Link to another thread on a similar topic:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/perfectly-evil-god.158221
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/perfectly-evil-god.158221
Was life on Earth created by an evil designer?
- Thread starter pluto2
- Start date
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Dear readers:
If you have witnessed Jan being evasive and answering questions with more questions, particularly about his definition of God, please like this post and tell your friends.
If you have witnessed Jan being evasive and answering questions with more questions, particularly about his definition of God, please like this post and tell your friends.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Dear readers:
If you have not witnessed Jan being evasive and answering questions with more questions, particularly about his definition of God, please like this post and tell your friends.
If you have not witnessed Jan being evasive and answering questions with more questions, particularly about his definition of God, please like this post and tell your friends.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I'm going to have you not take my word for it.So you're just going to ignore me and play up to your chums?
jan.
Fair enough. I understand you reluctance to answer, so I'll leave you in your obvious denial.
jan.
Satan was the left hand man of God in the Old Testament, up to Revelations, when Satan is thrown from heaven. Satan was an intermediary between humans and God. What is often referred to as God, was actually Satan. The analogy is the CEO (god) of a company sets global policies. He is not involved in evert decision in the company. He allows his the division heads (Satan), to have autonomy in their area. Satan was the god that humans saw, which is why God appears good and bad.
Another way to see this is below:
Matthew 4:1-11New International Version (NIV)
Jesus Is Tested in the Wilderness
4 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted[a] by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The temptercame to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’[b]”
5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:
“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’[c]”
7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’[d]”
8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’[e]”
11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.
The Jews had been waiting for a Messiah, for centuries. Jesus was not the exact Messiah they were waiting for. The Messiah they expected was supposed to be a powerful military leader, who would conquer and rule the world from a position of wealth and glory. Jesus was soft, simple and did not preach war. He preached love and humility; blessed are the poor.
However, if you read Matthew 4:1-11, above, if Jesus had worshipped Satan, he would have gotten all the trimmings needed to be the expected Messiah. The expected Messiah, would have been an underlying of Satan. Had Jesus bowed down to Satan, the Old Testament Messiah would have appeared. Satan, as division head, could hire his own people to take over some of the work load.
Jesus, by not choosing that path, became a division head, in his own right. In Revelations, the symbolism has Jesus coming back with might and glory in the final days. This Jesus is very different, since now he now looks like the Old Testament Messiah; powerful and glorious. This only happens after Satan is fired, and Jesus becomes Division head. Jesus replaces Satan as being in charge of the earth.
Another way to see this is below:
Matthew 4:1-11New International Version (NIV)
Jesus Is Tested in the Wilderness
4 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted[a] by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The temptercame to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’[b]”
5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:
“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’[c]”
7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’[d]”
8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’[e]”
11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.
The Jews had been waiting for a Messiah, for centuries. Jesus was not the exact Messiah they were waiting for. The Messiah they expected was supposed to be a powerful military leader, who would conquer and rule the world from a position of wealth and glory. Jesus was soft, simple and did not preach war. He preached love and humility; blessed are the poor.
However, if you read Matthew 4:1-11, above, if Jesus had worshipped Satan, he would have gotten all the trimmings needed to be the expected Messiah. The expected Messiah, would have been an underlying of Satan. Had Jesus bowed down to Satan, the Old Testament Messiah would have appeared. Satan, as division head, could hire his own people to take over some of the work load.
Jesus, by not choosing that path, became a division head, in his own right. In Revelations, the symbolism has Jesus coming back with might and glory in the final days. This Jesus is very different, since now he now looks like the Old Testament Messiah; powerful and glorious. This only happens after Satan is fired, and Jesus becomes Division head. Jesus replaces Satan as being in charge of the earth.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That was all I was asking for.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That was all I was asking for.
I said 4,763 times that you can't know truth. Any 0ne of those times you could have conceded, without all the dodginess.
As you know, one cannot prove the non-existence of something.
Fortunately, one does not need to.
If there is something that is beyond the natural world, then that's a claim - the onus is on the claimant to provide evidence of it - objective evidence. Unless the evidence can be shown to a third party - it's faith-based.
I'll be so bold as to presume James' viewpoint here. The reason he thinks the world operates purely naturally is because there is simply insufficient evidence to posit another way. Like me, and like many atheists, we don't deny that God might exist, we simply hold to the tenet that "the proof is in the pudding".
It is the same reason why - to rehash a common analogy - we don't assume unicorns or faeries exist, - i.e. unless there is good reason to.
Because it is as far as I know, doesn't mean it's not the truth.
Truth: the quality or state of being true.
That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
A fact or belief that is accepted as true.
Currently there is absolutely no reason to think, or believe I am a brain in a vat. It is more likely that I have a brain which is situated in my body. That is factual, and I accept it as the truth. I don't need to know everything to know that I am not a brain in a vat.
