Why such an effort to prove the Bible wrong?

[jdavison]

Why is there such an attack at the bible. Why do you strive so hard to not accept it. There is so many facts that prove the bible reliable but you wish to believe science which questionable. I'm not trying to convince everyone but the subject has shown up in several threats and I would just like to know the reasons.

Thanks,
John

I find the bible VERY hard to believe.

[jdavison]

What's so hard to believe?

I dont believe in evolution anymore.
not because of the bible, but it did have an influence.

but I took a look at some of the "ape to man" charts, and there is an ape, then a caveman, then its modern human,
how can something go from something as dumb, and ape-like as a caveman.. to a human?
science has alot of things to prove that evolution is real, but if it is, why are there apes at all?
why hasnt everything that COULD NOT survive died?
because, people say that the reason things evolve is so they can survive, but if the previous species was so inferior, and could not survive, then why arent the apes and stuff Dead??

I am not trying to sound like a jerk or anything, but like the saying goes, there are only 2 things that are for sure in life


Dying
and
Taxes

The same reason why Jesus is so controversal.

[jdavison]

Darwin even renouced his own theory and said it really didn't hold water. But like you said the previous species should have died off. Thats the way the theory works, yet there are still apes among us. so where did humans evolve from??? Here is another interesting thing, the Isrealites(Jews) can trace there family tree back to Adam and Eve because there heritage is of such great importance to them. But then again they probably just made it up, or did they?

[Gen-X]

jdavidson

Why is there such an attack at the bible


Because someone decided to post a topic on the scientific proof of Gods existance, made an absolute mess of it and then claimed it still stood despite all the contradictions it contained.

That naturally flowed on to the Bible and all its contradictions. The Bible wasn't "attacked"... but I understand how it "appears" that way.

When you are testing the boiling point of water do you consider the water to be "Attacked"??? Of course not, you call it rigourous study, scientific evaluation...

But of course when it comes to something PERSONAL like the bible then you use words like "attacked". This only highlights that the text is not seen by its own merrits but through the values already placed within it by the persons belief.


Why do you strive so hard to not accept it


HAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!!!!

Strive so hard? There isn't a need to strive AT ALL!. Not accepting it is a logical and reaonsable conclusion based on the evidence presented.

You never get people quibbling over the existance of atoms, or the fact that light is carried by particles known as photons.... Because the evidence is undisputable and it stands APART from personal views.

Things like the bible however ARE personal... they are about concepts and beliefs and you cannot provide ANY factual evidence.

Scientists accept that the Bible was written 2000 years ago, they acept it is a combined work of multiple authors and they accept that it contains historical references.

THAT is the evidence that can be seen... what CANNOT be seen is that there was some omniscient entity directing its writing... THAT cannot be proved.


There is so many facts that prove the bible reliable but you wish to believe science which questionable


And for each fact that proves it reliable there is a mistake that proves it is unreliable. Those "grey" areas religious people claim "symbolism" to disguise the fact it isn't clear what the intention was.

Lets look at God talking to Adam after he ate of the apple. I hope I quote this well enough for VVB or else I might get a smack.

"And God said to Adam... Where art thou?"

Was he actually asking where Adam was located within the Garden of Eden? Considering he knew everything he already knew where Adam was...

So we call this verse "symbolic"

Then theologists sit around debating about what the symbol actually means and they come up with something along the lines of "This is a symbol representing the fact Adam had lost his way from Gods Path and therefor God as actually asking Adam where he was in relation to this path, what had happened".

I am sure those who reply will have ANOTHER meaning to this, a different one...

Here is another possible meaning.

It was said eating of the fruit would give them all the answers to the universe... that they would be Gods themselves... Perhaps then in eating the fruit, God could no longer see them with his omniscience... they were now "INVISIBLE" to his infinate sight because they had gained this new knowledge.

But people will say "That interpretation is WRONG". How can it be!?!?!? Its symbolism for #Q@$(*&#@ sake. That means it has whatever meaning I can reasonably put into it.


What's so hard to believe?


That an omniscient being was responsible for the creating of the entire universe specifically for the purpose of our existance. That he performed many miracles 2000 years ago, wrote a book to guide his creations and then somehow over the next 2000 years those miracles became smaller and his "presence" faded to the point where only those that ALREADY believed actually saw him.

Now he hides in shadows and whispers, letting his creations make up whatever they want while guiding them subtly and from the shadows... never enough to be known by anyone but those who already believe.

THAT is what I find hard to believe.

denniswrenn

I dont believe in evolution anymore.
not because of the bible, but it did have an influence.


Read my first posting in Evolution (For those who care). It explains the flaws you mention here and provides an alternative called "Natural progression"

[jdavison]

Several years ago the bible was testes by SCIENTISTS to prove that it was invalid. They did a writing analysis on it. Seeing that it was written by 40+ authors, they were going to prove that it was written by individuals and inspired by God. When they ran the test they failed. It came up written by one Author. They ran this test several time and got the same result which is an impossibility when you consider the number of authors and the time span it covered.
Have you seen an atom, no of course not, nobody has actually seen an atom. You take it on faith that the machine works the way you expect. The difference is God has actually been seen and documented by several people through out history and that would hold up in court legally. Can you scientifically prove you ate breakfast this morning.

As far as the Adam hiding from God, God knew where Adam was and Knew also about them eating the apple. The difference is would Adam hide or own up. Parent test there children all the time.

Also Several archeological finds have been found due to the accuracy of the Bible and many of the events are written into the history of other outside cultures as well.

So what is so unbelievable in the bible???

John

[Gen-X]

Which bible did they test?

I mean which PHYSICAL copy?

Or did they test the one that was printed by King James?

Was it before being translated into english?

Is Hebrew a lanauage that allows itself differencial analysis using techniques designed for the english lanuage?

Its a nice "story" but I am sure you were told it in church which means you got the religious version of the story.


Have you seen an atom, no of course not, nobody has actually seen an atom. You take it on faith that the machine works the way you expect


Actually I have seen an atom, several billion in fact and I can repetitiously perform tests and experiments that time and time again PROVE the existance of this atom.

I can do tests that show the difference in atoms and I can calculate all the results I want and compare them to the real world and get the same answers.

Any single person on the surface of the planet can do the SAME test and get the SAME answer. They can repeat it a million times and STILL the answer will be the SAME.

But ask 2 people about their belief in God and you will ALWAYS get 2 slightly different answers... 2 answers that while being similar in most ways have differences, personal views, slight alterations...

Take that to a global level and ask the WORLD about God and you will get a BILLION different answers.

jdavison... are you so absolutely blind that you do not see this? Can you explain this?


The difference is God has actually been seen and documented by several people through out history and that would hold up in court legally


Actually it wouldn't hold up in court at all. The person would be charged with purgory and the "evidence" would be thrown out as being circumstancial and hearsay.... the "witnesses" would be called bias and the defence attourney would ask them to be removed because they are not experts in their field and cannot be validated by an independant council.


As far as the Adam hiding from God, God knew where Adam was and Knew also about them eating the apple


So which "symbolism" was being meant then?


So what is so unbelievable in the bible???


The fact people like yourself believe in it. That despite being asked questions you avoid them, that despite giving answers they are always FLIMSY.

Let me make a point....

