they are dispassionate and honest, to deny his existence. It is tempting to conclude that if he exists, it is the atheists and agnostics that he loves best, among those with any pretensions to education. For they are the ones who have taken him most seriously." -Galen Strawson (http://www.bartleby.com/66/45/56645.html)

Hmmmmm. I know this is not your statement, but you must believe it since you posted it. So why would God create things and love most the ones who hate him or deny his existence all together? And how do you think he came to the conclusion that atheists take God the most seriously since the very definition of the word states they don't believe in a higher power at all. Don't post a quote if you can't back it up. (For all I know you may be able to. Please don't take that as an insult).

Lots of Love,

Mystee

Bridge

07-12-03, 12:08 AM

Mr. Reader apparently ignores that the Miller-Urey experiment wasn't reflective of actual conditions on early earth. It was an example of design. The experiment was conducted under conditions which could only be described as ideal and pristine and still didn't create any viable building blocks for life.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/STS/techne/Fall2002/srinivasan1.htm (http://)

“It must be admitted from the beginning that we do not know how life began. It is generally believed that a variety of processes led to the formation of simple organic compounds on the primitive earth. These compounds combined together to give more and more complex structures until one was formed that could be called living. No one should be satisfied with an explanation as general as this.” ~Stanley Miller

mountainhare insists:

Things evolved from a single celled organism. That simple.

If it's so simple then it shouldn't be very difficult to provide some empirical evidence.

mountainhare contends:

Actually, they have almost solved this mystery.

Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades young padiwan! This is science remember?

Dawkins says "I suppose one trouble with Darwinism is that, as Jacques Monod perceptively remarked, everybody THINKS he understand it.
-Natural selection IS NOT BLIND CHANCE! Is it blind chance that when you throw objects into a hole, those smaller than it pass through, and those larger that don't? The size of the hole (the mutation) is random, but what pass through (what natural selection 'selects' is not chance). If you had read Dawkin's book (which you obviously haven't) you would know this.

Dawkins also said:

"Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Dawkins, Richard [zoologist and Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University], "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.229).

Evolution is both fact and theory.

That changes occur is fact, that macroevolution can occur is theory.

Speciation has been observed.

That would depend on your definition of speciation, the strong definition (proposed by Dobzhansky) or the weak definition (Ernst Mayr)? All the fruitfly experiments still produce fruitflies. An Irish Wolfhound and a Chihuahua may be difficult partners to breed in the natural arena but you can take the Wolfhound's sperm and the Chihuahua's egg and still produce a dog.

The fossil record clearly shows an evolutionary trend.

I agree. Unfortunately for you the trend includes gaps.

Evolution is fact. Things chance. New species are made. Whales lost their legs. Birds were once reptiles. FACTS.

Okay, convince us. Tell us which order of reptiles evolved into birds. Don't sweat the details. I'm not asking for the species, just the order. I'm looking forward to your "factual" reply.

mountainhare

07-12-03, 12:38 AM

Mr. Reader apparently ignores that the Miller-Urey experiment wasn't reflective of actual conditions on early earth.

Pure bullshit. Mrs. Reader clearly ignores the fact that the chemicals used were those which would have been present on an early earth. The sources of energy used would also have been present on an early earth.

still didn't create any viable building blocks for life.

Once again, utter bullshit. Amino acids were created. Amino acids are the building blocks of life.

If it's so simple then it shouldn't be very difficult to provide some empirical evidence.

It is a fact that only cellular life existed 3.5 billion years ago. It is a fact that as time passed, more and more complex life (usually) came to occupy the planet.
It is a fact that hundreds of transitional fossils have been found showing macroevolution.

Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades young padiwan! This is science remember?

Funny that you tell me what science is about, since you don't even know what the scientific method is, and think that evolution is ONLY a theory.
The FACT is that Miller never attempted to create life, only the building blocks of life.
You see, almost does count in science. Have you almost found evidence supporting god yet, child?

"Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Dawkins, Richard [zoologist and Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University], "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.229).

And once again, a creationist is taking things out of context. Let me continue what Dawkin's says...

"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from peroids before about 600 millions years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies, no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist, you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationsists' and 'gradualists'. Both schools of though despise so called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record."

In otherwords, things without bones don't fossilize too well. And they existed 600 million years ago. Therefore, you will have great difficulty in finding fossils 600 million y.a.
And Bridge, you copying quotes from an intelligent design website is not evidence that you have read "The Blind Watchmaker".

That would depend on your definition of speciation, the strong definition (proposed by Dobzhansky) or the weak definition (Ernst Mayr)? All the fruitfly experiments still produce fruitflies. An Irish Wolfhound and a Chihuahua may be difficult partners to breed in the natural arena but you can take the Wolfhound's sperm and the Chihuahua's egg and still produce a dog.

Actually, the strong definition of speciation has occurred.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I agree. Unfortunately for you the trend includes gaps.

You are now playing the old trick 'lord of the gaps'. I think, child, that you are forgetting that fossilization is an extremely rare event. Especially with mollusks.
We have hundreds of transitional fossils CLEARLY showing intermediate forms. How do you account for these fossils?
Unfortunately for me, the fossil record has gaps? Unforunately for you, the fossil record clearly shows animals in their intermediate forms.
Instead of me always answering your questions, why don't you answer some of mine for once? You keep avoiding my questions by shifting the argument over to me. Yet another sneaky tactic employed by someone who doesn't have a clue.

Okay, convince us. Tell us which order of reptiles evolved into birds. Don't sweat the details. I'm not asking for the species, just the order. I'm looking forward to your "factual" reply.
Very clever, Bridge. Ask the impossible, so it looks like evolution is inadequate. Why don't you ask a biologist? I'm certainly no scientist, just your average Jo.

I don't have to tell you how reptiles evolved into birds. I just need to tell you about a transitional fossil of a reptile bird.

Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil of a reptile with feathers, and other bird like qualities.
There are 7 of these transitional fossils.

If you don't believe in macroevolution, you must have an explaination for these fossils, which clearly show reptiles evolving into birds.

Bridge, you keep attacking evolution. Why not supply some evidence for your creator? And I good explaination for why transitional fossils exist if a divine creator did "POOF" everything into existence.

EvilPoet

07-12-03, 05:06 AM

Originally posted by Mystee
Hmmmmm. I know this is not your statement, but you must believe it since you posted it. So why would God create things and love most the ones who hate him or deny his existence all together? And how do you think he came to the conclusion that atheists take God the most seriously since the very definition of the word states they don't believe in a higher power at all. Don't post a quote if you can't back it up. (For all I know you may be able to. Please don't take that as an insult).
Have you ever read anything by Galen Strawson?

ConsequentAtheist

07-12-03, 05:25 AM

Originally posted by Bridge
Okay, convince us. Tell us which order of reptiles evolved into birds. Don't sweat the details. I'm not asking for the species, just the order. I'm looking forward to your "factual" reply. I can just imagine some early Pagan, puffed up and naively proud of his cleverness, asking his detractors: Okay, convince us. Tell us where lightning comes from. Don't sweat the details. I'm looking forward to your "factual" reply.As Darwin said:
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.

-- Charles Darwin, Introduction to The Descent of Man (1871)

Bridge

07-12-03, 09:27 AM

C.A.:
I can just imagine some early Pagan, puffed up and naively proud of his cleverness, asking his detractors:

Okay, convince us. Tell us where lightning comes from. Don't sweat the details. I'm looking forward to your "factual" reply.

Oh, nice detraction. Next to "unicorns" and "Santa Claus", here comes the "lightning" bolts from God example in third place as an all time favorite myth that theists still believe in.

Speaking of ignorance, Darwin also believed Negros were next to gorillas on the ladder of life.

"I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is always wrong; and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him. The practical form it takes is this: that, while the old man may stand by some stupid custom, the young man always attacks it with some theory that turns out to be equally stupid."~ GK Chesterton

----------------------------------

mountainhare:

The FACT is that Miller never attempted to create life, only the building blocks of life.

Another FACT? The facts are piling up fast in your replies, it's too bad they can't contain some confirmation of what you claim. Ignoring the fact that the conditions simulated were not that of early earths, Miller's results didn't produce viable building blocks and as George Wald noted, the experiment failed to: "definitively show that organic compounds could be produced without a living organism, because “organic chemists are alive".

Dawkins:

there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationsists' and 'gradualists'

The theory of evolution in terms of the transformation of one kind of an organism into another different kind of an organism (macroevolution) takes place too slowly to occur(gradualists), and yet in the fossil record the evolutionists tell us it took place to rapidly(punctuated equilibrium) to be caught. Now, this puts the evolutionists in an interesting position in believing in something that they've not seen. I call that faith, mountainhare probably would call it fact.

Instead of me always answering your questions, why don't you answer some of mine for once?

The only problem being that it is you who continues making all these claims as FACT and have yet to provide an adequate FACTUAL answer. You specifically claimed:

Evolution is fact. Things chance. New species are made. Whales lost their legs. Birds were once reptiles. FACTS.

If indeed birds were once reptiles and as you claim this is a FACT why is it you can't provide us the order of reptiles that birds evolved from? What's the problem here? What kind of FACTUAL answer is this:

I don't have to tell you how reptiles evolved into birds. I just need to tell you about a transitional fossil of a reptile bird. Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil of a reptile with feathers, and other bird like qualities.
There are 7 of these transitional fossils

I'm sorry to have to be one to inform on you this but I thought you were already aware of the continuing controversy surrounding whether archaeopteryx is a true bird, a true reptile or true transitional. The debate is not only a philosophical one between evolutionists and creationists/design advocates but a scientific one between experts in ornithology and the other biological sciences.

As for me supplying answers to prove the existence of a creator, it wasn't me who claimed that I could provide the answer. You made the claims, you need to make your case.

Lets assume the best case scenario for your argument. If it's a true transitional, why can't you tell us what order of reptiles archaeopteryx descended from?

Mrhero54

07-12-03, 11:33 AM

I don't understand how scientist can call ANY occurrence random. EVERYTHING has some sort of origin and cause. Time, The universe (scientist who believe that it's infintie are picking the easy explanation to a number of CURRENTLY unexplainable phenomena) gravity,etc.

The theory of evol. is riddled with chance or random activites that are no better an explanation than "God did it".A cell mutation isn't random just because we as cannot find the cause. The cause of the mutation may be a chemical element that breifly comes into exsistent when the right conditions are present and disentergrates as soon as the mutation occurs. The right "conditions" to cause this mutation can be a chain of events that go back all the way to the gravitational pull of of the six moons on the yet to be found planet Qintar in the yet to be found galaxy Plaxtar. Or it may simply be the number of fincants(a yet to be found particle in sunlight) that the cell is exposed to. Either or, i believe all things have a cause and a scientist of believer of science should be the last person to except chance or random occurrence as a valid explantion lest you be no better than your so called foolish fundementalist. ;)

Mystee

07-12-03, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by EvilPoet
Have you ever read anything by Galen Strawson?

No, but isn't that besides the point? You posted a quote. I think it's wrong. If you think it's right, stand up for it.

EvilPoet

07-12-03, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Mystee
You posted a quote. I think it's wrong.
Why do you think it is wrong?

Mystee

07-12-03, 01:57 PM

as I said before...

Originally posted by Mystee
So why would God create things and love most the ones who hate him or deny his existence all together? And how do you think he came to the conclusion that atheists take God the most seriously since the very definition of the word states they don't believe in a higher power at all.

EvilPoet

07-12-03, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Mystee
as I said before...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mystee
So why would God create things and love most the ones who hate him or deny his existence all together? And how do you think he came to the conclusion that atheists take God the most seriously since the very definition of the word states they don't believe in a higher power at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This doesn't answer my question as to why you think it is wrong.

mountainhare

07-12-03, 08:29 PM

Speaking of ignorance, Darwin also believed Negros were next to gorillas on the ladder of life.

Almost every European, whether they were evolutionist or creationist, was racist. Using non-scientific arguments like that will get you nowhere, Bridge.

I'm sorry to have to be one to inform on you this but I thought you were already aware of the continuing controversy surrounding whether archaeopteryx is a true bird, a true reptile or true transitional. The debate is not only a philosophical one between evolutionists and creationists/design advocates but a scientific one between experts in ornithology and the other biological sciences.

Actually, it is a FACT that the creature is a transitional fossil of a bird-reptile.

Hey Bridge, where is this 'debate' you are talking about? I think you are talking bullshit, as usual. Evolutionist don't debate 'philosophy'. You are just making another poor attempt to try and convince us that evolutionists are going purely on faith.

Bridge, I would ask you to provide evidence supporting that there is a debate between experts about the fossil.
Let me repeat that. You obviously seem to conviently ignore the parts of my message which ask you to provide evidence to support your proclaimed FACTS. Submit evidence to show that experts are still debating whether Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil.

Archaeopteryx is recognised as a true transitional fossil. It has been for decades. Only a few oddball creationists try to say that the fossil is a forgery (which is a load of bull) You know this, but are trying desperately to deny the facts.
Here is a link, Bridge, supporting these facts:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

Merely because you deny the facts, Bridge, does not make them go away. You cannot hide behind your lies forever.
Archaeopteryx supports the fact that birds evolved from reptiles.

Lets assume the best case scenario for your argument. If it's a true transitional, why can't you tell us what order of reptiles archaeopteryx descended from?

I'll do that when you give me a complete history of Julius Caesar. Until you can do that, I will be forced to believe that Julius Caesar never existed, because you don't have the 'details'.
Let's assume that Julius Caesar did exist. If he really did, why can't you tell us his entire history? Where he grew up, who his first girlfriend was, at what age (including month and day) that he learned to walk, etc.