An absolutely non related statement.
Is it true that, if there is something that is beyond the natural world, then that's a claim - the onus is on the claimant to provide evidence of it - objective evidence. Unless the evidence can be shown to a third party - it's faith-based. or is it another one of your logical deductions?
Do you know that the operation of the world is natural, or is it possible that you perceive it to be so? With insufficient knowledge one could possibly think maggots spontaneously generate from meat. In fact they used to.
The proof is in the pudding.
What is the pudding?
jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Exactly. And I'm OK with you believing it is.
But acknowledge that it's a belief.
As I acknowledge my belief that the world is probably not run by God, and that I don't"know" the truth.
Perfect. All I insist is that you cannot know that God objectively exists anymore than you know you have hands.
Do you mean you don't understand?
You asked if James could prove the world operates naturally (in this context, that means without God).
It is impossible, in principle, to prove that something does not exist in the universe.
So, asking James to do so is useless.
He can't prove there are no unicorns either.
Are you a bot?
No.
It's not a conclusion. I am not attempting to state that I know how the world manifests.
You are.
Indeed. Thank you.
Atheists operate from a position of not knowing truths. (Yes, all of them. Some are more certain of it than others, but no rational atheist will say it as fact. And yes, there are irrational atheists who are fools for doing so.)
Theists pretty much have to operate from a position of thinking they do know truths.
The pudding is simply: atheists don't believe in things on faith. If something exists, show us.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I can't help myself.
Jan you point to how ancients made stuff up out of ignorance.
The maggot example is a good one....And yet you trust the ancients to get it right about God.
They got the maggots wrong through ignorance but more to the point it demonstrates how they simply made stuff up...so why can you not accept that they made up the notion of God.
You seem to be a very intelligent person yet when it comes to putting the scriptures into a historical context it is as if you cover your eyes and ears, its like some shutter falls so that even the hint of a fair analysis can not pass.
Why would someone who make up the maggot thing (and countless other superstitious notions and explanations in ignorance) get cosmology right.
Alex
Interestingly, the maggot story is a good example of scientific thinking.
The idea of spontaneous generation of life (maggots) was based on observation of the world. For example, it was observed that if one left raw meat out for a while, often maggots would be seen on the meat after some time. So, the hypothesis was formed that maggots generated spontaneously.
However, further careful testing showed that the maggots wouldn't form if, for example, the meat was placed in a sealed container. Therefore, the spontaneously generation hypothesis eventually had to be ditched for a better idea.
And what led to the better idea? Was it faith that the cause of maggots was supernatural? No, it was science.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I wonder if a child was raised in an environment with no talk of religion, god or afterlife etc (a seemingly impossible proposition) if that child would ever spontaneously one day declare there was a God.
Alex
If you work under the assumptions of atheism, that there is no god, then how do you explain the persistence of religion, in spite of continuous attempts to downplay and the notion of God? For example, the maggot growing on meat example of spontaneous generation, did not persist and continue to spread, like the notion of God. One reason is, in the meat example, science was able to offer evidence to the contrary. In the case of God, science expects the religious to prove God to them; ask the layman to do the job for them.
As an analogy, I can play the devil's advocate and claim that dark energy is a false god. Science needs to show dark energy is real, in the lab, before it should be able to use this to explain the universe. It is not different from saying God made the universe, which is not proven in the lab, and then use the observation of red shift as proof of the projection premise. Both science and religion project; pot calling the kettle black.
Animals interact with nature via their sensory systems; smell, sight, hearing, etc. Humans not only have these senses, but we also have imagination, which can project onto reality; like a movie. This can create a superimposed layer that can appear to be part of physical cause and affect.
As a science experiment, have someone drop you off at night in the woods, somewhere you have never been. For many people, it won't be long before the rustling of the leaves becomes an approaching wolf or the shadow among the bushes is a bear. An unconscious projection, from the imagination, will overlay the vague physical sensory input data; shadow plus bear, that is not part of physical reality, yet appears to be part of physical reality, causing people to react as though real.
God is connected to the inner world of the mind; inner man, which is not easy to transfer to the sensory systems of another, accept indirectly. If we had two people in the woods and one started to project threatening animals, and the other did not, the fear from the projecting person, via their body language, can cause the other to feel fear that can cause them to project. If the first person starts to run, the other will follow. You cannot prove there is a bear, via the rules of science, yet the body will nevertheless react to the projection, creating what appears to be inference data; indirect proof of concept.
As another science example, man made global warming is part projection. This can be inferred by the computer models being composed of both hard data and observations and assumptions; projections, with the models not fully predicting realty. The models see the bear in the bushes and they all over estimate.