Postulation : "If I walk into a wall I will not pass through"

Can anyone refute that? Can anyone provide even the slightest possible alternative? Does there exist even the tiniest possiblity this will NOT happen?

So we consider it true.

When the time comes that the you can make a SINGLE point like this about the Bible you will have provided evidence...

That you are attempting to show the validity of a written book based on events that occured 2000 years ago when you don't even know how the Bible GOT here from that time... you don't know the "source" of the bible you are reading, what script they copied it from, what script THAT was copied from... Where was the bible during the 12th century? Or the 8th for that matter?

How do you know it wasn't doctored? How do you know that when it was copied word were not changed? They didn't have printing presses until the 18th century which means ALL copies of the book had to be translated by HAND.

There are so many factors that go into disproving the validty of this it isn't funny...

Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Calvinist, Seven Day Adventist, etc etc etc etc etc

The Bible provides rules for a people to live in harmony in their time frame. A lot of the parables no longer hold water in high tech Western Society.

My Wife is a Pagan....some Scottish version of Wicca...and their belief is in the sanctity of the individual the natural environment and mans own acceptance of the godhead.
Their view is that the Bible constricts what man can become and gives no credence to the truth of freedom of action.

The Bible is attacked because it is held up as the one true source of Gods word. I have Muslim friends who believe the same about the Koran. This Book is a concoction of previous civilizations stories and fables and was presented as a didactic theorm to prove one groups inheriant superiority over other groups. Not a very christian thought!!!!!!

[frank ashley]

Do people still really believe in a literal interpretation of the bible (whatever religion they belong to).

Darwin did not renounce his theory, he continually modified it. Darwin was a sickly person and couldn't face publishing Origin of Species as it was contrary to the Church which was an integral part of the establishment and it was also contrary to his religious beliefs. Darwin's problem was that how could a good, noble god have designed nature to be so violent and unforgiving.

It was only 20 years later when Thomas Huxley championed Darwin's theory (with his own slant) that Darwin published.

I suggest lots of reading of British Society & Cultural influences 1820-1900. Enjoy.

[frank ashley]

An 'inferior' species (ape) has not been wiped out by a 'superior' species (man) because that is not how natural
selection works.

Natural selection is the filling of a niche in nature that a species makes its own.

The apes have adapted to their environment, man has adapted to his, problem solved.

Tags such as inferior/superior in comparing species are always being misused and are not relevant in this context.

[jdavison]

All I get is everybodys opinion but no one has given any actual reason. I know about wicca because I used to practice it. During my practice I discovered the lies that it taught me. You can believe what you will. But every explanation I have gotten has been retalitor and very arguable. Know has given a solid proof of inaccuracy or scientific impossibility. Not One. I get opinions based on unreliable and unproven scientific theory. But they are just that Theory. Every attempt at disproving it has been scientifically failed. Al I know is at least you never mentioned carbon dating.

Don't discard other peoples arguements, when your own are subjective. WHICH BIBLE you haven't answered this yet.

If you read Roman History, then you will know that yes there was a block called Jesus who lived in the middle east. However he was viewed as leading a radical sect of Jews in open rebellion to Roman Law. Historians have argued that the Bible New Testament is nothing more than propaganda used to undermine the Imperium.....

Your arguements smack of new age christianity, where a religon is created to foster the beliefs, no matter how off the wall, of the founder(s).

Now which bible. In the new testament Jesus states to Peter, "You are my rock, on you l shall found my church"...this is paraphrased.... Therefore if you believe the Bible, you must be talking about the Catholic Bible...cause Peter was the first Pope. Therefore, a belief in non-catholic doctrine is a direct contradiction of what the Bible states.

[frank ashley]

The christian bible was not compiled until about 400ad. The first written texts involving a Jew named Jesus didn't appear until about about 70ad. It appears highly likely then that the person/persons who wrote the bible were not present when the first texts were written down by person/persons who were probably not alive when Jesus was.

Around 400ad things started to get organised and the post of pope jerusalem was created. The church was de-centralised in those days and a pope was really the modern day equivalent of bishop.

Peter was acknowleged as the first pope and subsequent popes are supposed to be in a direct line from him, but, as nothing happened between peter and 400ad this doesn't hold up.

Around 1100ad the christian church split into eastern orthodox and western. Around 1500ad protestantism was founded. Then there's calvinism, lutherans and so on.

Language has changed, words meanings have changed, cultural values change within a single generation.

How can you then believe, as Jethro mentions, whatever translation by person/persons with their own agenda to pursue, written in the language of the time with the cultural beliefs of the time?

And, last but not least, there are religions far older than christianity: are they wrong, and condemned to a pestilential hell! (which the church created in about 1250ad because they had to promote heaven in order to separate people from their money)?

One last thing, if there is life on other planets would they need redemption or would they redeem us?

[jdavison]

If mine are flimsy what are yours gen. You have not given one example of inacuracy in the bible yourself. Not one contradiction either which was your initial arguement. I have repeatedly asked for these but never repeat never recieved on. Also you can run test but it is imposible for you to see an atom(that infers singular) with your own to eyes) And documented eyewitness accounts are legal in a court of law. Many of the figures in the bible are historically record like Moses is record into egyptian history and the plagues were recorded. But I guess you believe in the big bang thoery dont ya. Aand on the parables, the meaning are still useful. although the example is outdated, the point behind them is still valid. Also in there is a reference to dinosaurs in the bible in the original hebrew writing it was refered to as the great lizard in the book of Job. And the test was ran on the manuscripts no on the assembled bible as we know it. Science has been full of holes for centuries and theories have been changed multiple times through out time but God word has held true despite what you may think. Ask some Doctors what they think some time They have some interesting stories for you that contradict science. Also on the manuscript frank, That isnt quite acturate anymore. They have them dated about 25 years after the death of Christ. You should try reading More than a Carpenter. ITs a good book who did his research trying to disprove the bible with an open mind. Something I haven't seen much of by the obvious lack of specific examples here.

[frank ashley]

jdavison,

are you a creationist?

[frank ashley]

jdavison

Can you remember speech verbatim from last week let alone 25 years ago?

[jdavison]

Depends on what discussion your talking about.

[jdavison]

But if thats the case then why do 4 distict authors stories match so acurately?

Yes, the bible is used for personal gain. In this case, the Catholics sought to claim a divine lineage and separate you from your money while not allowing you to read the bible for yourselves, lest you discover truth. But today you can read/listen to it on your own.

This is a Greek/English Interlinear at "http://inthebeginning.net/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm"

The Greek fonts didn't paste right, but a search for "Matthew 16" at this page will give you the right fonts.

My understanding of this is...
Jesus: Who do (other) men say that I am?
Some Disciples: Some say this guy, some say some other guy, etc.
Jesus: Okay, and who do YOU DISCIPLES say that I am?
Peter: You are the Christ.
Jesus: Dude, you didn't come to this on your own, God hooked you up with this knowledge. You are petros (a little rock), and on petra (the Big Rock I just asked you guys who everyone thought is) I will build my assembly.

There are other verses that say Jesus is the Rock. And that there is only one Head. And only one Father. So the Popes have overstepped their bounds (and blasphemy by the title "Father"). Also, in a Catholic bible, you will find that it says in later days, corrupt leaders will forbid marriage and certain meats. Catholics are the ones that do this.

People, try to find the best original texts.