See how ridiculous your request is? If you still don't, I think you have serious problems.
Even better, Bridge, give me details of your god. Give me his name, his address, his favourite colour, how tall he is, who is first girlfriend was. Tell me how your God was made. Tell me how he designed the Earth.
Now the shoe is on the other foot. When you give me every detail about God and Julius Caesar, I will go and investigate exactly how reptiles and birds evolved (even though I don't have a degree).

As for me supplying answers to prove the existence of a creator, it wasn't me who claimed that I could provide the answer. You made the claims, you need to make your case.

Bullshit. This is debate. You are claiming there is a creator. I am claiming things evolved. When are you going to present your side of the case, Bridge?

You are STILL dodging the principal questions. Where is YOUR evidence? I have asked that I multitude of time.
Why when I ask for evidence, you keep squealing questions at me? Why do you stick your fingers in your ears when I ask for evidence to support your theory?
What have you got to hide, Bridge? Why can't you answer my SIMPLE request. I'm not asking impossible questions (like you are), but very simple ones. I want evidence. Are you afraid that if you present your 'evidence', I will call your bluff?

Ignoring the fact that the conditions simulated were not that of early earths, Miller's results didn't produce viable building blocks and as George Wald noted, the experiment failed to: "definitively show that organic compounds could be produced without a living organism, because “organic chemists are alive".

Actually, the experiment did produce the building blocks of life. I keep repeating this. Miller's experiment (and many more after him) produced amino acids.

And scientists have repeated Miller's experiment hundreds of times with conditions that simulate an early earth.

Do you have any evidence to support the fact that the conditions simulated were NOT those of early earths, and that the experiment did NOT produce amino acids?

The theory of evolution in terms of the transformation of one kind of an organism into another different kind of an organism (macroevolution) takes place too slowly to occur(gradualists), and yet in the fossil record the evolutionists tell us it took place to rapidly(punctuated equilibrium) to be caught. Now, this puts the evolutionists in an interesting position in believing in something that they've not seen. I call that faith, mountainhare probably would call it fact.

Although we have hundreds of transitional forms clearly showing macroevolution.

It's not faith, Bridge. It's science. Our theory fits the facts. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

What are you going to do when we finally do create life in the laboratory, Bridge? I can imagine what you are going to say...
"But they don't know exactly what conditions existed on prehistoric earth".

What are you going to say when the majority of the gaps are filled, Bridge?
"Now you've got TWO gaps instead of one! Hahaha."

Bridge, you have conviently ignored the list of speciation I posted. You CONVIENTLY forget to comment on the FACT that speciation has been observed.
Just for kicks, I'll post it again, so you can't claim to have conviently missed it...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

and again, since it appears you like to ignore any and all evidence...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

There. You have no excuse. We have both now established that fact that speciation (evolution giving rise to new species) has been observed. Evolution is FACT.

So, Bridge. You obviously have trouble reading, so I will give you a brief summary of what I require.

1. I want you to read the list of speciation I have posted. No excuses. Until you do, and comment on it, I am afraid I will believe you a brick wall, since you don't respond to the key arguments.

2. If you are going to ask me about detailed bird-reptile evolution, I will only respond if you give me a detailed description of Julius Caesar's life. Even better, a detailed description of your creator. Don't expect a reply otherwise.

3. I want you to submit evidence to support your 'fact' that experts are still debating about whether archaeopteryx. And also an explaination of, if it is NOT a transitional fossil, why it has reptile features, but bird feathers.

4. If you repeat that Evolution is only a theory, I will only raise my eyebrows and not comment, as it is obvious you have no understanding of the scientific method.

5. If your next post does not provide evidence for you creator, I will not both replying. You keep indicating that there is one, yet with some warped mindset think that only evolution is being debated here. You are wrong. If you claim there is a creator, you have to provide evidence. And if you check this threads title, it says "God exists". In otherwords, your creator is the real thing being debated here. And you keep dodging the principal question.
I repeat, how about some evidence for your Creator? Attacks on evolution won't get you far.

6. If your next post says that Miller's experiment (and those experiments afterwards) did not produce the building blocks of life, I would like an explaination for why amino-acids are not the building blocks of life. After all, it is a FACT amino-acids ARE the building blocks of life.

7. If you say that natural selection is random, you will merely be reconfirming the fact that you don't understand evolution.

8. If you have read this far, I'm impressed....

Datura

07-12-03, 08:47 PM

Mystee:

The thing is, even though you don't understand God's actions or his rules, He really does have your best interests in mind.

Then why did he create the world knowing full well the chaos that would ensue?

We are all His creation, His children, and He doesn't want to see us hurt.

Then why does he allow pain and suffering to exist?

Mystee

07-12-03, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by EvilPoet
This doesn't answer my question as to why you think it is wrong.

It is wrong because God would not create beings and love the most the ones who hate him or deny his existence. And athiests do not take God more seriously since they claim they don't believe in him at all. I hope this rewording suits you so you can finally say something real.

Still filled with Love,

Mystee

Mystee

07-12-03, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Datura
Mystee:
Then why did he create the world knowing full well the chaos that would ensue?
Then why does he allow pain and suffering to exist?

God created us to love him. That is what he wants most from us. But to get volentary lovers he would also have to deal with those who rebel. Let me illistrate this. I could have a stuffed dog and carry it around with me everywhere I went and say "Oh look my puppt loves me." Asside from being called crazy there would be no real reaction or purpose. But if I have a real dog and he really does love me and he listens to me and loves being around me. This is a bigger deal. Not only does this show that I have done something to deserve his love it also shows that he accepts and apreciates the love I give to him. Then there are those dogs who are bad from the start and no matter how much love they are given they will never return any and rather they bite the hand of the one who feeds him. Well that's how it is with God too. He doesn't want a billion stuffed dogs to follow him like robots. He wants the real voluntary lovers. So chaos was a necessary biproduct for true love to occur.
As for pain and suffering. God knows we suffer, we all do at some point. But this too is necessary. It too is a biproduct of sin, but just like chaos it is temporary. It will pass, for some. For those who return the love of God they will one day be rewarded for the suffering they endured. That is why we say "those who want to be first must be last." Thouse who are the most lowly here on Earth will be glorified in heavin. It's a promise God made to us to give us strength in hard times.

For true love is only found in a heart overflowing with the love of God,

Mystee

Mystee

07-12-03, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Datura
Mystee:
Then why did he create the world knowing full well the chaos that would ensue?
Then why does he allow pain and suffering to exist?

God created us to love him. That is what he wants most from us. But to get voluntary lovers he would also have to deal with those who rebel. Let me illistrate this. I could have a stuffed dog and carry it around with me everywhere I went and say "Oh look my puppt loves me." Asside from being called crazy there would be no real reaction or purpose. But if I have a real dog and he really does love me and he listens to me and loves being around me. This is a bigger deal. Not only does this show that I have done something to deserve his love it also shows that he accepts and apreciates the love I give to him. Then there are those dogs who are bad from the start and no matter how much love they are given they will never return any and rather they bite the hand of the one who feeds him. Well that's how it is with God too. He doesn't want a billion stuffed dogs to follow him like robots. He wants the real voluntary lovers. So chaos was a necessary biproduct for true love to occur.
As for pain and suffering. God knows we suffer, we all do at some point. But this to is necessary. It to is a biproduct of sin, but just like chaos it is temporary. It will pass, for some. For those who return the love of God they will one day be rewarded for the suffering they endured. That is why we say "those who want to be first must be last." Those who are the most lowly here on Earth will be glorified in heavin. It's a promise God made to us to give us strength in hard times.

For true love is only found in a heart overflowing with the love of God,

Mystee

Bridge

07-12-03, 09:41 PM

I do believe I've sent you over the edge mountainhare, or should I change that to mountain lemming? You've also become a little unreasonabe in your demands.

You didn't have to go to such extreme obfuscation in order to concede a point. I'm quite aware your claim that birds evolved from reptiles can't be substantiated by the facts and therefore your search for the reptile order that evolved into birds would be similar to my search for Julius Caesar's first girlfriend.

As for the controversy surrounding archaeoptryx, here is an evolutionist by the name of Alan Feduccia who has impeccable credentials and is probably the leading authority on the subject.

Synopsis: Alan Feduccia's research centers on the origin and early evolution of flight, feathers, and endothermy. He is also interested in the evolution of birds through the Tertiary, the origins of flightlessness and the evolution of other morphological specializations in the world avifauna, and avian systematics in general.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/ecology/people/feduccia.html

As to the current status of the debate here is a link with a Feb. 2003 date. More is out there if you'll bother to look.

http://www.discover.com/feb_03/breakdialogue.html

The speciation FAQ from talkorigins is old hat. Debated that about two or three years ago on another forum. Look closely at the actual results and you'll see they're using the weak definition of speciation.

It's okay with me that you believe that everything you see around you is the result of some cosmic coincidence. You're not alone. The pity is you don't even realize you're taking some of the alleged "facts" as faith.

But before you post another tirade about me needing to prove the existence of God and Julius Caesar which I'll never even read, a couple of critiques on your style. You cuss too much, know too little and call people a liar without justification. Other than that I'm sure you're a swell kid.

EvilPoet

07-12-03, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by Mystee
It is wrong because God would not create beings and love the most the ones who hate him or deny his existence.
Assuming god exists - How do you know what god would or would not do? Do you speak for god? Why would god create anything in the first place? What would be god's motivation to create something like a universe, a animal, or a human?

how do you think he came to the conclusion that atheists take God the most seriously since the very definition of the word states they don't believe in a higher power at all.
I think he came to that conclusion using logic. Galen Strawson has written some interesting stuff imo. If you ever get a chance, you should check it out. I also think everyone should invest in a Baloney Detection Kit (http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/webcourse/lost/sagan.htm ).

athiests do not take God more seriously since they claim they don't believe in him at all.
Are you saying all atheists are this way? Rather generalized don't you think?

mountainhare

07-12-03, 10:01 PM

I do believe I've sent you over the edge mountainhare, or should I change that to mountain lemming?

That is a calculated insult. I won't reply, because it's be kind to the animals week.

You've also become a little unreasonabe in your demands.

Unreasonable? That's nice. You asking me to give you the entire history of how bird/reptiles evolved is like me asking you to give me a complete history of Julius Caesar. I am glad you realize that my request is unreasonable. It was intended to be.

I'm quite aware your claim that birds evolved from reptiles can't be substantiated by the facts

You just can't accept the facts. You already have a pre-conceived truth.
I keep repeating Archaeoptryx, yet you attempt to sweep it under the carpet.

The speciation FAQ from talkorigins is old hat. Debated that about two or three years ago on another forum.

How so, child?

Look closely at the actual results and you'll see they're using the weak definition of speciation.

How so, child?

As for the controversy surrounding archaeoptryx, here is an evolutionist by the name of Alan Feduccia who has impeccable credentials and is probably the leading authority on the subject.

You still have not submitted evidence that there is a debate raging about whether Archaeoptryx is a transitional fossil.
The first website you gave me gives me minor details about Alan.
The second is about how close birds are to dinosaurs. The debate is NOT about whether archaeoptryx is a transitional form. Nice try, Bridge. Taking things out of context (yet again).

It's okay with me that you believe that everything you see around you is the result of some cosmic coincidence. You're not alone. The pity is you don't even realize you're taking some of the alleged "facts" as faith.

It is OK if you believe that a creator poofed everything into existence. But until you get some EVIDENCE, your 'theory' is worth shit.

You cuss too much, know too little and call people a liar without justification

You make too many calculated insults. You distort and refuse to listen to the evidence. And you think you are right, even though you have no evidence to support your stance.
It is ok if you believe in things without evidence. Just don't try and make out that others are, when they are not. Other than that, I'm sure you're a swell kid.

And let me repeat, you STILL have not submitted evidence to show that their is a divine creator.
What's wrong, Bridge? Don't you have any EVIDENCE? If you did, I think you would have presented it by now, child.

Datura

07-12-03, 10:17 PM

Mystee:

God created us to love him. That is what he wants most from us. But to get volentary lovers he would also have to deal with those who rebel. Let me illistrate this. I could have a stuffed dog and carry it around with me everywhere I went and say "Oh look my puppt loves me." Asside from being called crazy there would be no real reaction or purpose. But if I have a real dog and he really does love me and he listens to me and loves being around me. This is a bigger deal. Not only does this show that I have done something to deserve his love it also shows that he accepts and apreciates the love I give to him. Then there are those dogs who are bad from the start and no matter how much love they are given they will never return any and rather they bite the hand of the one who feeds him. Well that's how it is with God too. He doesn't want a billion stuffed dogs to follow him like robots. He wants the real voluntary lovers. So chaos was a necessary biproduct for true love to occur.

He created angels to worship him and they have free will. Why the need for human life on a corrupt planet?

Raithere

07-12-03, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by Bridge
That changes occur is fact, that macroevolution can occur is theory.If you admit that small mutations occur, are retained, and are inherited by the organism’s descendants, can you please provide the mechanism that would prevent such small changes from accruing over time and lead to speciation?