Those on the left, predominantly support manmade global warming, without knowing the science.This is connected to a political projection. This can be inferred by the panic on the left, due to the loss to Trump. The projection was like a prophesy; anticipation of their world flooding; overwhelmed with emotion and panic.
Instead of reading the tea leaves; symbolic, they assumed this was all physical. Trump may not put as much resources into this, causing less publicity to reinforce the projection. He will add more fossil fuel and nothing will happen to the level of the projection.
Scientists are humans who have an imagination and an unconscious mind, yet there are no rules for calibrating the main tool of science; human mind. This is why they ask the religious to do their job for them. Region can help one to calibrate the mind. It symbolically tells how the operating system is laid out and the types of output one can expect.
As an analogy, I can play the devil's advocate and claim that dark energy is a false god. Science needs to show dark energy is real, in the lab, before it should be able to use this to explain the universe. It is not different from saying God made the universe, which is not proven in the lab, and then use the observation of red shift as proof of the projection premise. Both science and religion project; pot calling the kettle black.
Animals interact with nature via their sensory systems; smell, sight, hearing, etc. Humans not only have these senses, but we also have imagination, which can project onto reality; like a movie. This can create a superimposed layer that can appear to be part of physical cause and affect.
As a science experiment, have someone drop you off at night in the woods, somewhere you have never been. For many people, it won't be long before the rustling of the leaves becomes an approaching wolf or the shadow among the bushes is a bear. An unconscious projection, from the imagination, will overlay the vague physical sensory input data; shadow plus bear, that is not part of physical reality, yet appears to be part of physical reality, causing people to react as though real.
God is connected to the inner world of the mind; inner man, which is not easy to transfer to the sensory systems of another, accept indirectly. If we had two people in the woods and one started to project threatening animals, and the other did not, the fear from the projecting person, via their body language, can cause the other to feel fear that can cause them to project. If the first person starts to run, the other will follow. You cannot prove there is a bear, via the rules of science, yet the body will nevertheless react to the projection, creating what appears to be inference data; indirect proof of concept.
As another science example, man made global warming is part projection. This can be inferred by the computer models being composed of both hard data and observations and assumptions; projections, with the models not fully predicting realty. The models see the bear in the bushes and they all over estimate.
Those on the left, predominantly support manmade global warming, without knowing the science.This is connected to a political projection. This can be inferred by the panic on the left, due to the loss to Trump. The projection was like a prophesy; anticipation of their world flooding; overwhelmed with emotion and panic.
Instead of reading the tea leaves; symbolic, they assumed this was all physical. Trump may not put as much resources into this, causing less publicity to reinforce the projection. He will add more fossil fuel and nothing will happen to the level of the projection.
Scientists are humans who have an imagination and an unconscious mind, yet there are no rules for calibrating the main tool of science; human mind. This is why they ask the religious to do their job for them. Region can help one to calibrate the mind. It symbolically tells how the operating system is laid out and the types of output one can expect.
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
It has been my experience that humans are similar to sheep in so far as they are great followers.
If you grow up in a community where religion dominates and even the "smart folk" go along with the idea there are few who would challenge or think things through and not blindly accept the made up stuff the ancients used to explain cosmology.
I grew up in such a place. No room to think it through.
I have yet to personally meet any christian who has read the bible yet they hold it up as their authority.
They don't know what they are talking about yet they maintain a belief...held with no thought or question. Suggests a sheep like mentality...and of course the teachings talk about being one of the flock ...such encouragement to unquestioning obedience.
If something goes wrong " oh its God's will" ... No one dare ask..If God loves me then why do I starve every other week...oh in the next life it will be great...
Given the mob mentality I do not find any problem in finding religion survives.
Why should anyone think it through, all those churches must mean what they say is true...
The term dark energy is an up front confession that science can not explain it.
With religion an entity who never appears is explained with no admission that something may be wrong or outdated or having its roots in ancient superstition.
Science deals with replaceable models, sure some speak as if they have the answers and nothing will change but science can and no doubt will change as new data comes in.
That can not happen with religion.
Religion has no data... None, zip absolutely no data yet from that position has all the answers that will never change.
Religion seems to have arisen from mans attempt to personify the heavens, the resurrection is thought to mimic the course of the Sun where it is taken to die and after three days rise..12 followers 12 constellations..You seem well read you must know what I am talking about. If you don't then you know nothing about religion.
Whatever you think or say does not get past one simple fact...scriptures are written by men (no women got a look in strangely) who made up stuff, including the maggot deal, which they would still hold onto if science had not taken the maggot myth away from them.
And how long would the maggot myth have survived, thousands of years, more?
Further humans like fairy tales, fiction, make believe,ritual, custom, holidays and any excuse to dress up, and they enjoy hanging out with other humans...Religion offers all this and even if you did not believe in God going to church would still be a good deal..Heck even now how many folk say they are religious but really are not... I know many who do not practice what they preach.