Mathew16:12 tote <5119> {THEN} sunhkan <4920> (5656) {THEY UNDERSTOOD} oti <3754> ouk <3756> {THAT} eipen <2036> (5627) {HE SAID NOT} prosecein <4337> (5721) {TO BEWARE} apo <575> {OF} thV <3588> {THE} zumhV <2219> tou <3588> {LEAVEN} artou <740> {OF BREAD,} all <235> {BUT} apo <575> {OF} thV <3588> {THE} didachV <1322> {TEACHING} twn <3588> {OF THE} farisaiwn <5330> {PHARISEES} kai <2532> {AND} saddoukaiwn <4523> {SADDUCEES.} 13 | elqwn <2064> (5631) de <1161> o <3588> {AND HAVING COME} ihsouV <2424> {JESUS} eiV <1519> {INTO} ta <3588> {THE} merh <3313> {PARTS} kaisareiaV <2542> thV <3588> {OF CAESAREA} filippou <5376> {PHILIPPI} hrwta <2065> (5707) touV <3588> {HE QUESTIONED} maqhtaV <3101> autou <846> {HIS DISCIPLES,} legwn <3004> (5723) {SAYING,} tina <5101> {WHOM} me <3165> {ME} legousin <3004> (5719) oi <3588> {DO PRONOUNCE} anqrwpoi <444> {MEN} einai <1511> (5750) {TO BE} ton <3588> {THE} uion <5207> tou <3588> {SON} anqrwpou <444> {OF MAN?} 14 oi <3588> de <1161> {AND THEY} eipon <2036> (5627) oi <3588> {SAID,} men <3303> {SOME} iwannhn <2491> {JOHN} ton <3588> {THE} baptisthn <910> {BAPTIST;} alloi <243> de <1161> {AND OTHERS} hlian <2243> {ELIJAH;} eteroi <2087> de <1161> {AND OTHERS} ieremian <2408> {JEREMIAH,} h <2228> {OR} ena <1520> {ONE} twn <3588> {OF THE} profhtwn <4396> {PROPHETS.} 15 legei <3004> (5719) {HE SAYS} autoiV <846> {TO THEM,} umeiV <5210> de <1161> {BUT YE} tina <5101> {WHOM} me <3165> {ME} legete <3004> (5719) {DO YE PRONOUNCE} einai <1511> (5750) {TO BE?} 16 apokriqeiV <611> (5679) de <1161> {AND ANSWERING} simwn <4613> {SIMON} petroV <4074> {PETER} eipen <2036> (5627) {SAID,} su <4771> {THOU} ei <1488> (5748) {ART} o <3588> {THE} cristoV <5547> {CHRIST,} o <3588> {THE} uioV <5207> tou <3588> {SON} qeou <2316> {OF GOD} tou <3588> {THE} zwntoV <2198> (5723) {LIVING.} 17 kai <2532> {AND} apokriqeiV <611> (5679) o <3588> {ANSWERING} ihsouV <2424> {JESUS} eipen <2036> (5627) {SAID} autw <846> {TO HIM,} makarioV <3107> {BLESSED} ei <1488> (5748) {ART THOU,} simwn <4613> bar <920> {SIMON} iwna <920> <2495> {BAR-JONAH,} oti <3754> {FOR} sarx <4561> {FLESH} kai <2532> {AND} aima <129> ouk <3756> {BLOOD} apekaluyen <601> (5656) {REVEALED [IT] NOT} soi <4671> {TO THEE,} all <235> o <3588> {BUT} pathr <3962> mou <3450> {MY FATHER} o <3588> {WHO [IS]} en <1722> {IN} toiV <3588> {THE} ouranoiV <3772> {HEAVENS.} 18 kagw <2504> de <1161> {AND I ALSO} soi <4671> {TO THEE} legw <3004> (5719) {SAY,} oti <3754> {THAT} su <4771> {THOU} ei <1488> (5748) {ART} petroV <4074> {PETER,} kai <2532> {AND} epi <1909> {ON} tauth <3778> th <3588> {THIS} petra <4073> {ROCK} oikodomhsw <3618> (5692) {I WILL BUILD} mou <3450> thn <3588> {MY} ekklhsian <1577> {ASSEMBLY,} kai <2532> {AND} pulai <4439> {GATES} adou <86> ou <3756> {OF HADES} katiscusousin <2729> (5692) {SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST} authV <846> {IT.} 19 kai <2532> {AND} dwsw <1325> (5692) {I WILL GIVE} soi <4671> {TO THEE} taV <3588> {THE} kleiV <2807> {KEYS} thV <3588> {OF THE} basileiaV <932> {KINGDOM} twn <3588> {OF THE} ouranwn <3772> {HEAVENS:} kai <2532> {AND} o <3739> ean <1437> {WHATEVER} dhshV <1210> (5661) {THOU MAYEST BIND} epi <1909> {ON} thV <3588> {THE} ghV <1093> {EARTH,} estai <2071> (5704) {SHALL BE} dedemenon <1210> (5772) {BOUND} en <1722> {IN} toiV <3588> {THE} ouranoiV <3772> {HEAVENS;} kai <2532> {AND} o <3739> ean <1437> {WHATEVER} lushV <3089> (5661) {THOU MAYEST LOOSE} epi <1909> {ON} thV <3588> {THE} ghV <1093> {EARTH,} estai <2071> (5704) {SHALL BE} lelumenon <3089> (5772) {LOOSED} en <1722> {IN} toiV <3588> {THE} ouranoiV <3772> {HEAVENS.} 20 tote <5119> {THEN} diesteilato <1291> (5668) toiV <3588> {CHARGED HE} maqhtaiV <3101> {DISCIPLES} autou <846> {HIS} ina <2443> {THAT} mhdeni <3367> {TO NO ONE} eipwsin <2036> (5632) {THEY SHOULD SAY} oti <3754> {THAT} autoV <846> {HE} estin <2076> (5748) {IS} ihsouV <2424> {JESUS} o <3588> {THE} cristoV <5547> {CHRIST.} 21 | apo <575> {FROM} tote <5119> {THAT TIME} hrxato <756> (5662) o <3588> {BEGAN} ihsouV <2424> {JESUS} deiknuein <1166> (5721) toiV <3588> {TO SHEW} maqhtaiV <3101> {TO DISCIPLES} autou <846> {HIS} oti <3754> {THAT} dei <1163> (5904) {IT IS NECESSARY FOR} auton <846> {HIM} apelqein <565> (5629) {TO GO AWAY} eiV <1519> {TO} ierosoluma <2414> {JERUSALEM,} kai <2532> {AND} polla <4183> {MANY THINGS} paqein <3958> (5629) {TO SUFFER} apo <575> {FROM} twn <3588> {THE} presbuterwn <4245> {ELDERS} kai <2532> {AND} arcierewn <749> {CHIEF PRIESTS} kai <2532> {AND} grammatewn <1122> {SCRIBES,} kai <2532> {AND} apoktanqhnai <615> (5683) {TO BE KILLED,} kai <2532> {AND} th <3588> {THE} trith <5154> {THIRD} hmera <2250> {DAY} egerqhnai <1453> (5683) {TO BE RAISED.}

By "The apes have adapted to their environment, man has adapted to his, problem solved.", are you taking the stance that man evolved from apes or not?