~Raithere

Cris

07-13-03, 12:54 AM

Jenyar,

You, Mystee and I know just as much or just as little about these things. None of us can even comprehend infity, much less prove it to be a physical reality. For all you know, there were a series of "big bangs", which we can't tell from one another becomes "time" did not exist until "time" had passed. Mystee and I believe God exists outside of "time" - being timeless and eternal - and therefore no theory about "time" or "big bangs" could shake our belief as much as you'd like it to. I understand. My argument is that like you say we don’t know how we originated, so why do you say you do know that a god did it? If presented as an interesting speculation then that would be acceptable but you insist and so do so many others that they ‘know’ a god is involved, but you can’t know. This defies reason and has detrimental affects on society as a whole and is hence dangerous.

What we "know", we know by faith - I know it isn't valid "knowledge" by scientific standards, but the reality is that nobody could prove or disprove how much it does correspond with reality, symbolically, metaphorically or physically. Understood, but it is a misuse of the word ‘know’. All you are describing is that you believe in a fantasy. While that might seem emotive and you’d rather not think of yourselves living a fantasy it is nevertheless an objective and accurate description of your actions.

It makes no difference either way, except in the conclusion, or consequences that belief has. The 'consequence' of what we believe is: God is the creator. The consequence of your belief is 'the universe was a cosmic accident'. Conclusions are valid consequences, and they do make a difference in life... But the difference is massive. One belief at least will be false. But I make no claims as to a particular belief. As you say we don’t know yet, and I’ll be patient until we discover truth.

Just because we haven't figured it out doesn't mean it's junk. I suspect you misunderstand me. We have mapped the human genome and we know most of our DNA is junk. My question was that if God designed the living cell and designed humans why did he put so much worthless material in the cell? The question is answered through evolution but it add another nail to the coffin of the idea that God designed us.

Look around you: there is no perceived "struggle against our destinies" - we live as we think best - yet at the same time we are struggling against suffering, poverty, hatred... Yes I agree, and all that indicates is that there is no such thing as an omniscient god or that there even needs to be one.

but our choices can't be known before they are made since there is nothing to know.I agree but that means that God cannot be omniscient since that requires perfect knowledge of everything past, present and future.

You won't entertain the thought that God created you, but you have no problems about saying He created disease? Now that is a leap of faith.That dishonesty is very unlike you, I am surprised.

If you believe so much in natural processes and evolution, then "diseases" - viruses, bacteria, etc. have just as much right to carry out their evolved functions as you do, and "it is merely by an extension of chance and circumstance that we are affected by certain organisms". Why favor your own existence above theirs? It is only after belief of our own significance that this becomes problematic.I don’t believe I have ever stated that I favor my existence over any other life. My signature indicates my philosophy in such matters. But other than that you are generally correct, but that gives no indication that a god exists or needs to exist. All you have described is reality and the harshness of life.

Perhaps it is precisely because we know ourselves - our weaknesses, what we are capable of, what we are or could be guilty of - that we appreciate the amount of love we are able to give and experience. And when you do something that distances you from this love it is almost traumatic - you become oversensitized to it. You realize you can't give enough and you try to give more, you realize you can't appreciate enough and you try to appreciate more, you can't say enough and you try to say more...Sorry, but that sounds like enormous unnecessary emotional clutter. You are loving a fantasy that can never return anything. The only benefits you receive will be from the placebo effect plus the optimism generated by believing something positive. But there is no reality beneath your beliefs; you are simply living in self-delusion. And that may feel truly pleasant, but it is living a lie.

Sorry to disappoint you - even as a valid experience, it's unfortunately all very irrational and subjective.Yes I know. I prefer to live a life based on what is known reality.

Mystee

07-13-03, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Datura
Mystee:

He created angels to worship him and they have free will. Why the need for human life on a corrupt planet?

Very good question. I hope I can answer it accuratly. Though no one can truly know God's motives, I may have some insight into the topic. This is just my opinions now, you will have to take it up with God if you want to know the answer for sure.
The angels were made already dwelling with God. Some did rebel and were sent directly to Satan. But the angles never have to go through what we do. They never have to deal with sickness or pain or loss. Or doubt because they see God and can not doubt his existence. God created us on the Earth rather than more angles because he ultamatly wanted to reward us. When we get to Heaven we will be rewarded because of the hardships we had to overcome and because we believed even when we didn't see and even when it was hard. The Bible does not talk much about the angels, except to say they are, among other things, the messengers of God. We are different from them and God treats us differently. Though I can't say for sure what God's motives were, he has plans for us that differ from his plans for the angels.

Love,

Mystee

Mystee

07-13-03, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by mountainhare
It is OK if you believe that a creator poofed everything into existence. But until you get some EVIDENCE, your 'theory' is worth shit.

You make too many calculated insults. You distort and refuse to listen to the evidence. And you think you are right, even though you have no evidence to support your stance.
It is ok if you believe in things without evidence. Just don't try and make out that others are, when they are not. Other than that, I'm sure you're a swell kid.

And let me repeat, you STILL have not submitted evidence to show that their is a divine creator.
What's wrong, Bridge? Don't you have any EVIDENCE? If you did, I think you would have presented it by now, child.

Did you ever think maybe God doesn't want us to have any more evidence than we have? Have you though that maybe God doesn't want the proud who think life is all about physical evedence. Maybe God denies requests for more evedence because he wants to see if we will believe anyway. God has given SO much proof of his existence already. Read the Bible. Why should he grant the request for proof from one who wont even ask him directly. When you ask Bridge for evidence you are essentially saying "Why hasn't God given us more proof?" am I wrong? He has given proof. If you turn to him, even all alone where no one will ever know, and ask HIM for proof that he is real he will give it. Ask every night, even if you doubt, and he will give it. If you search for him he will run to you. No it may not be a pearly white angle appearing in your bed room at night, it may not be the hard physical evedence you want, but God will prove his existence to your heart. It takes so much more faith to believe we came from nothing than to believe a loving God made us in his image.

All Christ's undying Love,

Mystee

EvilPoet

07-13-03, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Mystee
Did you ever think maybe God doesn't want
us to have any more evidence than we have?
What evidence are you referring to?

Cris

07-13-03, 02:39 PM

Mystee,

Did you ever think maybe God doesn't want us to have any more evidence than we have? Have you though that maybe God doesn't want the proud who think life is all about physical evedence. Maybe God denies requests for more evedence because he wants to see if we will believe anyway. The same is said about leprechauns. That it can be imagined adds no weight to whether it is true.

God has given SO much proof of his existence already. Then give one single piece of evidence if there is so much.

Read the Bible. It is biased since we know parts of it were manipulated for political ends. And since we know some of it is untrue then why should we trust any of it? Find something independent.

Why should he grant the request for proof from one who wont even ask him directly.I’ve asked already many times. Why didn’t he answer?

If you turn to him, even all alone where no one will ever know, and ask HIM for proof that he is real he will give it. He didn’t. What now?

If you search for him he will run to you. The more I search the more I see that he cannot exist.

but God will prove his existence to your heart.What does that mean? Your heart is a blood pump. What you mean is that God will appeal to your emotions, and we all know that emotions are the most unreliable method possible for establishing truth.

It takes so much more faith to believe we came from nothing than to believe a loving God made us in his image.I may have missed something, who said we came from nothing?

All Christ's undying Love,Since you realize some of us don’t believe in Christ then aren’t these signatures somewhat insulting? Don’t they also devalue the real value of love when you dispense them so liberally? If you were sincere about love you'd use a neutral term.

Jenyar

07-14-03, 07:02 AM

Then give one single piece of evidence if there is so much.
Two nights ago my cousin was mugged by three men. After they had stolen everything on him, they stabbed him three times in the back with a knife - he felt three blows that he knew weren't punches, and his (brand new) jersey was cut above the shoulder and had another knifepoint hole just below his shoulder.

All he had to show for it was a small bruise.

Jenyar

07-14-03, 07:23 AM

It is biased since we know parts of it were manipulated for political ends.
Which parts? Manipulated by whom and to what extent?

Ectropic

07-14-03, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by Jenyar
Two nights ago my cousin was mugged by three men. After they had stolen everything on him, they stabbed him three times in the back with a knife - he felt three blows that he knew weren't punches, and his (brand new) jersey was cut above the shoulder and had another knifepoint hole just below his shoulder.

All he had to show for it was a small bruise.
How does that prove anything? So they didn't really stab him? Maybe one wanted to show the other two how tough he was without actually killing your cousin?

Getting mugged and not dying does not proove God exists. I have been in a car and I am still alive. Does that mean God exists?

Jenyar

07-14-03, 08:23 AM

How does that prove anything?
Of course not. Nothing proves anything if you don't believe it.

Trust me, you don't survive a stabbing in South Africa. Criminals here don't have anything to prove to their "buddies". How do you intentionally miss stabbing someone with a knife?

I knew it meant nothing to you - which is part of why I posted it. That my cousin survived means a lot to me and my family, however. The difference is love. Love or lack thereof is the only thing that makes anything between people relevant.

God is just as irrelevant to you, because you don't love Him and don't believe He loves you - you have no wish to recognize Him as the author or saviour of your life.

Ectropic

07-14-03, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Jenyar
Of course not. Nothing proves anything if you don't believe it.
I suppose that is true in a way. I like to think that I am rational though, I will listen to an argument and dismiss it if it requires no more thought.

Trust me, you don't survive a stabbing in South Africa. Criminals here don't have anything to prove to their "buddies". How do you intentionally miss stabbing someone with a knife?
Don't get me wrong, I am happy for you that your cousin is okay. But when it comes down to it what are you telling me? That a knife went in to your cousin's back and came back out three times without an injury because God Loves him? Maybe your cousin should look in to becoming a prophet or something then because for some reason he has been chosen to be special by God. Rationally don't you think that the mugger must have intentionally missed? Either that or he picked up the fake knief on the way to the office today instead of the real one, he is the worst killer/mugger ever, God protected him from being killed and joining him in heaven, or the person really didn't want to kill your brother. Which one is the most obvious to you? I hope it isn't God.

I knew it meant nothing to you - which is part of why I posted it. That my cousin survived means a lot to me and my family, however. God is just as irrelevant to you, because you have no wish to recognize Him as the author or saviour of your life.
Once again, I apologize if I hurt your feelings. I don't want any innocent people killed. Yes, God is somewhat irrelevant to me. That is because I have heard the arguments both ways and I have decided that the only solution is that God does not exist in the form of the Christian, Muslim or Jewish God. Obviously thought I am interested in finding out anything else that I can, that is why I am talking to you now. Maybe there is a religion that is right for me, maybe one of the big three will surprise me and I will start to believe. But I am not going to blindly believe in something because 95% of the world does.

PS: If the crime is so bad near you why don't you move?

Jenyar

07-14-03, 09:25 AM

posted by Ectropic
Don't get me wrong, I am happy for you that your cousin is okay. But when it comes down to it what are you telling me? That a knife went in to your cousin's back and came back out three times without an injury because God Loves him? Maybe your cousin should look in to becoming a prophet or something then because for some reason he has been chosen to be special by God. Rationally don't you think that the mugger must have intentionally missed? Either that or he picked up the fake knief on the way to the office today instead of the real one, he is the worst killer/mugger ever, God protected him from being killed and joining him in heaven, or the person really didn't want to kill your brother. Which one is the most obvious to you? I hope it isn't God.
No worries. I'm really not emotional about it. My cousin wasn't quite sober when it happened, and he certainly doesn't make any claims about knowing why they missed. It's only the people who knew it should have turned out differently who are thankful, and none of us believe it was "his lucky stars" (if there were such a thing he doesn't have any!). God has taken care of our family for long enough not to be able to think this time was luck.

I'm really just trying to show you that the subjective experience and the objective reality sometimes overlap - that God is visible in both but "evident" in neither. You'll always have the same experience with any religion, since they are invariably a mixture of both.

All I'm trying to do in these forums is show that someone who believes in God does not have to be a gulllible, irrational fanatic. (There will be people who exerience me as such regardless, I assume).

But consider this: from a purely earthly perspective, God can't win - even if He is an uncontestable reality. Suffering lead some people to Him, and others away from Him. His mercy is only evident when it is acknowledged, otherwise people see it as glimpses of how things could be without Him. To be accepted a reality people would have objective evidence - evidence that would at the same time affect His authority and probably destroy our very existence. When He does make himself visible and believable, people deny His majesty and give Him no glory or recognition. When He presents himself as an historical God, people assume His witnesses were deluded or currupt or both. When He preents himself as a present God, people deny His involvement (as I have shown you). As a future God, people deny His future.

People deny God every chance they get - and it is working: religions have become either personalized or irrelevant, people are growing accustomed to living independent from God, simply because it is possible in the false Matrix we have created for ourselves - completing the separation that started at the garden of Eden.

If you want my advice Ectropic, if you want to find God, don't look. Everything you see will be trying to point away from God. Maybe when you realize this, you'll begin to question whether you yourself are really standing still and objective. It's a bit like thinking everything is moving with you, and only being able to see the universe expand by inference - and as the stars move by wondering what it is they are expanding from.

*I just saw your PS.
In spite of the crime (I'm not naive enough to believe it's that much better anywhere else), this country's got a lot going for it. If the opportunity presents itself, I'll go anywhere, but I'm not going to flee from a place that I love because of people who don't.

Ectropic

07-14-03, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Jenyar
People deny God every chance they get - and it is working: religions have become either personalized or irrelevant, people are growing accustomed to living independent from God, simply because it is possible in the false Matrix we have created for ourselves - completing the separation that started at the garden of Eden.
So you believe in the Garden of Eden as a literal story?