Humans will evolve past to need to indulge superstition and with more education, we now know where maggots come from, folk will put religion into context and regard it as part of their history but not part of their future.
Anyways thank you for your thoughts and try and understand humans present science and can seem somewhat religious in their support however a true scientist will not hold anything as the ultimate truth and ready to address the next newest best model.
And never forget if not for science the maggot mystery would still be explained by ancient superstition.
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Are you trying to suggest God is in our imagination?
Is this what I am missing?
I could accept that but if it is an imaginary thing why does religion refer to things as if they are real.
Are you saying it is just a mind thing?
Alex
It's not asking the layman at all but rather asking the one making the claim to simply support that claim in a manner that science can understand and acknowledge. But you can't do that because God is outside of the purview of science; it is an unscientific concept.
The reason that it has persisted is because it helps provide answers to the questions that humanity has (who are we, where did we come from, what is our purpose etc) while itself remaining elusive to falsification, and the answers it gives remaining as elusive. The comfort people get from the answers provided, that in many cases allay fears of death and insignificance and the ilk, helps support the concept from which those answers arise.
Furthermore, the initial ideas of gods did die out (mostly) because they were not as falsifiable. Gods dwelling on Mt. Olympus? Well, one trip up the mountain will disprove that. Unless we change the nature of those gods so as to make them falsifiable.
Through the early centuries of Man it is not hard to imagine that the notion of God evolved, through pantheism, animism et al, to become the unfalsifiable concept it is today. And due to the subjective benefits people get from having faith in such a concept, it survives. But survival is not equitable with being correct.
No, science needs to show dark energy is real and as understood before it can claim the truth of what it claims about it. But science doesn't claim it as the truth: it is a theory. It is open to being shown to be wrong because it is falsifiable.
Scientists currently push it as the best possible explanation, but not the only one, nor necessarily the truth.
You do have a habit of distorting things to make your point, don't you.
It is very different, because on the one hand you have people preaching "the truth" and on the other you have people exploring falsifiable possible explanations. So not the same at all.
And what evidence are you going to present to show that animals do not have such an imagination? Yes, humans undoubtedly have a far more developed imagination, but unless you can support your claim, that's all it is: an unsupported claim.
Ever tried that with another animal?
Furthermore, what you describe is actually an instinctual part of our biology when in unfamiliar surroundings: when the body instinctively feels threatened it enters a state of hypervigilance, where threat detection is increased. This is the same for many animals. They will then be more likely to imagine a threat where none actually exist.
But, hey, if you have some support for this being purely a human thing, feel free to share.
Are you trying to say that God is simply all in the mind with no objective reality?
You think the US reverting back to coal will not impact the projections?
The main tool of science is self-calibrating... peer review, predictions etc.
As for religion, yes it can help people set their moral compass, but many people do not need that help; they are quite capable of not killing people without religion needing to tell them it is a bad thing to do.
And being of help does not mean that the underlying tenets of the religion is objectively true.
Thanks for your approval.
Why wouldn't I believe something that is true?
You claim to not know what is true, by claiming that you don't know what is true. If you don't know what is truth, how do you know that statement is true, or even correct?
Belief means accepting something as true, with or without evidence, meaning you accept as truth, your claims. How is it possible for you to accept any claim you make, as true, while claiming to not be able to know what is true? Can you see how silly your position is?
Sorry to sound like a scratched record, but is that the truth, or is it more than mere words coming out of you mouth?
It has nothing to do with God. Once again, don't try and presume what I mean.
What on earth are you talking about?
Did you not read what I wrote?
No I'm not a bot. Here's the question again...
...Is it true that... if there is something that is beyond the natural world, then that's a claim - the onus is on the claimant to provide evidence of it - objective evidence. Unless the evidence can be shown to a third party - it's faith-based.
Or is it another one of your logical deductions?
Hope that's a little clearer for you.
I'm afraid you can't purposely not know something. That is absurd.
What you probably mean is, they suspended what they knew, or thought they knew. That is not exclusively atheist, and it is silly to think it is.
Oh they do, do they?
Is this true, or is it more noise coming from your mouth?
If it's true, please explain.
Of course you believe in things on faith. Are you saying you know everything?
Why would I want to show someone who doesn't even want to acknowledge anything as truth, on the pretence of not knowing what truth is. It is better to leave you in your situation, in the hope that one day you'll come to your senses.
jan.
Last edited:
I'm sure I've given you information that shows that ancients weren't necessarily stupid or ignorant. Yet you cling to this wives tale.
It is atheists, who believe that nothing, of any real worth, was properly known, until the dawn of modern science. Personally I think you need to believe that. But it simply isn't true.
Do you really believe that God is a made concept?
Why do you?
Who said they made it up?
That is what they observed.
jan.