Or are you saying that some apes evolved into man (and other apes remained apes)?

[jdavison]

Do you believe a car evolved to where it is now. If you do you probably need some help then. Many people came together to create it. Yes I do believe God created the universe. Scientist agree that there was nothing in the universe initially except for a very small and very dense object which exploded (Big Bang Theory). Even if this is the case what would cause it to explode. If nothing else exists then there was nothing to cause that to happen so we should not be here. So in order for the universe to be created something had to cause this and mold it somehow. If it just exploded there would be sub attomic particles everyhwere. I don't believe the scientific theory of that its has been redefined severl times and really cant even be catagorized as a theory since the event is impossible to reproduce. The only other explanation is God. So I do beleive God created the universe. But by true defining of the bible "Let there be light..." , let is always used as a statement of permision not creation in the bible from most of my studies. but that only an opinion in this case.

I posted at the Hawking Forum about the Universe's Initial Conditions and the Black Hole contradicting the Big Bang. Basically even "Superstring Theory" gets back to the question, What caused the (initial) fluctuations?

[jdavison]

Where is that forum at?

http://www.psyclops.com/hawking/forum/

[Gen-X]

jdavison

*sigh*... You are very confused aren't you?

On one hand you say because I haven't SEEN an atom with my own eyes I cannot say it exists... and yet in the very same breath you say you believe in God.

When did you or any living person on the face of this earth EVER actually see with their own eyes Jesus, God or ANYTHING heavenly?????

I tell you that I can "see" atoms as a reflection of their properties being displayed by reactions... and you say that doesn't mean atoms exist and yet I am sure you will say "I SEE God's existance in the world around me".

Is that not the same thing?

If you want to hold a decent conversation then don't let something refute what *I* say but then be totally ABOVE having that exact same thing refute what *YOU* say. It either stands for ALL or it stands for NOTHING.

"The earth was created in 7 days"

It wasn't... There is a point that PROVES incorrect information. Ah but you say "Its symbolic"... Funny that... the only way you can EVER explain something is to say its symbolic so you can read whatever you want into it.

I HAVE PROVED MY POINT.

VirtuallyVB
I never said man "evolved" from Ape. I said that "LIFE" evolved into both man and ape, they share the same genetic markers but one did not EVOLVE from the other... they simply each had different paths based on the conditions that was applied to them.

Its the same reason why there are LIONS in africa and TIGERS in india... one didn't EVOLVE from the other, they both share the same genetic markers in that they are both FELINE... they just evolved differently.

You cannot deny the fact that we share an almost IDENTICAL genetic heritage with the ape... but please refute that, I would dearly love to hear you actually state that we are genetically totally different from apes.

[frank ashley]

Virtually VB,

I'm saying that apes and man have a common ancestor, but at some point apes at place x adapted to their environment differently to apes at place y. The apes at x didn't do much but the apes at y invented religion!

Man and chimps also have 99% common genes.

I'm sure that I read somewhere that man and cabbages have 95% common genes, which goes to show that all life originated from the same single celled organisms.

[jdavison]

Gen u completely missed the point. I am not saying atoms dont exist, I was trying to make a point with it. You were saying that God cant exist because you cant see Him. Well you cont see an atom either but you believe in its existance. That was the point. Just because you cant see something doent mean it doesnt exist. So I wasnt refuting that point but I wasing using it as an example. Gen I am no longer going to continue this discussion. You continuously change the meaning of what I have said and have not produced any descrepincies in the bible. It is obvious you have never read it and are only going by hear say. If you would like to take up the subject after you have read it, I will be more than willing to discuss this with an open mind.

[noone]

Jdavidsion, you seem to be totally ignoring when Gen-X points out "mistake" in the bible and saying he hasnt.

Didn't they (the proverbial "they") relatively recently conclude that we have more in common with some animal other than an ape? (A surprising animal at that)

The statements like "evening and morning the nth day" sound like 24 hour days, but I wonder what the writer meant because there are other "in the 'day' of ..." statements that are longer than 24 hours. For that I'd need a Hebrew/English Interlinear Bible.

If there is a God (and "He" is The God of The Bible), I wouldn't doubt that it was 7 literal 24 hour days. But I am not convinced yet on the time frames.

Isn't it interesting that the order of life is the same (or similar) for creationists as to the order of evolutionists? The heavens, plant life, sea creatures, birds, land creatures, man. Wasn't there an "evolutionary link" between scales and feathers?

Regards.

Frank,

Total agreement Dude. All animal/plant/etc is about 95% similar genetically. That 5% sure makes a difference.

VirtuallyVB

Modern Dinosaur theories argue that the Dinos evolved into modern birds rather than became extinct.

Gen-X

Sounds like the guy is going to pick up his bat and ball and go home.

jdavidson

So you would argue that Christianity is right and Islam is wrong, or the Koori Dreamtime is wrong, or Judaism is wrong.

The Bible is nothing but parables, used to condition society to the christian way of life. Look at the Devil myth, now you don't believe in the Devil do you. If so l can give you the complete time line for this myth from well before christian/Jewish times.

Looking forward to more debate

By the way

Ultimate good cannot exist in the absence of ultimate evil. Good is defined by evil.

[frank ashley]

jdavidson (if you're still there)

I believe what you're after is a factual discrepancy in the bible, (whichever one that is, so i'll assume a generic christian one).

OK, does it say that the earth was created in 7 days.

I do not believe that this is so!

[jdavison]

Ok I will respond to the question. The bible says in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth. Therefore the earth was in existance. The seven days was not actually the creation. Whenever let was used in the bible, this was a statement of permission, not creation. Opinions may very on this subject because of traditional teachings. But this seems to tell me that the earth was created before. You also have to remeber whos days your going by. For "one day is a thousand years with the Lord". I do believe I made comment to this before but as usual you ignore and change my comments.

[Iain17]

All

I'm not sure of this has been brought up in this topic or not yet, but it is a very interesting fact for all of you to consider.

We (as the human race), can be traced back to one women in Africa. We are all descendants of this one person.

Now before you start going, "Adam and Eve, Adam and Eve, i told you the bible was right", let me tell you this. There were other people alive at the time, it is just that her offspring are the ones that survived.


Next question. How did they trace everybody back to one women?

Using mitochondrial DNA. (http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761566394&cid=170#p170)

Just some food for thought.

[jdavison]

Actually everything would be traced back to Noahs family. which was about 4 families all together if I remember right.
Just a side note

[Iain17]

jdavison

I think you need to consider what you are saying. By saying the above, you are implying that noah came out of no-where.

Noah had a mother didn't he, and so did his mother, and so on. Just becuase they are dead, doesn't mean we can't include them.

Otherwise once you parents were dead, we could say that you were the start of all of your descendants. Which is obviously wrong.

So we could, if it happened, trace everyone back to Noah, but from there we could trace noah back.

[jdavison]

I was just trying to say we would all be traceable back to noah and there were othere people arround then also. Of course Noah had a mother but at the point of the flood we would have continued on from noahs genetic line but there were other people during that time.

[frank ashley]

Iain17,

I don't think jdavison wants to go back before Noah!

Even though jdavison has stopped posting I can't resist pointing out that in his 3rd from last post he says

'Whenever let was used in the bible, this was a statement of permission, not creation. Opinions may very on this subject because of traditional teachings'

and

'But this seems to tell me that the earth'

these are subjective and therefore not valid if you are trying to prove something which is what jdavison was after all along!