If you want my advice Ectropic, if you want to find God, don't look.
This is the argument I like least from theists. The argument that I can't find God by looking for him. Why not? If he is as real as everyone claims that he is then why can't I look for him? I'm not incapable of understanding what to look for. I'm not looking for the physical form of God, I am just looking for real evedence of his existance. All that I can find is the possibility that he may have at least once existed to start the universe. The creation of the universe is my only unanswerable question. I accepy biology and evolution without a second thought because it makes sense, but I can't answer where the universe came from. Then again, if there was a God to create the universe where did the God come from? (Another Cliche argument :D)

Everything you see will be trying to point away from God. Maybe when you realize this, you'll begin to question whether you yourself are really standing still and objective. It's a bit like thinking everything is moving with you, and only being able to see the universe expand by inference - and as the stars move by wondering what it is they are expanding from.

See, I really see it the opposite way. A theist sees the questions that we have answered and those that have answers and take the information to mean that things we don't understand are God. A Theist sees those as holes that need more research. I see the value in a scientist because they are looking to understand, not assuming that they already do.

*I just saw your PS.
In spite of the crime (I'm not naive enough to believe it's that much better anywhere else), this country's got a lot going for it. If the opportunity presents itself, I'll go anywhere, but I'm not going to flee from a place that I love because of people who don't.
Understandable.

I'm really enjoying our talk. I have been looking forward to each of your posts Jenyar.

HOPE

07-14-03, 07:33 PM

thank you (L) for giving your opinion............

SnakeLord

07-14-03, 11:17 PM

Trust me, you don't survive a stabbing in South Africa. Criminals here don't have anything to prove to their "buddies". How do you intentionally miss stabbing someone with a knife?

On the 7th of July a friend of mine went to the shopping mall to buy his daughter a birthday present. As he walked out the mall, two gangs were battling it out. He got shot in the crossfire and died 2 days before his daughters birthday.

I suppose, in line with your reasoning, that proves god does not exist.

No? Then don't use stupid examples like someone getting stabbed in the back and surviving as proof of god.

Furthermore, "criminals here don't have anything to prove to their "buddies"."

So obviously by that statement, you know every single criminal in south africa and know exactly what they will do or will not do at any given moment?

No? Then don't make stupid statements like that.

"his lucky stars"

I suppose they're as real as god. lol. You can see how simple people are.. "lucky stars", "lady luck" etc etc etc

Nobody can just sit down and realise things just happen. There's no ladies smiling down from space to make someone win the lottery, no lucky stars in the sky twinkling to save someones life, and no invisible being making criminals knives not work.

Jenyar

07-15-03, 07:05 AM

Snakelord

No? Then don't use stupid examples like someone getting stabbed in the back and surviving as proof of god.
I want proof! No not that proof! I want scientific proof! Yes of course God must be scientifically provable, if He is indeed an objective reality. Yes all objective realities are provable scientifically. Well, at least if you accept objectivity as an independent objective reality itself.

My example is stupid for the same reason yours is. It doesn't prove anything - which is the point I made to Ectropic.

What atheists really want to do, is isolate some kind proof for "objective" analysis. Am I right? And the methodology you propose assumes that God is somehow observable through isolated occurrences in a reality you define.

So obviously by that statement, you know every single criminal in south africa and know exactly what they will do or will not do at any given moment?
No? Then don't make stupid statements like that.
Ouch. No, my experience is that you have to take every criminal seriously, because there has never in all my life here been an experience or police report about criminals who mugged people at knifepoint and afterwards ran away laughing and joking. My only "assumption" here is that three stabs with a knife constitutes three attempts at murder or grievous bodily harm.

Nobody can just sit down and realise things just happen.
Survival or no comes down to life or death. In the meantime you have neatly explained away both and replaced any possibility of God with a sweeping statement like "things just happen".

I'd like to see your comments when I say science is not needed because "things just happen" anyway. See the similarities: Life-reproduces-"things happen"-evolution-progression (hopefully);
Science-reproduce results-"things happen"-problem solved-advancement (hopefully).
We term the "black box" in both instances, respectively: biological and rational "things that happen". These things seem to happen with no objective evidence for their cause, but they are nevertheless perceived reality. God is a spiritually perceived reality (with certain rational qualities and physical manifestations which you do not recognize).

Ectropic,

So you believe in the Garden of Eden as a literal story?
I think it is what what happened would look like if you had to look at it through the mysts of time - sort of like if you were squinting against a present that is almost to blinding to ignore, to see something that has really happened in the past. You won't see anymore if you squinted any harder.

This is the argument I like least from theists. The argument that I can't find God by looking for him. Why not? If he is as real as everyone claims that he is then why can't I look for him? I'm not incapable of understanding what to look for. I'm not looking for the physical form of God, I am just looking for real evedence of his existance.
What I meant to suggest is that you open your eyes, so to speak. I don't like to use the word 'spiritually' among rationally-inclined people, (I am one myself and I know what it feels like when someone else uses that word) but it does come up.

If you had been squinting to see something against a brigth light, it usually leaves an after-image. When you open your eyes again, you can still see the after-image when you look around at your present circumstances. What I do, is I look around keeping this after-image in mind, and try to see where it fits in by superimposing it on what I see. I believe what we realize 'spiritually' only agrees with reality by the measure in which we manage to see through our physical boundaries. I think Plato had the same thing in mind with his "forms and archetypes". The New Testament authors certainly uses this kind of thinking a lot when looking at the Old Testament. Mainly because the prophets considered even themselves as "signs and symbols" (in the words of Isaiah).

See, I really see it the opposite way. A theist sees the questions that we have answered and those that have answers and take the information to mean that things we don't understand are God. A Theist sees those as holes that need more research. I see the value in a scientist because they are looking to understand, not assuming that they already do.
In the light of what I said above you make a valid point. But you must also see where I'm coming from. What's real is real and could never be otherwise - scientific enquiry and reasoning is the crown of human achievement. We can't change what already exists, but we strive to become aware of its existence, and even then we try to see it more and more clearly and accurately. Whether you believe in God or not will not change what is known or not known, whether you understand or not. It does not make any claims more or less valid. But belief in God can change the legs you stand on, the heart you live with, the longs you breath with, the eyes you see with, and the motives you do things with - it changes your boundaries to include the unseen. Even though it remains unseen.

My God is not one of holes. He is not deduced or reduced naturally from observed/observable phenomena. I know that some things are really real and other things are only reality perceived. As well-behaved postmodernists we should know that the difference is far from clear or obvious. For science or religion to make it out as such is narrow-minded. And the Matrix wouldn't have been nearly as good or thought-provoking.

Theists can't prove God with the information they have, because others don't believe they have it. And they can't prove God with information others don't have, because no-one will have it. The information we have consist of testimonies, lives changed, love received, mercy experienced. That is what makes God real for us.

Not to reach any kind of 'conclusion' about God, but my experience is that His removal from reality is only in our eyes - perhaps because of our eyes: by our laws and limits of observation. By the standard "all men have equal reason to believe", I always ask: if science could provide the only proof necessary for belief, could a retarded person believe? If sight, could a blind man believe? If sound, could a deaf person believe? Could a poor illiterate beggar believe? How hard or easy is it for them to believe in God? Why is it harder the more selfish your thoughts become?

When God comes first, faith follows, some things strengthen it and other things weaken it, but it remains in God's hands. When man comes first, doubt follows, some things strengthen it and other things weaken it, but it remains trapped in man's abilities.

Have you ever been at sea in a dense fog, when it seemed as if a tangible white darkness shut you in and the great ship, tense and anxious, groped her way toward the shore with plummet and sounding-line, and you waited with beating heart for something to happen? I was like that ship before my education began, only I was without compass or sounding line, and no way of knowing how near the harbor was. "Light! Give me light!" was the wordless cry of my soul, and the light of love shone on me in that very hour. - Helen Keller (deaf and blind)

SnakeLord

07-15-03, 08:47 AM

My example is stupid for the same reason yours is. It doesn't prove anything - which is the point I made to Ectropic.

Before you get too confused, you didn't say it proves nothing. You said it proves nothing if you dont believe it- which is to imply it's proof enough for someone who just wants to believe and then concluded by saying "trust me, nobody survives a stabbing here"..... as if that in itself is 'proof' enough.... Get real.

If you knew beforehand that it was stupid, why even post it in a "god exists" thread? Cris said: Give evidence to show god exists and that was the outcome... Someone you know got stabbed and lived... To make the evidence, which isn't evidence btw, seem more appealing you added some generalisation about every single criminal in south africa, and then claimed everyone dies when stabbed there.

Did you notice yet that this doesn't even amount to evidence, let alone proof. Cris asked for evidence, you haven't supplied any here.

What atheists really want to do, is isolate some kind proof for "objective" analysis. Am I right? And the methodology you propose assumes that God is somehow observable through isolated occurrences in a reality you define.

Perhaps some do. However, proof is not important at this particular moment.... some evidence would be sufficient enough. Imagine you see a cup of tea sitting on a table.. You could say "That is a hot cup of tea." which is to go on complete faith. You could go upto the tea, touch the side of the mug, take a small sip, put hand over the top, look for steam etc etc... That is gaining evidence to support a claim. By just saying "That is a hot cup of tea" you have not offered anything of worth to anyone. Yes, there's always a 50% chance of being right, but if we accept 50% as good enough we can just make claims to anything we want. I know it's said far too much but it is relevant: green spotted diplodocus exist and live in the bahamas. There's a 50% chance that's a true statement. Is that good enough?

Ouch. No, my experience is that you have to take every criminal seriously,

Serious or not, the fact that they failed, (intentionally or by accident), in no way gives evidence to existence of god/s.

My only "assumption" here is that three stabs with a knife constitutes three attempts at murder or grievous bodily harm.

There was a guy who had an inoperable brain tumour, so he decided to kill himself. He got a gun, pointed it at his head and pulled the trigger. The bullet disintegrated the tumour but the guy survived. That's one for Ripley! Really weird things like this do happen BUT it still offers no evidence to the existence of a god/s.

Survival or no comes down to life or death. In the meantime you have neatly explained away both and replaced any possibility of God with a sweeping statement like "things just happen".

That sweeping statement "things just happen", is no worse than saying "god did it". Both are said by people who don't have the answer to every little thing. Some, as we've seen, call things "lady luck", "lucky stars", "it's sod's law", etc because things that happen cannot be explained. That's why we have people looking for proof, instead of just accepting because it's easier to do so.

I cannot tell you why this guy survived, so i said "things just happen", in the same manner you suggested it was evidence of god/s. Of course if you provide medical diagnosis etc i would have evidence to suggest something better than "things just happen". Now you see why evidence is so important?

(with certain rational qualities and physical manifestations which you do not recognize).

List them plz.

Jenyar

07-15-03, 09:14 AM

Before you get too confused, you didn't say it proves nothing. You said it proves nothing if you dont believe it- which is to imply it's proof enough for someone who just wants to believe and then concluded by saying "trust me, nobody survives a stabbing here"..... as if that in itself is 'proof' enough.... Get real.
What proof is really proof, in that case?

Everything is proof of something... the subjective choice is what do you assign the evidence to?

However, proof is not important at this particular moment. ...some evidence would be sufficient enough
Evidence of what, exactly? And how should I present it to you that would isolate it nicely enough?

List them plz.
No list I could provide will do anything but reflect what you can read for yourself in the Bible. Or even experience for yourself.

SnakeLord

07-15-03, 10:32 AM

What proof is really proof, in that case?

maybe there is none... Mostly what we have is evidence to support a belief. Yes, anyone can make wild assumptions that thor causes lightning, but evidence can help on the probability scale. As i said, yes there is always a 50/50 at the end of the day- but following a a path of evidence seeking we can lower the probability of an assumption or make an assumption stronger.

For instance read by cup of tea analogy. If that cup of tea has rising steam you could call that good evidence to it being hot- it could also be the holy spirit taking a bath, so let's look for more evidence..... We feel the cup- wow, that burnt my hand. Probability now suggests it is in fact a hot cup of tea. Ok, sure it could be satan blowing flames onto it.. so let's look for more... I take a sip... Ouch! Thats hot.. I guess that wraps it up. Probability now shows beyond 'reasonable' doubt that this is in fact a hot cup of tea. Ok ok ok, it could be god showing us what hell will feel like if we anger him but now we look for evidence to suggest that..... Doh! There is none. Probability is not very high in that case.

Ok, we don't know everything... nobody does.

Yes, we can all make assumptions.

However just having an assumption and never being in a position where you need to show evidence is worthless. Or indeed showing evidence that isn't even evidence, (as in your former post about the stabbing incident). You might aswell just say Lenny the Leprachaun of Lunatic Road came and saved him in the nick of time.

Everything is proof of something... the subjective choice is what do you assign the evidence to?

But where does a god play any part in this, and where's credible evidence showing god might play any part in this. There's no evidence to suggest good old Lenny played any part of this, and there's none to suggest god/s did either. Try and get hold of the medical records and then we can see if that offers any evidence that did play a part in it.

About assigning evidence... Well, i wouldn't say my cup of tea being hot is evidence of there being a god/s. The evidence would suggest it had something to do with me boiling the kettle.

I wouldn't say a hot cup of tea is evidence to suggest the cause for a nuclear explosion. I'm sure it might well have been my cup of tea that caused chernobyl, the evidence just suggests otherwise.

I wouldn't say god is evidence to suggest why my lighter works.

We can all make a claim of something unseen, unknown, unheard as being the cause of everything and anything. We can also make a claim that an evil red guy with horns is the cause for all the nasty people and criminals... i could say lady chatterly is the reason i have 10 toes, but that is not evidence. That's mere speculation and conjecture.

Evidence of what, exactly? And how should I present it to you that would isolate it nicely enough?

Evidence pertaining to the existence of a god/s. There probably is none, which in itself doesn't prove there isn't, it just lowers the probability. Fuck, who knows.... there very well might be a god, there's just no worthy evidence to suggest there is. Thus any claim made is pure unfounded speculation. You can't say "There IS" and just leave it at that.... well, maybe you can, but you're only fooling yourself.

You can offer some evidence, whatever you feel is pertinent, to raise the probability of a god/s existence but that's only if you want to/can do so. However, it seems you think just because you say so, everyone should "trust" you, and believe the same. Shall i expect to see any evidence?

No list I could provide will do anything but reflect what you can read for yourself in the Bible. Or even experience for yourself.

The bible is hardly credible evidence. I will agree it's a very interesting read, but it is so blatantly flawed that it can hardly be taken overly seriously. A couple of examples:

1) genesis/ exodus/ leviticus etc are close copies of older sumerian texts based on completely different beliefs. The similarity in stories is intruiging- ranging through creation itself, noah, abraham, moses etc etc...

Old Babylonian beliefs can also be seen within the bible, (such as babylonian astronomy concerning the firmament, and the "windows" or "floodgates" that god opened and closed during the noah episode. (Not to mention the very first page where god separates the waters below and the waters above)

Here's a pic: Click (http://www.neverlands.org/newspaper/babylonianfirmament.gif)

I will explain this in greater depth if asked to do so.

2) Simple lack of human understanding..

The bible is packed to the brim with errors made due to lack of human understanding at those times. I suppose now's about the time we can look at god's own lack of understanding:

"And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomina- tion: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, etc etc... and the bat."

"And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."

"But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you."

Bats are NOT birds, hares do NOT chew the cud, and insects/flying creepy things do NOT have four legs. I suppose you could give some pathetic argument to the last one like: "Oh but god only meant anything with a minimum of four legs." But that is the style with which the thiest stretches everything to it's utter limits in a shallow attempt at rebuttal.

We can then look at the "flat earth" belief.. angels standing on the four corners of the earth etc... Even in isaiah where it states god made the 'ends' of the earth.... There are no ends, we live on a big round ball. You might well claim it's all figurative, but it fits in well with the human belief of how the planet was.

We could look mention josh 10 etc claiming god stopped the sun... even though it's actually earth thats moving, again a sign of ancient lack of understanding.

3) Plain outright contradictions.

"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth"

Here he makes animals, then man.... now look at the next bit

"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

Here he makes them after man.... But nevermind, it's not important right?

jesus says: "I and my Father are one"

jesus says: "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

Make up your mind.. yeesh.

"The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."

"The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

O.....k

jesus' last words: matt/luke and john: jesus says 3 completely different last words in all of them. Obviously 2 of them are wrong, unless jesus said all 3 things in which case all of them got it wrong.

That shows beyond reasonable doubt that the bible is not an inspired work of god/gods prophets etc but the work of separate individuals who kinda made it up as they went along.

"So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?"

"So God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee"

hmmmmmmm

"And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah."

"And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel."

Oh man..... was it god or satan ffs? surely they can't be that hard to tell apart?

"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts."
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend."
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."

"No man hath seen God at any time."
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live."
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see."

Oops....

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."

I apologise for length but that just goes to show the outrageous amount of errors, (what i have put here is but a minsicule amount of overall contradictions within the bible).

4) Impossibilites.

Let's use noah as the example. 7 of each type of bird, (would make a total of 69,300 birds) [we currently know of 9,900 different birds- this changes quickly of course]. and 7 of each clean/2 of each dirty animal. Let's pretend they're all dirty to lower the amount for you. We know of 4,600 mammals. I have not included reptiles, amphibians etc. (i'm in a nice mood). That gives us 9,200 mammals that must have been on the ark. That's a grand total of 78,500 animals on an ark that biblical schematics don't give a lot of room to work with. The ark was to be made out of cypress wood- granted, it's strong, but so are elephants, rhinos etc. You'd also have to separate animals- can't put lions and deer together- so you'd need separate quarters and in many cases areas with stronger support than cypress wood.

Sorry, it's getting too long. In short, it's an impossibility. The minute you say "it's just a metaphor" that denounces any validity the rest of the bible may be given. My advice: Read the sumerian original.

Add all of these points together and what you're left with is an interesting book and look at ancient humans who didn't know too much. Aside from that it's worth absolute donkey poop.

So much for the bible....

okinrus

07-15-03, 11:20 AM

1) genesis/ exodus/ leviticus etc are close copies of older sumerian texts based on completely different beliefs. The similarity in stories is intruiging- ranging through creation itself, noah, abraham, moses etc etc...

Old Babylonian beliefs can also be seen within the bible, (such as babylonian astronomy concerning the firmament, and the "windows" or "floodgates" that god opened and closed during the noah episode. (Not to mention the very first page where god separates the waters below and the waters above)

I don't think that this proves anything. For all we know, God may have created the Genesis account using his knowledge of common beliefs at the time. Nor do I think that represents a literal creation account. I beleive that the garden of Eden is within Adam's and Eve's hearts. This is why in Ezekiel, God says he will build them a new heart and why Jesus says that the kingdom of God is within you.

About assigning evidence... Well, i wouldn't say my cup of tea being hot is evidence of there being a god/s. The evidence would suggest it had something to do with me boiling the kettle.

Think harder about it. Why do you fell heat? Perhaps the electricity goes up to your brain, which then processes it. But why does it really feel painful? What can consitutes the range of degree of pain? What makes pain different than other sensations? I don't think that we have answers for these questions. At some point the soul interacts with the brain and enables us to feel these sensations.

And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomina- tion: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, etc etc... and the bat."

"And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."

"But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you."

Bats are NOT birds, hares do NOT chew the cud, and insects/flying creepy things do NOT have four legs. I suppose you could give some pathetic argument to the last one like: "Oh but god only meant anything with a minimum of four legs." But that is the style with which the thiest stretches everything to it's utter limits in a shallow attempt at rebuttal.

I've already answered these in the other thread.

We can then look at the "flat earth" belief.. angels standing on the four corners of the earth etc... Even in isaiah where it states god made the 'ends' of the earth.... There are no ends, we live on a big round ball. You might well claim it's all figurative, but it fits in well with the human belief of how the planet was.

We could look mention josh 10 etc claiming god stopped the sun... even though it's actually earth thats moving, again a sign of ancient lack of understanding.

The accounts of Joshua stoping the Sun are human accounts of the event. If you were a human at that time, you would describe it similarly. There is evidence of this because the Aztecs describe a similar event happening.

We can then look at the "flat earth" belief.. angels standing on the four corners of the earth etc... Even in isaiah where it states god made the 'ends' of the earth.... There are no ends, we live on a big round ball. You might well claim it's all figurative, but it fits in well with the human belief of how the planet was.

Many of these apparant contradictions, is man of that time praising God using common idioms. Isaiah is poetic. Revelation uses many other metaphores such as the sea being Satan's home. I'm sure that there is no problem with the angel who stands on the sand being a metaphor. The earth can be described at having ends of course, at the poles and two other points that describe the sphere.

Here he makes them after man.... But nevermind, it's not important right?

Genesis is collection of four different oral accounts of creation combined by scribes into one 3000 years ago.

I agree but that means that God cannot be omniscient since that requires perfect knowledge of everything past, present and future.

An all powerful God can give his creatures knowledge. Because his creatures have the feeling of doubt, God too must know what doubt feels like. The key thing though is that God is powerful enough to take away our freewill just like other spiritual gifts.

SnakeLord

07-15-03, 11:53 AM

I don't think that this proves anything. For all we know, God may have created the Genesis account using his knowledge of common beliefs at the time. Nor do I think that represents a literal creation account. I beleive that the garden of Eden is within Adam's and Eve's hearts. This is why in Ezekiel, God says he will build them a new heart and why Jesus says that the kingdom of God is within you.

Now we leave the scene of any possible evidence and walk off into the land of groundless assumption...

Don't bother responding if that's all you have. I can't stand time wasters.

Think harder about it. Why do you fell heat? Perhaps the electricity goes up to your brain, which then processes it. But why does it really feel painful? What can consitutes the range of degree of pain? What makes pain different than other sensations? I don't think that we have answers for these questions. At some point the soul interacts with the brain and enables us to feel these sensations.

*sarcasm* So.... god did it. Ah mission achieved. you don't know how much joy it is to answer every question in the world with 3 words. */sarcasm*

However most of what you ask above has been thoroughly documented and shown by science. Trying to squeeze a soul in there for good measure is groundless, evidence-less, and many other things ending in 'less'.

Where's ANY evidence to corroborate ANYTHING you've said?

I've already answered these in the other thread.

I've already replied showing how far off the scope of reality your reply was.

The accounts of Joshua stoping the Sun are human accounts of the event. If you were a human at that time, you would describe it similarly. There is evidence of this because the Aztecs describe a similar event happening.

Aztecs are irrelevant here. The fact remains the account is inaccurate. I am showing how the bible is not a credible source for truth, you are actually agreeing with me.

Many of these apparant contradictions, is man of that time praising God using common idioms. Isaiah is poetic. Revelation uses many other metaphores such as the sea being Satan's home. I'm sure that there is no problem with the angel who stands on the sand being a metaphor. The earth can be described at having ends of course, at the poles and two other points that describe the sphere.

Yes, it's always a metaphor until you decide otherwise *yawn*. I can't believe how groundless your claims and debates are- but what i really do not believe is the fact that you believe what you're saying. It's scary.

Either way, this shows inaccuracy which does nothing but lower the bibles credibility as a source of truth.

Genesis is collection of four different oral accounts of creation combined by scribes into one 3000 years ago.

That was supposed to be an answer to something? genesis is contradictory- end of argument. The fact that it contradicts itself, (because of 4 scribes or 20 mcdonalds employees), gives less credibility to the bible as being a source of truth.

Come back when you have something of worth to offer. groundless stuff made up on the spur of the moment is not needed. Furthermore i don't need you to make my point stronger for me, but it seems you like doing that, so be it.

Jenyar

07-16-03, 07:12 AM

originally posted by SnakeLord
Now we leave the scene of any possible evidence and walk off into the land of groundless assumption..

*sarcasm* So.... god did it. Ah mission achieved. you don't know how much joy it is to answer every question in the world with 3 words. */sarcasm*
However most of what you ask above has been thoroughly documented and shown by science. Trying to squeeze a soul in there for good measure is groundless, evidence-less, and many other things ending in 'less'.

If you don't believe the evidence, or in the credibility of the source - it does not matter what it points to, you will always find fault with it. Humans will always try to understand God using concepts and contexts that they are familiar with and do understand. When someone has a different insight on the same thing, that can also be true. The point of everything in the Bible is for man to form a conception of how he came here, what happened, and what he is supposed to do in the light of what God intended, intends and wishes for us. If getting it wrong about whether a bat is a bird (by the way, you have to ask what the word for "bird" meant) makes any difference about our perception of God, then it is negligable, I can assure you.

Aztecs are irrelevant here. The fact remains the account is inaccurate. I am showing how the bible is not a credible source for truth, you are actually agreeing with me.

Either way, this shows inaccuracy which does nothing but lower the bibles credibility as a source of truth.

That was supposed to be an answer to something? genesis is contradictory- end of argument. The fact that it contradicts itself, (because of 4 scribes or 20 mcdonalds employees), gives less credibility to the bible as being a source of truth.
Congratulations. You figured out that the Bible doesn't replace science. It cannot take away knowledge, but it can add to it. The fact that you know everything you do and still fail to see that the Bible is everything we know about God - not everything we know about the earth - shows that you have no interest in whether the Bible is reliable or not.

If I take everything you said about Sumerians, and compare it with everything Dr. X of the National Historical Society has to say about Sumerian culture, I am bound to find "contradictions". Does that mean neither you nor Dr. X are credible sources? Even if you claim to be Dr.X-inspired, I'm sure that you'll only use whatever information you agree with, or need in order to say what you intend on saying about Sumerian culture. While whatever you or he has to say might be "inaccurate" or even "contradicting", if you both base what you say on established truths there will be no denying the validity of either of your accounts.

The Bible says exactly what it intends to say, it reports exactly what it intends to report - the amazing thing is that it consists of hundreds of different accounts (as you are keen to point out). If you are more interested in the scientific accuracy of these stories - you are clearly missing the point. If you can show me where those inaccuracies portray God inaccurately, it's a different story.

jesus says: "I and my Father are one";
jesus says: "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."
The contradiction? That you don't understand how God can be God and human at the same time? If I told you blue and red are different colours, but in reality both are simultaneous instances of white, as little as 250 years ago, you would have no reason to believe me, and I would not have had the technology to prove it to you either. Would a rainbow make you believe? QED.

You said it yourself: "2) Simple lack of human understanding.."

"The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."
"The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."
Again: what is the contradiction, beside from the apparent paradox? Is it a contradiction to say "people live and die at the same time"?

Here is my personal favourite paradox:
Proverbs 26
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you will be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.

It clearly indicates the Bible is completely devoid of anything credible. I agree: it clearly is full of many incredible things.

What would happen if scientists started using the mentality that if something contradicts, it can't point to something true? Why do you think we have come up with incredible theories like the Many Worlds theory, or Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

Cris

07-16-03, 09:44 AM

Jenyar,

It clearly indicates the Bible is completely devoid of anything credible. I agree: it clearly is full of many incredible things.You are correct but do you really mean this?