:)

[jdavison]

That wasnt subjective, it was stating how the bible defines in comparison to the conventional teachings.

[[92]_fs]

you can call me dumb, but i got one question here,;
Who the *** wrote the bible and does anybody know his email?
(the last thing was just a joke)

:D Nothing is like it used to be :D

I was checking this out last week, A begat B, B begat C, etc. There is a timeline claim here from the age of Adam to the age of Noah and the flood. If you can trace back to Noah, then the bible says you can trace back to Adam & Eve. My counting seemed off by +/- 1 or 2 years, but I still don't know what the bible is claiming about 7 day creation; although "evening and morning the nth day" sounds like 7, 24 hour days.

[Zandura]

The wise man and the fool stand on the street arguing, the passer-by cannot tell the difference.

In a legal case, the burden of proof lies with the accusers. It is the same way with the case against Christ. The burden of proof does not rest with jdavison, it lies with those who say that the bible holds no water, it is your burden to prove that.

In the bible's corner, you have eye witness accounts. You have archealogical evidence.(The once believed non-existant - Sodom and Gamora have been found..."Ironically", they were found to be destroyed by a sudden massive blast of fire. This is archealogical people, not my opinion). Christs miracles are performed today, I see them all the time even if I don't perform them myself. There are many other ways to prove what Christ tought, whether you look in the bible, the Q of Jesus, or if you look at early historians like Josephus, there is plenty of support to say what Jesus and the early church did. These evidences support what the bible has said. By the way, Josephus was not a Christian and never claimed he was, but he mentions the crusifiction and the players involved in it, such as pilot and the sanhedrin.

This will be my only post to this board. I only came to encourage jdavison and the other believers on here not to cast your pearls before swine as the bible says. If people like Gen are sereous about finding out the truth, they can do it via email, because someone who is sereous is willing to go into private discussion to find what they search for. This forum is only proving that Gen can make you mad by attacking your beliefs.

Truthfully, the translations of the Bible that we read, and I mean all of them are flawed...However, the manuscripts that they were translated from are not. So when anyone says that the bible is a document that shows that it is written by the same person, even though historically we know it was writen by many, they mean the manuscripts, not the King James or NIV or NASB or any one of the hundred other translations and paraphrases.

I hope any who are trully seaking will get hold of any of the believers by email and that the sceptics who have no intetion of ever reading the Bible, will just let you drop it.

On that, God Bless,
Zandura

PS: I was young and now I am old, yet I have never seen the righteous forsaken or thier seed begging bread....

Psalms

Hold to your believes dude........

Ok having said that, compare the biblical stories to other pre-christian religons and you see a lot of similarities. In the same why that Roman religous thought included Greek and Egyptian ideas. Sort of what Jung called the human archtype.

Is god the christain god...or is he/she the Islam, Jewish, Celtic god also???????

[kedaman]

Gen-x

Because someone decided to post a topic on the scientific proof of Gods existance, made an absolute mess of it and then claimed it still stood despite all the contradictions it contained.

Shut the ***** up Gen-x for god sake! You keep messing up bible and God like they were the same thing! And that's what the mess is all about, you and your bible-god! My proof is based on "God is the creator of universe" definition while my uncle have some additional. I have told you this more than once before.

Strive so hard? There isn't a need to strive AT ALL!. Not accepting it is a logical and reaonsable conclusion based on the evidence presented.

I think it just simple ignorance, and it's your will to not accept it that is the cause.

THAT is the evidence that can be seen... what CANNOT be seen is that there was some omniscient entity directing its writing... THAT cannot be proved.

Another thing you keep messing with is EVIDENCE and PROOF. They are not the same thing! Even a realist must admit that.

Take that to a global level and ask the WORLD about God and you will get a BILLION different answers.

And Billion different answers comes always when you ask billion irrelevant qwestions.

Let me make a point....

Postulation : "If I walk into a wall I will not pass through"

Can anyone refute that? Can anyone provide even the slightest possible alternative? Does there exist even the tiniest possiblity this will NOT happen?

So we consider it true.

The fact that there's a possibility each of the definition of the words you used doesn't exist or have a meaning or reference in reality provide a unlimitied amount of alternatives: So we cannot consider it true


"The earth was created in 7 days"

It wasn't... There is a point that PROVES incorrect information. Ah but you say "Its symbolic"... Funny that... the only way you can EVER explain something is to say its symbolic so you can read whatever you want into it.

I HAVE PROVED MY POINT.

And that point is not prooved, and you never will. "Its Symbolic"...It's that funny you think; You don't even know what symbolic actually means, the word is too ambiguous for that. If somone says something in the bible is symbolic, he probably meant that there's underlying point of truth, not that you take it literally.

All others
If there's something God have to say, i'm not the one stating bible must be the word. I'm saying that everything is
God's word. And I refer to whatever we may comprehend is telling you what God have to say. But I am not either saying Bible is flawed. Just sceptical about it.

Zandura

This will be my only post to this board. I only came to encourage jdavison and the other believers on here not to cast your pearls before swine as the bible says. If people like Gen are sereous about finding out the truth, they can do it via email, because someone who is sereous is willing to go into private discussion to find what they search for. This forum is only proving that Gen can make you mad by attacking your beliefs.

I'm not sure if Gen-x is willing to do that. He is not even willing to accept the possibility of that there is a God. And yeah, I find it a bit annoying that he attacks their beliefs, but what i find very offensive is that he may attack you and consider you mentally insufficient if you don't accept his arguments.

[noone]

Zandura, you are right that the burden of proof lies with the accuser. But the accuser in this case is those who claim God exists. By most logic and science we can assume god does not exist, therefore the burden of proof lies with those that try to prove he/she/it does exist.

JDavidson do you really believe the story of Noah's ark to be true?

Either the Hittites or Sumerians also have a flood myth, which is where the idea of Noah came from no doubt. Once again christian codification of pre-existing fables.

[frank ashley]

jdavison,

'Whenever let was used in the bible, this was a statement of permission,' - does that mean that god gave permission for light to exist but did not create it.

:)

I find that believing that God created the earth (or everything) is a good way of looking at life. Personally, I can't do it. Science is far more beliveable than any ancient book of moral fables.

The bible merely provides a moral framework for people to live by, and for that reason it serves society well. It also serves itself in the way that it teaches its readers to preach to, or ignore, non-believers. In this way it creates people with a mindset which will never renouce their religious upbringing.


I was young and now I am old, yet I have never seen the righteous forsaken or thier seed begging bread....


As this quote suggests, religious people do generally run a good life - their motivation to 'succeed' in life comes from God. And who defines 'success' in life? God does, through the bible.

The bible was written so long ago, that it must push false beliefs. History has taught us that religon is confused (does the sun go round the earth?) and it's just a matter of time before science catchs up and explains completely and comprehensively why God really doesn't exist.

Honestly, think 2000 years in the future what you think civilisation will be like. Do you think they'll beleive in such fairy tales?

The Bible and religion have been losing momentum in society for centuries and it's just a matter of time...

I'd be interested to hear a reply...

Mafro

[dvst8]

Maf
I think you are right.

Religion has proved itself to be wrong in the past, and will continue to do so until the very foundations that religion was based on will crumble. It will come in time.