From Webster – incredible: too extraordinary and improbable to be believed; also: hard to believe.

Is it any wonder that so many don’t believe and require some credible evidence first?

What would happen if scientists started using the mentality that if something contradicts, it can't point to something true? Why do you think we have come up with incredible theories like the Many Worlds theory, or Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?For the sake of argument we might agree that the imagination of religionists is as good as scientists but there is one major difference between the two groups –

Religionists fully expect their imaginative ideas to be accepted as true, scientists have no expectation that their ideas will be accepted until there is proof.

SnakeLord

07-16-03, 10:40 AM

If you don't believe the evidence, or in the credibility of the source - it does not matter what it points to, you will always find fault with it.

If there is a fault, there's a fault. Don't try and blame it on everyone else. The faults are there, you try to cover up for that by blaming it on anyone who doesn't happen to agree 100% with your groundless faith. Furhtermore i could use your same sentence this way: If you do have total faith you will never find fault- even when it's staring you in the face. It's kinda like going out with a new woman.. You could not find fault with her no matter how hard you tried. Later on, once you become slightly less attached, you notice the faults that have always been there- it's just your eyes were blind to them before.

Humans will always try to understand God using concepts and contexts that they are familiar with and do understand.

So what else? We're supposed to think, with our human brains, that we have the ability to understand any godly concept or context? If not, we're all in the same boat. But at the end of the day you claim you know what it "really" means and in doing so, ignore everything it actually says.

The point of everything in the Bible is for man to form a conception of how he came here, what happened, and what he is supposed to do in the light of what God intended, intends and wishes for us.

And none of those questions have been answered. There is not one piece of credible evidence to suggest the reality of adam/eve- in fact so many theists themselves claim it's nothing more than a metaphor. The events depicted hold very little evidence to suggest a reality. Errors do not help out... for example the 3 different last words of jesus.... who was at the tomb etc etc.. When there's an error, there's an error. There's no reason a book written by/dictated by god wouldn't be able to get jesus last words right. I mean really..... he's god, the son of, whatever... and his very last words he left to the humans who worship him couldn't even be remembered and written down accurately. I noticed you didn't put any rebuttal to that on your response. I'd be interested to hear one.

Furthermore there's no real evidence to suggest god exists. Ok, i know you don't care- i mean after all it was you who said "if you want to find god, dont look." If all you need to do is not bother, it defeats the very reason to have a brain.

If getting it wrong about whether a bat is a bird (by the way, you have to ask what the word for "bird" meant) makes any difference about our perception of God, then it is negligable, I can assure you.

As far as the bird/bat scenario goes, i will concede it's not a biggie- but i wonder why you picked that particular one out of so many, and yet completely ignored the majority i posted.

However, anyone interested in details and facts needs to research things and look into things. I won't expect you to understand that, you don't need such things as facts and details so it's of no consequence, but the majority of people do. We find errors and flaws, you lot blame us as the cause. We don't put them there- we just point them out.

The fact that you know everything you do and still fail to see that the Bible is everything we know about God - not everything we know about the earth - shows that you have no interest in whether the Bible is reliable or not.

What are you babbling on about? A person in your position is in no place to be telling others they're not interested in reliability. If you were we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If I take everything you said about Sumerians, and compare it with everything Dr. X of the National Historical Society has to say about Sumerian culture, I am bound to find "contradictions". Does that mean neither you nor Dr. X are credible sources?

To answer your question: If there was a contradiction, that's a contradiction and lowers the validity of complete truth. That's just one contradiction, imagine if there were hundreds.

dr.x died yesterday. His last words were: "argggggggg, this sucks."

dr.x died yesterday. His last words were: "Hey, whats for supper?"

Somewhere in there is an error. Simple. What's very strange is, dr.x is god/son of god and surely his last words would have been remembered accurately? So howcomes we have 2, (in this version), different colliding accounts of what he said?

Sure, we could just say "who gives a shit, its not important" and ignore it, or we could be interested in this thing called truth and this other thing called fact and try and find out which, if any, is valid. Surely as a lover/worshipper of this guy, you'd also want to know exactly what his last words were? Maybe not... Very strange, he's god... if he's as mighty as everyone suggests i'd listen intently to every word he ever uttered and wouldn't ever dare not know what his final words to the human race were. If i was put in charge of writing his biography i'd make damned sure to get it accurate.

I really don't understand why you fail to see the importance.. but, well, that's your choice.

I'm sure that you'll only use whatever information you agree with, or need in order to say what you intend on saying about Sumerian culture.

I could tell you a billion things concerning it.... but then how is any valid unless it has corroborating evidence? Answer= it isn't. If there is evidence but it's heavily flawed what does that suggest?

{Your most likely reply} The evidence is perfect as it is, ignore the flaws.

In that case everything is true. That picture of the loch ness monster is real.... it doesn't make a difference you can see a plastic strip on the bottom of it, who gives a shit about errors?

Furthermore, it's the work of theists to use only whatever suits them. The rest of us look at everything.

While whatever you or he has to say might be "inaccurate" or even "contradicting", if you both base what you say on established truths there will be no denying the validity of either of your accounts.

Not for a theist, no. That's how you guys work. If there are inaccuracies and contradictions they will be found and studied. The infactuated, cloud-9 evidence-less believers will claim the flaws/contradictions aren't there.... They are there it just takes open eyes to see them. But i guess the way you've stated it makes sense for a religious person.

"There's no denying validity if you both agree with it." That's all it takes for you guys heh.

The Bible says exactly what it intends to say, it reports exactly what it intends to report - the amazing thing is that it consists of hundreds of different accounts (as you are keen to point out). If you are more interested in the scientific accuracy of these stories - you are clearly missing the point.

What point is that? That all errors and flaws are irrelevant as long as i believe in god and jesus? :bugeye:

The contradiction? That you don't understand how God can be God and human at the same time? If I told you blue and red are different colours, but in reality both are simultaneous instances of white, as little as 250 years ago, you would have no reason to believe me,

The silly blue analogy is irrelevant here. However...

{blue} White and i are one and the same.
{blue} White is greater than me.

If white and blue=same, blue would not claim white is greater, because blue is in fact white, and white is in fact blue. They are in fact one and the same. How can white be greater than blue even though white is blue?

The problem isn't lack of understanding that god can be god and man at the same time.... it's that one has claimed the other is greater- even though there is no other.... its him. Unless you're a pagan of course...

I am aware of the ridiculous trinity notion but that is of no assistance here.

Yes they can go around by themselves... however for one of them to claim one of the others is greater, denounces themselves from having the same power as the other, lowering their status. No matter how many different sections they break into, they're still one and the same- thus they wouldn't claim they are greater than themselves.

"I am greater than me."

Well, whatever.

Of course we could argue this for the next millennium, even though jesus himself said he was not god, and god himself said jesus was only a priest (forever). Still... you just believe whatever you want to regardless of what the evidence shows. Oh and ignore whatever might possibly collide with your beliefs. It's of no consequence.

Again: what is the contradiction, beside from the apparent paradox? Is it a contradiction to say "people live and die at the same time"?

i'm glad to see you managed to point out two of the list..., of course it's a shame you didn't get round to all of them but i understand time restraints. Suffice it to say paradox examples, such as the one you showed in return can be argued about until the end of time without result.

However, to really go into the issue it requires a look at more than two examples. Yes, we could not bother looking at any, but we'd only be fooling ourselves. I'd still like to know what jesus last words were, wouldn't you? I'd also like to know whether it was satan or god who told david to go number israel, whether god sais 3 or 7 years of famine and so on.. Maybe one day he'll tell us and we wont have to rely on the bible any more.

What would happen if scientists started using the mentality that if something contradicts, it can't point to something true?

When you have 3 colliding claims of fact it is apparent they're not all accurate. It's not to say one of them isn't accurate- but to say they can't all be accurate.

Scientist 1 "This pill cures headaches"
Scientist 2 "This pill causes headaches"
Scientist 3 "This pill doesn't cure headaches"

Would you say all of that is true? Isn't at least one of them false? Would you just take the pill after hearing these 3 statements, or would you try and find out the truth?

Why do you think we have come up with incredible theories like the Many Worlds theory, or Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

And the 'there's a god' theory? Theories are not facts. That's why there's people who study them in order to ascertain fact from fiction. When there are many flaws it doesn't help establish something as being fact.

Mystee

07-16-03, 04:07 PM

Ok I just want to address a few of these points. As for Jesus' last words: Matthew and Mark say Jesus said "My God my God why have you forsaken me. (He was quoting a psalm.) It then says he was offered some wine and cried out again before giving up his spirit. We are not told in Matthew or Mark what his last words were. Luke says he cried "Father into your hands I commit my spirit." Then it sais he breathed his last. These are his last words. John says After he was offered the wine he said "it is finished" It is likely all three of these things were stated. Only Luke claimes he died emmediatly after speaking. By looking at scripture with an open mind rather than looking for a fault I have been able to answer your question. You could read many faults into scripture if that is what you are looking for, but if you go at it with an open mind you will find answers. Just because something seems contradictory or unclear does not mean it is untrue. Be willing to look a bit deeper.

As for God saying "I am greater than me": Jesus was in human form when he said this. He was restricted just like we are. He did this voluntarily, but he was still restricted. He had to learn things the way we did (Though he was much better at it) and he could only do miracles on a basis of faith. He did not know when the last day was; he said only the father knew. So for him to say the father is greater was probably accurate, but only because of the restrictions he put on himself. He had to drink eat and sleep and he could only be one place at a time. When Jesus was on Earth, the father was greater. It was not contradictory for him to say that. I hope I have helped clear somethings up.

In Christ's undying love,

Mystee

SnakeLord

07-16-03, 05:22 PM

As for Jesus' last words:

Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Mark15::34: "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" etc etc etc... With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last."

We are not told in Matthew or Mark what his last words were.

Yes you are.

It is likely all three of these things were stated.

No it isn't. your claim is pure eisegesis.

"It's likely" - as if that adds worth to the debate or any value to reality. It's only "likely" because you do not have an open mind to accept the possibility it's flawed and you can come up with no other excuse, thus you settle on the first available one without paying any attention to the evidence at hand. Twist, distort, corrupt.

Only Luke claimes he died emmediatly after speaking.

Wrong. Both John and Luke mention the very last word before death. Both of these differ with what that last word was. Furthermore neither of the other accounts mention anything else being said. There's no reason they would leave out anything he did say, and you have no justification to claim he did say anything else. It's so readily convenient for you to adjust/make addons/change and distort the written word when there's a problem unless you do so. That is merely evading the evidence and showing that it's nothing but a book that can be twisted and bent to suit yourself. If you need an example just name any book in existence and i'll claim there were extra words in there... just because it doesn't say they weren't there, means they were? Pathetic.

By looking at scripture with an open mind rather than looking for a fault I have been able to answer your question.

No you haven't. You have made groundless assumptions based on your own opinion instead of the evidence present. It was looking at the bible with an open mind that made me notice the fault in the first place. If i had have been a devoted jesus lover like you obviously are, i wouldn't have ever even noticed it, or questioned it if i had. And no, "It's likely" is not an answer to the question, especially when it bears no relevance to the evidence.

You could read many faults into scripture if that is what you are looking for, but if you go at it with an open mind you will find answers.

Actually, i was looking for an interesting read about human history. From page 1 through page end i just stumbled upon an overwhelming amount of errors. I considered the possibility it was just me who'd noticed these, but then purely by chance i stumbled upon a whole galaxy worth of bible contradiction pages. I found some new ones there, and contributed some other ones.. They are there... it's no coincidence the only people that deny the flaws are there are those who would burn in hell if they even considered the possibility. Thus having an "open mind" isn't a possibility for theists. The flaws/contradictions etc exist, you just block them out, for to acknowledge their existence is to go against your god, and to do so would be to receive eternal damnation. Shit, if that's not a motive to NOT see any flaws i'm hardly surprised. However, don't ever mention "open mind", when you're stuck in such a fragile position.

He did not know when the last day was; he said only the father knew. So for him to say the father is greater was probably accurate, but only because of the restrictions he put on himself. He had to drink eat and sleep and he could only be one place at a time. When Jesus was on Earth, the father was greater. It was not contradictory for him to say that. I hope I have helped clear somethings up.

Well this causes a barrage of trinity/omnipresent/omniscient problems that would take the next millennium to sort through. I'll try be brief...

Well........ if all 3 are one and the same then wherever one goes they all go, (seeings as they are just one and that one is omnipresent). So if the father is sitting up by his lounge in heaven so is jesus because they are both the same being and are omniscient. So whatever god knows, he knows..... so to say jesus didn't know is a false statement because he did know... unless they are separate entities. If jesus didn't know when the end was, it's apparent he is separate to the father, or if he is still the father- is not actually omniscient.... but if one part is omniscient, but the other isn't, then they're not of the same status. One is a god, one isn't.... because one fails on the omniscient/omnipresent/ factor.... but how can he fail if he's god? And how can he not know when the end days are but the other part of the trio does- that again states he's not godly because god knows, and he- being god, must also know....

Fuck this, no wonder you guys are insane....

I will try to put this in some organised formula.... gimme a month :D

Jahiro

07-16-03, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by SnakeLord
Fuck this, no wonder you guys are insane....
I will try to put this in some organised formula.... gimme a month :D [/B]

Haha! Great Post Snake, although I read it fast

-Jahiro

Jenyar

07-17-03, 04:05 AM

Snakelord
The reason I don't answer every single objection you come up with, is because if you don't understand the principle of clearing up their understanding, I might as well leave it altogether. However, if you can see the validity of one "contradiction" you might, with a little effort, be able to figure out the others yourself. That, and long posts tend not be read with the same attention.