"Hold on!", one might say. "Science has also proven itself wrong in the past." Yes, I will be the first to admit that this is true. But the thing with Science, is that it is eager to accept better, more accurate theroies/laws as they come along. The goal of science is to explain to the world around as accurately as possible. This cannot be done in one shot...it necessarily has to be a learning process. What I do believe is the following:

The body of present and future scientific knowledge will eventually explain everything in our universe.


However, this leaves a pretty big opening for Believers. They will claim that although Science aims to explain what it happening around us, it offers no answers as to WHY these things exist around us. This is the reason they invented religion. To answer the WHY question.

I would counter that Science offers the answer to the WHY question. In explaining the world around us, it necessarily solves the problem of the origination of things, objects, beings. However, to some the answer is not very satisfying.

Q: WHY DOES THE UNIVERSE EXIST, AND WHY ARE WE HERE TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND IT?
A: FOR NO GREATER MEANING. WE EXIST MERELY AS A STATISTICAL IMPROBABILITY.

People don't like accepting this, because they think there MUST be a greater meaning???? I argue that there is no reason whatsoever to believe this to be the case.

Opinions on these thoughts would be appreciated.

dvst8

I didn't really want to get into the why argument in my last post, purely because it just stems from the meaning of life.

I have to agree with you, dvst8, that there is no real meaning to life - and I believe that the Bible catered for this lack of meaning by creating one, one which the masses could take comfort in and thus run a better life. Myself, I refuse to beleive such nonsense and am capable of comprehending that my life is meaningless with out descending into mass depression, or wasting my life trying to make it 'meaningful'.

On a similar note:

A while ago I read an interview in New Scientist, with Tom Willis, the head of the Creation Science(!) Association in America. Its quite shocking. This guy was brought up Atheist, did Sciences as a kid and is very logical. Here's a few of his fundamentally f**ked up arguments...


"Just show me one complex system that formed out of random processes"

He's referring to how every complex system (from 747s to coffee cups) are 'created' - implying an analogy to human life (duh!)


NS: "Why do you reject the consensus on the age of the Earth?"
TW: "I have researched the methods by which we determined or pretended to determine the age of the Earth. I haven't found one that works. I don't believe that we have developed a method that we can even test. In a grocery store 5 pounds of meat can be compared to a standard 5 pound weight. I've asked many a geologist 'Wheres your standard million year old rock?' They don't have one and can't possibly have."


NS: "Do you think that Christians who believe in evolution are evil?"
TW: "I didn't say that."
NS: "I know you didn't say that, I'm asking do you believe that?"
TW: "I believe that Christians or anybody who teaches evolution as science is likely to be causing harm."


NS: "Just for the record, do you believe the Sun goes around the Earth or the Earth goes around the Sun?"
TW: "I'm sure you're readers will love this, but I don't know. Every physicist who's looked at it seriously has realised that we don't know for sure."

Hah! Remember this guy is *head* of the Creation Science Association, can anyone believe this ****?

Mafro

[frank ashley]

Zandura states the the burden of proof lies with the non-believer. This is not true. The burden of proof depends on who is posing the question.

So, as an agnostic, who doesn't believe in the bible, prove to me that the bible is in fact the communication of an omniscient being.


btw,
yep, there is no meaning whatsoever to existance, the whole 'there must be more than this' is just an ego trip.

:)

Right on, Frank!! :D

[Iain17]

Kedaman

Long time on speak. How's life treating you?

Now we have the pleasantries out of the way lets get down to business


My proof is based on "God is the creator of universe" definition


Now then let us discuss this statement, and its implications. For arguments sake lets us say that the universe has always existed. Not in it's current form (ie 4d space time), but just in general. Now let us say that we define the creation of the universe as the making of our 4d universe. Now there is a lot of evidence around for the Big Bang theory, so let us assume this is what happened. Your God is now actually the Big Bang. Explain that one away.



Let me make a point....

Postulation : "If I walk into a wall I will not pass through"

Can anyone refute that? Can anyone provide even the slightest possible alternative? Does there exist even the tiniest possibility this will NOT happen?

So we consider it true.



The fact that there's a possibility each of the definition of the words you used doesn't exist or have a meaning or reference in reality provide a unlimited amount of alternatives: So we cannot consider it true


This is just plain ludicrous now. You can't invalidate someone's argument by saying that the words they are using might not exist. By that definition your argument to disprove Gen-X's argument is false. Which means that he can use the words, because your argument is now invalid, which makes your argument valid again, and so-on and so-forth. I think we may have hit a paradox here.

So i say Gen-X's argument stands, except, there is a possibility that you would pass through the wall. I know you both know this because we have discussed the uncertainty principle, and the "Tunnelling of Particles" principle before. The fact that the time it would take for this impossibly small chance to happen is longer than the estimated life span for the universe makes his statement True.


Frank & Mafro

Life has no meaning??

I don't believe you two! I almost wish you would start believing in God, just so you will accept there is meaning to life.

Don't get me wrong however, I'm not saying there is some great purpose, and that we are part of a bigger plan, i am talking about Individual Life Meanings. (http://forums.vb-world.net/showthread.php?postid=69652#post69652)

Surely you must be able to accept that. Or do you really have no meaning in life?

[kedaman]

Iain

hmmm, You say Big Bang and God is the same thing, not at all:
Big Bang is a phenomenon
God is a concept, the source to the phenomenon


This is just plain ludicrous now. You can't invalidate someone's argument by saying that the words they are using might not exist. By that definition your argument to disprove Gen-X's argument is false. Which means that he can use the words, because your argument is now invalid, which makes your argument valid again, and so-on and so-forth. I think we may have hit a paradox here.

So i say Gen-X's argument stands, except, there is a possibility that you would pass through the wall. I know you both know this because we have discussed the uncertainty principle, and the "Tunnelling of Particles" principle before. The fact that the time it would take for this impossibly small chance to happen is longer than the estimated life span for the universe makes his statement True.

ludicrous yes, in everyday life; We are discussing the source of truth, which to you is just a projection. To us, it is important to handle a matter of truth at this level without any leaks at all, assuming the definition holds in reality. Take the discussion of math as an example.

So actually yes, I have the fact on my side this time, I can invalidate anything we cannot absolutely thrust, on the other hand i need to draw a parallell containing it to build up a proof. This time Science is the victim. You tried to create a paradox out of my statement, but you didn't realize we had an assumption at which we based it on.

I hate to explain things over and over again, but I hope you don't just ignore things just because they "sound ludicrous".


Also I think "Individual Life Meanings" Is just plain illusionary thinking. Talk about believing. Even 42 makes more sense.

[Gen-X]

Zandura
You have to love people that come in, say their piece and then basically tell people that he doesn't respect them enough to even bother listening to their side of things.

What an attitude... and we were even lucky enough to receive a blessing at the end of it.

This is the kind of elitism and egotism that I am talking about... when people think they have a right to do something like this and not even allow what they say to be responded to.

I rest my case. Zandura is the perfect example of everything that is ignorant and WRONG with the world... a lack of respect, a lack of understanding and more importantly a absolute TERROR in wanting to discover the TRUTH unless it makes his world go around.