As for Jesus' last words:
We know that John was the only one standing near the cross (John 19:25). From the rest of his writings, we also know his perspective and intent is on describing the subtext - what happened even though it weren't explicit.

From their combined accounts, a reconstruction is possible:

About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's calling Elijah."
Jesus said, "I am thirsty." A jar of wine vinegar was there, so (i)mmediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink (MT)/ they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips (JN). The rest said, "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him."

When he had received the drink Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (JN)/And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice(MT)/ Jesus called out with a loud voice (LK)/"Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last(LK)/gave up his spirit(MT).

Jesus last words might have been: "It is finished; Father into your hands I commit my spirit". Luke used the last words that he felt were necessary for his gospel account, which concentrated on the humanity of Christ. John uses the part that emphasizes the conclusion of Jesus' role as Saviour. Apart from this, you just readily assume that whatever was "cried out" by Jesus wasn't intelligable and therefore not words.

It is only an unresolvable contradiction if the difference cannot be reasonably resolved.

In this vein - you describe Jesus' words about the Father and Himself as logically unresolvable. You back this up with more assumptions on your part, and by putting words in our mouths:

So if the father is sitting up by his lounge in heaven so is jesus because they are both the same being and are omniscient. So whatever god knows, he knows...so to say jesus didn't know is a false statement because he did know... unless they are separate entities
This interpretation does nothing to explain Jesus' words, in fact they do the opposite - how can they be valid assumptions then?
The fallacy here is that you assume that God is unable to remain God, even when He separates his physical nature from his spiritual one. Jesus is for all intents and purposes the Son of the Living God - of the same Spirit, but of a different nature.

Let me ask you this: are you and your finger "one"? Does your finger act independently of "you"? Might your finger say something like: "I and the body are one" and at the same time, "the body is greater than me alone?"

dr.x died yesterday. His last words were: "argggggggg, this sucks."
dr.x died yesterday. His last words were: "Hey, whats for supper?"
If this was an account by the same person, I would say he should think about it first and try again... but if these were two different accounts, a whole range of possible explanations are available. One person might have gone to fetch his supper and only heard a "loud cry" from the other room.

I propose you post one or two contradictions at a time, so that we might be able to discuss them sensibly. It's a much more reasonable strategy. If I can clear up a fallacy using one example, it might be valid for more than one objection, and we won't have to repeat ourselves endlessly.

Balerion

07-17-03, 04:21 AM

Ok, so we're all in agreement here that Jesus was the son of God, right? And being the son of God, he is as all-knowing as God, correct? If all this is true, someone please explain this:

About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Doesn't sound very God-like, does it? These, mind you, are Jesus' words. He does not know what the purpose of his excecution is, nor does he know why God (Whom, mind you, he is one with) has let it happen.

So we reach a dichotomy: Jesus is God, yet he calls to himself and questions the purpose of the excecution, which indicates a lack of knowledge of the event and the reasons God (Whom, mind you, he IS ONE WITH) was letting it happen.

In one wail, we find the contradiction neccisary to disprove Jesus being the son of God. Prove me wrong.

JD

Jenyar

07-17-03, 05:23 AM

And being the son of God, he is as all-knowing as God, correct? If all this is true...
Jesus shares God's Spirit, which is not the same as God's spiritual nature (i.e. the Father himself). It might not be "true" in the sense we understand it to be.

Doesn't sound very God-like, does it? These, mind you, are Jesus' words. He does not know what the purpose of his excecution is, nor does he know why God (Whom, mind you, he is one with) has let it happen
It sounds decidedly human. As a quotation from Psalm 22, it would have reminded everybody who heard it of a prayer. These words cannot be heard without its context. What is the context?

Jesus did know why He was there:
Matthew 16:21
From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

John 2
18Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"
19Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
20The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" 21But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

Jesus wanted the Jews to uinderstand that He was indeed the Messiah, and all the nations that He was their Saviour. If there was any question about it, his death would have been in vain. By uttering these words, Jesus effectively placed what was happening to him in a different context: a messianic one. He was directing our attention to something...

Death is the worst separation imaginable for any living being. Jesus is one with God, He knew life, but now He was forsaking (sacrificing) "himself" (his immortality, his holiness, maybe his omniscience, his very Spirit) for our sake... (Incidentally, at the Ascention, Jesus effectively gave that Spirit to us). To be hanged on a piece of wood was a sign of being cursed. We are compelled to ask: What is the significance of this? When Jesus initiates his death with this quote from Psalm 22, he was asking us to finish the rest of it:

{v.16} Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. {17} I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. {18} They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.

{24}For he has not despised or disdained the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.
{25} From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly; before those who fear you will I fulfill my vows.
{26} The poor will eat and be satisfied; they who seek the LORD will praise him-- may your hearts live forever! {27} All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him,

{28} for dominion belongs to the LORD and he rules over the nations.

SnakeLord

07-17-03, 06:47 AM

The reason I don't answer every single objection you come up with, is because if you don't understand the principle of clearing up their understanding, I might as well leave it altogether.

I love how you people try and claim lack of understanding, thinking that somehow solves the problems. *yawn*. And i still await the day you clear up anything. What you give are pathetic excuses to try and avoid looking at the issue. Alright, i'll let you off, it's not like you have a choice. One wrong move, you burn in hell.... I do not suffer from the same fear so i can look at everything for how it actually is, instead of how i MUST.

However, if you can see the validity of one "contradiction" you might, with a little effort, be able to figure out the others yourself.

Well why bother by myself? So... i went off to an apologetics site to read up a bit. Topic of the day: judas

Did judas hang himself of fall over or spill his guts while in a field?

{site writer} Well, this is so easy to explain and it's not a contradiction at all. judas hung himself, and while he has hanging the rope loosened, he fell off, landed on the ground, and spilled his guts.

I know in advance you're going to agree with this, but it is a farce. What it shows is you guys just add/distort/corrupt/twist the bible to suit your own need to explain something, without any regard whatsoever for truth or evidence present.

On the one hand you all go around claiming this is the inspired word of god etc etc and then on the other hand go to assume the writers were complete fucking morons who couldn't write: 'he fell from the rop and burst his guts out', but instead someone else needs to make mention of it several chapters down the road.

That, and long posts tend not be read with the same attention.

Then please do not respond again. I understand they're long, but i don't want you replying if you haven't taken the time to read it properly. It saves me needing to say the same thing twice.

We know that John was the only one standing near the cross (John 19:25). From the rest of his writings, we also know his perspective and intent is on describing the subtext - what happened even though it weren't explicit.

And john was a simple retard who couldn't put jesus last words in full? And using the theist method, i will state everyone was there at the crucifiction. Ok it might not say they were in the bible but what relevance is that? It doesn't say they weren't.

You also know his intent was on describing the subtext? lol.

From their combined accounts, a reconstruction is possible:

Lol, if i do what you have attempted to do with the extremely pathetic dissecting of particular words, i could make noah look like god himself.

None of them had the brains just to write down his last words, instead they all sat down together and said: "Well i'll include word one, then you take your third sentence, word 2 and put it after luke's 5th sentence word 7. Once that's done take sentence 3 from mark and put it after the 8th sentence of matthew who will then take my first line and put it behind your 6th word."

OK jenyar, whatever you think..... :rolleyes:

Jesus last words might have been

Ah, might have been..... Isn't "might" such a pain in the ass? It shows you don't know the truth- *shout* which is why people like me point it out for you */shout*

If you were interested in finding truth, you wouldn't be sitting here saying "might", and thinking that's sufficient enough.

Apart from this, you just readily assume that whatever was "cried out" by Jesus wasn't intelligable and therefore not words.

Apart from this, you just readily assume that when someone "cries out" that they must be saying something completely legible to everyone, (not that anyone felt like writing those legible words- instead just saying "cried out"), all because there's 4 different accounts of what he said. By your definition, with all your "mights", you end up making the whole thing no different to any modern day steve jackson roleplay novel. "If you decide to go west, turn to page 180", etc etc.

For example people using jesus analogy of the fig tree, (which would have been such a rarity in that area) :bugeye: , to somehow tie in to jesus being the fig leaf sitting on adams private parts.

It is only an unresolvable contradiction if the difference cannot be reasonably resolved.

It still awaits a reasonable resolution.

You back this up with more assumptions on your part, and by putting words in our mouths

Lol. pot, kettle, black.

Let me ask you this: are you and your finger "one"? Does your finger act independently of "you"? Might your finger say something like: "I and the body are one" and at the same time, "the body is greater than me alone?"

Lol, what has my finger got to do with anything? If i chopped it off it wouldn't be able to do anything. It would wiggle on the floor for a tenth of a second while the electrical impulses from my brain recede, then it would sit on the ground and rot. However if my brain was also in my finger- and it was the same brain.. when i chopped my finger off, my finger would still know when the coming of the end days were, if i knew that. My finger wouldn't claim i was greater than he because we would share the same brain and as such, aside from outside appearance, would be identical.

If one is god, he is god..... he wouldn't claim god is greater then him, because he is god- and as you said, he's still god, regardless of different appearance. Thus saying he is greater then he is stupid. He might look like a measly little human but he is still god, and still the same, exact, identical god that is sitting somewhere else, but at the same time sitting everywhere in the universe at the same time, so jesus too is sitting everywhere in the universe at the same time. If he isn't, and the other god is then they are separate entities. If he still retains the knowledge of his other self he would know the end days or if he doesn't and his other half does- they are separate entities.

If this was an account by the same person, I would say he should think about it first and try again... but if these were two different accounts, a whole range of possible explanations are available. One person might have gone to fetch his supper and only heard a "loud cry" from the other room.

Ah, so on the one hand we can just do as we please and make a farce out of something so simple as writing down a mans last words, and then on the other hand we can't. You'd tell them to sit down and try again.... well, what a fucking surprise. And of course, there's always a billion and one "possible explanations". It's possible satan wrote the bible.... "possible" isn't prevalent to this discussion. One person might have gone to get supper, one might have suddenly gone deaf. It's irrelevant to the issue at hand- which is the fact that they are colliding statements. If we added in this scenario:

'After hearing the first line bob went off to fetch dr.x some supper' then we can include that as evidence to why he didn't hear the final words but you can't just sit down and say "he might have said", "it's a possibility", and all the other evidence-less nonsense you seem to like bringing into a discussion.

I propose you post one or two contradictions at a time, so that we might be able to discuss them sensibly. It's a much more reasonable strategy. If I can clear up a fallacy using one example, it might be valid for more than one objection, and we won't have to repeat ourselves endlessly.

For what reason? All you'll do is claim "he might have been talking about something else", "It's possible he farted, which blew the wind, which cleared the flood water" or some other worthless, completely pointless answer to something you obviously cannot answer. Well, maybe you can answer but instead just like telling jokes.

Jenyar

07-17-03, 08:21 AM

I know in advance you're going to agree with this, but it is a farce. What it shows is you guys just add/distort/corrupt/twist the bible to suit your own need to explain something, without any regard whatsoever for truth or evidence present.
Interesting how your objections rely more on the words in the Bible as set in stone, completely self-evident and inhuman than even the worst fundamentalist.

Explanation is not distortion. It would be distortion if I changed or disagreed with anything written there. Understanding is only "twisting" in that it twists your ignorance into something intelligable.

I have no fear of hell - and Christ is the cause of that fear never having to be present. I do, however, fear God who is the judge of what I do.

On the one hand you all go around claiming this is the inspired word of god etc etc and then on the other hand go to assume the writers were complete fucking morons who couldn't write: 'he fell from the rop and burst his guts out', but instead someone else needs to make mention of it several chapters down the road.
Oh yes, we dumb Christians have pages and pages of doctrine based on just this subject. I guess we'll have to edit out this part of the Bible as well :rolleyes:

Whatever explanation makes sense to you is fine. As long as you don't have to twist what has been written. If you have point A and point Z, you can connect them any way that makes sense to you, as long as you don't ignore all the points B to Y inbetween.

If one account said Jesus hanged himself and another said he was killed on his way to Rome, it would threaten my faith in the truth of his death. If you want to base your faith on Judas' death, you have seriously misread the Bible.

Then please do not respond again. I understand they're long, but i don't want you replying if you haven't taken the time to read it properly. It saves me needing to say the same thing twice.
I only respond to what I have read, understood and thought about. But I'm not your research assistant.

And john was a simple retard who couldn't put jesus last words in full? And using the theist method, i will state everyone was there at the crucifiction. Ok it might not say they were in the bible but what relevance is that? It doesn't say they weren't.
Read John. If you find anything that denies that Jesus died on the cross or said anything on it - I'd call that an inconsistency. Paul was only called to serve after Christ's resurrection. Luke's introduction implies that he was not there himself. At least some of the gospel writers had to rely on accounts from those present. The accounts might not be exhaustive, but that does not mean they are not reliable.

Lol, if i do what you have attempted to do with the extremely pathetic dissecting of particular words, i could make noah look like god himself.
Please try! It should make an interesting study, and in fact would add much to some of the typological similarities already mentioned in the NT.

None of them had the brains just to write down his last words, instead they all sat down together and said: "Well i'll include word one, then you take your third sentence, word 2 and put it after luke's 5th sentence word 7. Once that's done take sentence 3 from mark and put it after the 8th sentence of matthew who will then take my first line and put it behind your 6th word."
None of them had the guts to write anything they couldn't attest to, or that did not conform to what they came to understand through everything that transpired or that they could confirm. You have no proof that they added anything, or even omitted anything. I believe their sincerity, and the very fact that not everything they say is identical says a lot about their integrity and the integrity of the texts themselves.