I have been in private discussion (he says to the empty void that Zandura left in his fearful departure), and all I got were people like yourself who decided to bail whenever things got too close for them... when their faith was rocked, when their beliefs were thrown in doubt... they became angry and left. Not because I would not see truth but because I would point out too many things they could not explain.


I see them all the time even if I don't perform them myself

Some people claim to see little pink bunnies all over the place but they don't actually believe they are real.

Kedaman
I've lost tollerance for you... get lost

Iain17
I've given up with that moron. *I* prove he is wrong, then *YOU* prove he is wrong but somehow he still manages to think he is right.

He even managed to warp his mind around giving you a completely pathetic answer to the Big Bang being God.

The source of the Big Bang WAS the Big Bang because as was said... "It created the universe".

But he can't see it.... I know I have my views and that I am damn stubbourn and reticent to accept someone elses words without proof... but at the very least my statements aren't becoming as completely off the wall as this

Can anyone say "Dellusional"?


Also I think "Individual Life Meanings" Is just plain illusionary thinking


Oh brother. He truely doesn't see it does he?

Its like one of those paintings that has an image merged behind it that when you stare at it long enough it comes out.

Everyone else is going "Oh look a boat!" and the people next to them are going "Yes! A boat... I see it!",while this poor sod says "THERE IS NO BOAT!!! IT IS JUST AN ILLUSION! THERE IS NOTHING THERE! YOUR JUST IMAGINING IT"

*shakes his head*...

I think I have found something I do not have an answer for... someone who talks from madness.

[kedaman]

Look at Gen-X! Pathetic!

That you believe in God...but not necessarily the Christian version????????

If jdavison wants to believe in his bible thats fine.

Once again WHICH BIBLE are you going on about????

[frank ashley]

Iain17,

My personal life meaning (what a cliche) is to act as a responsible citizen treating anybody of any creed, or colour, exactly alike and to leave to leave the world a better place for future generation.

There is no space in my life for organised religion as its proponents promote dischord and discrimination regardless of what the religion's ideals are.

[frank ashley]

If god was responsible for the big bang then as the universe is still expanding is god still big-banging away?

:)

Life has no meaning??

I don't believe you two! I almost wish you would start believing in God, just so you will accept there is meaning to life.


I do believe that there is no greater meaning to life than the evolutionary advance of out species.

But, Iain, that does not mean that I'm not happy in life!! I live by what you put into life, you get back. I try hard to live by my own moral code, which is based on the christian values since I was brought up in a christian society.

Admittedly though, I'd like to believe in reincarnation, I'd like to think that after this life I'll get another go - a chance to see the state of humanity at some point in the future... But, like God, it's a bit too hard to beleive.

Mafro


Oh and Gen-x? This was a debate. You destroyed any progress you had made as soon as you started disrespecting people. That isn't a mature and intelligent way to conduct an argument.

[Gen-X]

I found this during my travels... I thought it was interesting reading


Exodus 20:3 through Exodus 20:7 (NIV)

3-You shall have no other gods before me. 4You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.


Now I am sure the "believers" are going to say I quoted it out of context, or that it is "symbolic" for something else....

But I would really like to know a few things :

1. I thought God was above jealousy

2. Why should my Son's (and 3 generations) suffer for what *I* choose to do?

3. Yakuza, the Chinese Mafia often punish the children and families of people who do wrong by them... Is God no better than them to use such purely evil tactics?

And Lastly...

4. Father invokes the "thousand generations" law (ie he is good and believes)... Son invokes the "4 generations of punishment" law (he hates God)... So does that cancel out the other 996 generations??? :D


I will be interested in how those who "believe" are able to twist this to make God out to be wonderful and justify the punishment of innocents who are even yet to be born for the mistake of but a single person.

[dvst8]

This may not be the right forum for this question, but I don't feel like starting a new thread.... (and the people I want an answer from follow this thread...)

I read an article in July 2000 Equinox by Terrance Dickenson that was pretty interesting. Important points:

- Accurate measurements show that galaxies are actually accelerating apart. There is much evidence to suggest the existence of a mysterious 'repellant' or 'anti-gravity' force which comprises about 70% of the energy in our universe. We don't understand what this new force is at all... It gets stronger as objects get further apart!!!

- New analysis of the Drake equation in a book called Rare Earth show that the original Drake equation missed the boat. The new findings are that the existence of other intelligent civilisations is highly unlikely

I'd like some thoughts on these issues.

Mafro
If you've followed the discussion between Kedaman and Gen-x for a long time, you would realize why Gen-x has lost all patience with him. This extends beyond this thread. The guy refuses to yield to what most people would call common sense. So it's not disrespectful..it's deserving.

All
I think it is significant that we have pretty much unanimously concluded that life has no greater meaning....

dvst8

[kedaman]

dvst8

If you've followed the discussion between Kedaman and Gen-x for a long time, you would realize why Gen-x has lost all patience with him. This extends beyond this thread. The guy refuses to yield to what most people would call common sense. So it's not disrespectful..it's deserving.

Sorry to disappoint you but have anyone ever said something like "everything isn't always what it looks like" to you? If so, you should think about it. It's ok that Gen-x disrespects me, i won't care, but if he walks around disrespecting religious believers, i think it's offensive.

I think it is significant that we have pretty much unanimously concluded that life has no greater meaning....

Where did you get that conclusion from?


That you believe in God...but not necessarily the Christian version????????

I am probably talking about the Christian Bible, that depends on which discussion where talking about. I have been correcting Gen-x several times on his debate against christians but i don't think that's enough to make me christian in any way (I am officially lutheran but that doesn't mean anything) Yes I believe in God but not necessarily the Christian version. Not any other religion based God either.

[dvst8]

keda
Frank, Mafro, GenX, lain, and myself all seem to agree that there is no greater meaning (hope i'm not presuming too much...) that's why I drew that conclusion. You seem to be the odd one out.

d8

I think someone is misrepresenting what I have said, but since the name was ambiguously abbreviated, I cannot be sure and won't address that.

1) God is jealous. "He" also hates. Deuteronomy 12:31 That's why I encourage you to read the bible again. These statements are obvious.
2) The first thing that came to mind is that there are consequences for sin. If I drink too much alcohol, my liver(body) will be shot, but I (my spirit) may be saved. The body had to deal with the consequences of my actions. It should be obvious that if the Father sins, generations may suffer physically. Wars have this effect.
3) Whose definition of evil and what punishment? See #2.
4) I think the bible is clear that Romans 3:23 - since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. You won't find your hypothetical case.

Did I twist this as you expected? Keep the sincere questions coming.

[kedaman]

Another common problem with human minds is drawing stupid conclusions on that if the majority says something is true, then it must be true. Worse dvst8, you draw a conclusion by 3 peoples opinion and ignoring what the rest of the world have to say. It's been a global issue for humanity since who knows when, probably the old greeks was already coming up with better conclusions.

[Gen-X]

VVB

1. Ok. So we are saying god suffers from human maladies like jealousy and hate... So he isn't PERFECT after all


2) The first thing that came to mind is that there are consequences for sin. If I drink too much alcohol, my liver(body) will be shot, but I (my spirit) may be saved. The body had to deal with the consequences of my actions. It should be obvious that if the Father sins, generations may suffer physically. Wars have this effect.


What a wonderful way of DODGING the question all together.

So I shall ask again. If I do wrong my children are PUNISHED for what I do...