If the Bible was as utterly corrupted as you and others claim, surely if people could warp the major events to suit themselves, they could fix these little bothersome quotes.

Ah, might have been..... Isn't "might" such a pain in the ass? It shows you don't know the truth- *shout* which is why people like me point it out for you */shout*
If you were interested in finding truth, you wouldn't be sitting here saying "might", and thinking that's sufficient enough.
I'm not claiming anything contrary to what is written. Anything I interpolate must include "might" since they are hypothetical. TruthYour objections, I have to emphasize, are no less hypothetical, except they are based on premises you don't even believe in yourself: the moral infallibility of what was written. "These people *might* have all heard the same man say four different things before he died" - come to think of it... what are you saying? If you think they made the whole thing up, just say so - but I would like to see you come to *that* conclusion from the text...

Apart from this, you just readily assume that when someone "cries out" that they must be saying something completely legible to everyone, (not that anyone felt like writing those legible words- instead just saying "cried out"), all because there's 4 different accounts of what he said.
Based on what they reported, this is the most likely explanation. Not everybody understood Hebrew (as is clear from the Eli lama Sabachtani confusion). Paul and Luke were Roman (Greek), Matthew was Jewish, Jesus spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. Thousands of people were gathered. Not everybody heard the same things.

Thus saying he is greater then he is stupid. He might look like a measly little human but he is still god, and still the same, exact, identical god that is sitting somewhere else, but at the same time sitting everywhere in the universe at the same time, so jesus too is sitting everywhere in the universe at the same time
I you chopped your finger off, it would not know anything but what you told it if it does not carry a brain. Jesus obviously was not the "exact, identical god sitting somewhere else" - He was there and then, in a physical body, using a human brain. The essence of God is not physical and definitely not human. Jesus was "everywhere" in Spirit, but physically and mentally He was separate from God - otherwise He would have had no need to pray.

For example people using jesus analogy of the fig tree, (which would have been such a rarity in that area), to somehow tie in to jesus being the fig leaf sitting on adams private parts.
Unlike all other trees, the fig has this unique feature about it, that its fruit appears before its leaves. It also bears a symbolic association with Israel itself throughout the Old TestamentFig trees in Israel (http://home.att.net/~bibarch/fig_tree.htm). Symbolism and typology are perfectly valid means of expression.

SnakeLord

07-17-03, 09:46 AM

Interesting how your objections rely more on the words in the Bible as set in stone, completely self-evident and inhuman than even the worst fundamentalist

Bizarre thing to say....

If a book says someone hit a rock, the evidence suggests that person hit a rock. Just because some guy 800 pages later used the word 'rock' does not = that man was the rock that was hit. That's the difference.. This is just an example, dont start busting my balls stating i "base my whole faith, or lack thereof, on a rock".

You stated mark/matthew and luke were not at the cross when jesus got crucifed. In saying this, they would have got their information via word of mouth or prior written information. If john told them what was said, (because he was the only one there), then the accounts would match up, unless john purposefully kept the information to himself and told them all different versions. Do you have any justification to suggest why john told them all something different? Did he have a master plan to spread a final sentence into 4 different chapters? Again, if they were going by written account- they would have written what they read- or changed it to suit themselves, but in doing so, making an inaccurate account of events.

I have no fear of hell - and Christ is the cause of that fear never having to be present. I do, however, fear God who is the judge of what I do.

Ah but you do fear god... who is the judge... And if he judges you badly where do you end up? I'm sure thats not what you want. Either way you are confined to one simple line of thought.... anything that goes against that is blasphemy/going against god and would leave you in the shit.

Whatever explanation makes sense to you is fine.

Not without evidence it isn't.

As long as you don't have to twist what has been written. If you have point A and point Z, you can connect them any way that makes sense to you,

No you can't. Your answer is already set in concrete. You see, you cannot divert from your fact that god/jesus and the bible is complete truth. By that, you are unable to consider it anything other than absolute truth. As such you will run off on your point a,b,x and z in some silly attempt at covering up an obvious problem.

It's like a 'slot machine'.. To your eyes the reels only consist of cherries. You will always hit jackpot, even if you don't, because all you can see are cherries. There are other fruits, you just can't see them. That's not even through choice... you're under eternal threat if you don't hit jackpot.

If you want to base your faith on Judas' death, you have seriously misread the Bible.

This is the second time you've brushed it all aside in this manner with me on this thread. I will help you out a little: It was called an example. NOWHERE in it did i state it's the basis for my faith, (or lack thereof), or that i would want to base my faith on it. Again it's your mind jumping off into the realm of fantasy and claiming i've misread the bible because i felt like using a judas example. If i wanted to spend my time talking to a clown, i'd go to the circus.

I only respond to what I have read, understood and thought about. But I'm not your research assistant.

god must like me.

At least some of the gospel writers had to rely on accounts from those present. The accounts might not be exhaustive, but that does not mean they are not reliable.

You have no proof that they added anything, or even omitted anything.

Based on what they reported, this is the most likely explanation. Not everybody understood Hebrew (as is clear from the Eli lama Sabachtani confusion). Paul and Luke were Roman (Greek), Matthew was Jewish, Jesus spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. Thousands of people were gathered. Not everybody heard the same things.

Ummmm Ok. "Some" of the gospels had to rely on those who were present. They either weren't told the complete story, decided to ammend the complete story, or didn't understand the complete story. The simple fact that the versions are not identical Shows beyond reasonable doubt that all 4 versions have either added or ommitted something- through lack of knowledge of events, (although you state they would have been told by those present- who would know the complete story i assume? If not, it can't be considered an accurate account of events), or desire to change the complete story.

Furthermore whether they understood hebrew or not is irrelevant. One of them, i assume, must have done in order to make note of jesus last words. He would have written down what jesus actually said, in full, instead of hoping his buddies who couldn't even speak the language would somehow manage to get it right. If he then decided to translate it for them: see paragraph above.

You're falling apart.... You claim: "You have no proof that they added anything, or even omitted anything" and yet..... unless all accounts were identical it can only be stated that they all added/or omitted something, (whether by choice or not). If nothing had have been added, or taken away, the accounts would be the same.... work it out.

And how can you even make that statement to me? You're the one claiming they split it up between them, which shows the FACT that each one of them left out a particular bit.

Furthermore, your claim that language conflicts are the "most likely" explanation is flawed. I wonder if the non hebrew speaking people ran around with translators when jesus spoke to them his entire life? Or "maybe" they just guessed at what jesus was saying all along?

Well, whatever you think.

I you chopped your finger off, it would not know anything but what you told it if it does not carry a brain.

If i chopped my finger off it wouldn't know anything regardless of what i told it.

Jesus obviously was not the "exact, identical god sitting somewhere else"

So, he was a different god?

Here's an example:

You make a clone of yourself. That clone is identical. You then wipe his memory of all life's events. He is now no longer you. He might look the same, but he is a different person.

He was there and then, in a physical body, using a human brain.

So he was just a human being? So how did this human being, considering he's the one and only god, give himself back his godly powers? If his other half was sitting somewhere else, waiting to give him back some powers- then they are two completely separate entities and you should be believing in multiple gods. (first seen on page 1 of the bible).

Of all the irrational beliefs on the planet- an idea of the trinity is the most obscene.

The essence of God is not physical and definitely not human.

Which god are we referring to? :o Anything valid to corroborate that? I guess so, as you use the word definitely.

Jesus was "everywhere" in Spirit

Supporting evidence?

but physically and mentally He was separate from God - otherwise He would have had no need to pray.

Separate..... that's all you needed to say.

Unlike all other trees, the fig has this unique feature about it, that its fruit appears before its leaves. It also bears a symbolic association with Israel itself throughout the Old TestamentFig trees in Israel. Symbolism and typology are perfectly valid means of expression.

That's..... fascinating, thank you. But what has it got to do with my post? I was stating how people like to use one word on page 678 to somehow offer validity to a sentence on page 3.

Please try!

No thnx, i prefer looking at evidence instead of making it up as i go along.

None of them had the guts to write anything they couldn't attest to

I wish you'd make up your mind. One minute it's because they cant speak hebrew, the next they weren't there, then it's because they did but felt like making a puzzle book out of it, and now it's because they didn't have the guts..... *yawn* wake me up when you're finished.

If the Bible was as utterly corrupted as you and others claim, surely if people could warp the major events to suit themselves, they could fix these little bothersome quotes.

For fun i'll do the quick Jenyar style assumption:

The most likely reason is they couldn't understand each other, didnt have the guts to fix bothersome quotes, weren't even there to do so, etc etc etc.

Jenyar

07-17-03, 10:07 AM

The most likely reason is they couldn't understand each other, didnt have the guts to fix bothersome quotes, weren't even there to do so, etc etc etc.
You're getting the hang of it. They were human, doing their best to describe what happened during Jesus' life and death.

My point with Judas and the fig tree (no I'm not going to add the rock to it), was that you can worry about these things all you want, they do not change what lies behind the events described. You say these things show there is no truth behind it, and I say there is. You don't believe the evidence because you think it's flawed, period - I believe the flaws don't obscure their meaning or their purpose. You have not managed to convince me otherwise because you are convinced that the difference between details in the accounts should point at nothing but their utter and collective failure, and have shown no signs of even being able to consider otherwise.

On the other hand, I have shown a willingness to consider any alternative before dismissing them. This has been met with nothing but hostility and accusations. I am either "too set in my belief" or "too flexible". So which is it?

EvilPoet

07-17-03, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by SnakeLord
For example people using jesus analogy of the fig tree
Were figs in season (http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/figtree.htm#FIGTREE) at that time of year? Jesus cursed the fig tree for what? Being out of season? How silly is that? What ever happened to forgiveness?! It makes me wonder, does God hate figs (http://www.godhatesfigs.com/)?

SnakeLord

07-17-03, 10:51 AM

You're getting the hang of it.

You're obviously not- instead, ignoring my entire post and concentrating your efforts solely on the last comment, which was but a mere 'mickey-taking' of your way of doing things- which is to just come up with a million and one baseless assumptions and pray one of them is sufficient, instead of even caring whether a flaw exists or not. The flaw is still there, you're just not interested. That's fine, but then don't ever claim you're interested in truth.

was that you can worry about these things all you want, they do not change what lies behind the events described.

Worry? I'm not worried, im just interested in truth and facts. Looking at evidence, comparing it with other evidence etc etc can help get closer to truths and facts. Having the attitude of "the bible says there's a god, so there is", is beyond pathetic. I'm interested in history, im interested in facts and as such point out problems in the hope together everyone can work out truths. You're not interested in any of that- just because you say there's god, so there is. You attempt some kind of rebuttal which i always respond to, then once you run out of excuse you start telling me it's irrelevant, just believe in god.

You say these things show there is no truth behind it, and I say there is.

No i don't. I don't know if there's a god or not.. I don't claim to be that knowledgable. There might be, who's to say.. But the errors, contradictions, and problems are in the bible whether you want to acknowledge them or not. As a person interested in truth, it would stand to reason that i question them. Thus far there has not been a worthwhile rebuttal. "They couldn't speak the language" is flawed, "They weren't there" doesn't help your case at all, and "nothing has been added/omitted" is blatantly false- and even you must be aware of that, simply because all versions differ. Obivously that comes through lack of caring, and maybe i'll await a reply off someone who does care, and who is interested in truth. When i give up caring about anything and everything i'll come listen to you tell me just to believe in god, for no reason.

You don't believe the evidence because you think it's flawed, period

What evidence? you haven't even cited any. Once someone who does care gives me a rebuttal that actually has more merit than "they didnt talk the same language" i will review it. Until then it continues to be flawed- even you seem to concede to that, but just believe flaws don't obscure anything..., or rather just don't care if they do.

You have not managed to convince me otherwise because you are convinced that the difference between details in the accounts should point at nothing but their failure

Well, i have no need to even try convincing you of anything, simply because you don't care. But in honesty i'd rather it just all work out nicely and save me the time and energy concerning its validity. If there weren't flaws, i wouldn't need to point them out. Any person interested in truth would be the same. If they aren't there, everyone's happy. If they are there, people who care about truth start asking questions. I await someone who can answer them.

and have shown no signs of even being able to consider otherwise.

Once there is a more reasonable rebuttal than "they dont speak hebrew", it would be naturally considered.

For instance: you told me in old hebrew the translation we used as bird, actually means flying things. In that instances bats would no longer pose a problem, and, if you remember my post, i said i'd concede on that issue. See, problem solve- that's all it takes. IF the rebuttal has merit. If it's a load of old cobblers what do you expect?

On the other hand, I have shown a willingness to consider any alternative before dismissing them

Sorry, can you please put jenyar back on?

This has been met with nothing but hostility and accusations

I'm not a hostile person, it's just the way i type- Us English people are just generally very up-front and forthwith. If you take it as hostility, dont.

Accusations on the other hand are easy to fling back and forth. For instance you are now making an accusation that i'm hostile.... Nothing can be done to avoid that.

I am either "too set in my belief" or "too flexible". So which is it?

Not that i actually said either of them, and apparent that it is you've taken everything way out of context, this doesn't really require an answer. Once you have more time, and if you care, go back and re-read the posts properly and you'll understand why your statement here is unfounded and flawed.