If you were to steal a loaf of bread would you consider it fair that your Son is then thrown in jail? And that when HIS Son grows up HE will be thrown in jail?

How about you answer the question DIRECTLY instead of twisting it?

3. Evil = Somethinig unfair, unjust, immoral, selfish... etc, etc. You tell me what the punishment is... the quote never qualified what it was... though we have seen Gods "punishment" take the shape of everything from burning cities to the ground to turning people to salt.

4. So you are saying that there will NEVER be a case for 1000 generations to be loved because they are already sinners???? Your not clear at all here

1. I do not believe god is bound by the "christian bible", this is an interpretation by a group of power mongers in the early AD. Based on stories cobbled together from previous civilisations.

2. I do not believe that life has no importance, no one has yet got onto the energy caren't be destroyed only transferred arguement yet.

3. I believe it is the height of arrogance to suggest that Man is the only civilisation in the Universe. Read Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawkins et al to review the arguement on this.

Kedaman,

Gen-X when he/she has disagreed with my opinion, has appeared ready to debate the issue where as yet appear to be pretty much stuck to your opinions.

[kb244]

My definition of an atheist is someone with no invisible means of support.

also no one talks so much more about god than those who insist there is no god.

[HarryW]

I didn't notice anyone saying God is/was perfect. If he was I think He would have created a human race that was more tolerant of each other's ideas.

This thread was started with the question 'Why such an effort to prove the bible wrong?' Well that's clearly got the phrase 'prove the bible wrong' in it. I think that means that the subject of the thread is...*Drumroll* proving the bible wrong. That lays the burden of proof with those who are trying to prove that it is wrong.

The Big Bang is an event, not a creator. There is always going to be the argument 'He instigated the Big Bang'.

Unanimous means everyone. Clearly not everyone is of the same opinion in here, I doubt there's a common opinion on anything.

Already sinners: Yes I think that's exactly what he's saying.


dvst8:

How did they come to the conclusion that the galaxies were accelerating? If they have come to this conclusion through greater accuracy than before, I thought the Hubble constant was a very fuzzy number, we haven't measured it very accurately. Am I wrong?


I do agree with Gen-X on one point - what Zandura said came over in quite an arrogant way. Calling those who don't follow your school of thought 'swine' is no way to live. Fine, encourage those who you believe to be speaking the truth, but try to be civil. You will only cause more tension between what seems to be two very distinctly opposed camps.

[kedaman]

What'? i haven't given my opinion yet, i've just explained some facts to Gen-x that he didn't understand. In my opinion I think Atheists definate those who don't have a explanation.

Re: #1
We aren't saying "suffer" as if it's a deficiency, you are saying "suffer". Perhaps your definition of perfect differs from the bible's. I don't know how the bible defines "perfect", but apparently you do. Please enlighten me.

I don't think that creation was "very good" (as in Genesis 1:31) or the way God is showing his Glory, but that's because my finite mind doesn't like the way things are playing out. A child loves candy because it is "very good". A parent knows that candy causes cavities. Who defines what is very good? A little advice: That's why you had better find out what your Creator requires of you.

I think "perfect", as you may define it, would require no attribute of God to be discussed because it would be a limited view. Limited is less than perfect, right? In Revelations, it speaks of Angels worshipping God constantly and that is not enough. You are trying to grasp infinity with a finite mind.

Re: #2
Did the bible say that the son is thrown into jail? I think you will see that if the father is thrown into jail, that the son will suffer because he has lost a "bread-winner". No Pun Dude.
I am not trying to "twist" things, but I knew you would say that I did, so I jokingly asked if you liked my twist. I'm trying to provide you answers, although I owe you none.

Re: #3
I'll go one further (although many, if not all Pastors, will disagree with me).
I say God is responsible for it all. But that makes us robots. We don't like that (right, dvst8?). I call it a will, but not a free will (deep thread potential). So from my point of view, I have to trust God. Indulge me for a moment: Others will be judged on the knowledge they have been given. (Can you say that you measure up to your standard?)
I'd probably be God if I knew what the punishment is. I can't answer that one for you today (if ever). Let's say someone does me a wrong, then becomes "saved"; what punishment was there for him? Where is the justice? But I am not the judge. Besides, by my belief, if this person got saved, then Jesus paid for his punishment and imputed His righteousness upon him. You're going to hate the next statement. Thank God this is so, because I have wronged others and I "hope" (that's a faith thing) that I am saved. Although the bible does speak of assurance.
You also misuse evidence and proof. But that's just more carelessness that won't help you in your search.

Re: #4
Yes, that is my hypothesis (on their own works). Did/Can you find such a person to entertain this line of reasoning? By my belief, the only way we would be righteous to deserve this is by Jesus's substitution. Not on our own works.

You're not going to like this one:
Nah, I'll save that for a free will thread.

[Gen-X]

Jethro

I did bring up the energy isn't destroyed somewhere in these posts. Kedaman was saying that he was "created" and I tried explaining to him that his coming into existance was simply a redistribution of energy form other sources but he failed to understand even that.

The post then went on to explain how the food we eat is given energy from the Sun, and that the animals which eat the plants get their energy from there... we then procreate which passes THAT energy on... A child therefor is not CREATED in a strict sense... it is simply this wonderful chemical structure called DNA that has the ability to convert energy in the form of glucose and glycogen into one of 215 different "cells" that form the human body.

Other than that... I agree with what your saying... religion has always been used by those who want to instill either fear or zealousness to get what they want. After all.. it gave them a righteous reason to slaughter thousands of people during the french inquisition.

kb244
Actually that isn't strictly true.

The topic of religion came up as a result of talking about evolution. It was a "believer" who first piped up saying it was all wrong, none of it was true because "GOD" created everything.

Then people started voicing (rather typing) their opinions and the next thing we had a post called "SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GODS EXISTENCE".

So as you can see... this argument was INSTIGATED by someone who believes there is a God, it was then attempted to be "PROVED" and when that failed we ended up with a this thread from a "believer" who wants to know why the thing he has believed in by faith is coming under such scrutiny.

The only time those who do NOT believe bring it up is when someone who DOES believe is in their face.

PROOF:
Do you ever see athiests standing on a street corner screaming "Listen all you believers.. God does NOT exists... we have seen the light, we know the truth... renounce your belief and be saved"?

ANSWER : NO

HarryW
Nobody had to say God was perfect... thats practically taken for granted in the Bible. After all.. he is just and righteous... he never makes mistakes, everything he does is right... So with all that on his side isn't "jealousy" a bad thing? Jealous means you "covet" something or you "begrudge" someone something... That isn't a nice trait to have... the bible spends half its time slapping the wrists of those who HATE (tells them to have an open heart) and to not "covet thy neighbours possessions" and yet we are now shown verses in the bible that show God isn't so ALL-MIGHTY after all.


If he was I think He would have created a human race that was more tolerant of each other's ideas.


Ahhh... now you are starting to see some of the evidence. Don't you think it strange that such a wonderful and all-powerful God would create such a warped and corrupt race?

I am sure people will reply saying "MAN corrupted himself... GOD didn't corrupt man"...but if he created us then he gave us ALL of our abilities and our weaknesses... so he in fact GAVE us the corruption to start with.

Perhaps now you can start to understand how the more and more we look at verses in the Bible, when we take them to natural conclusions drawn from common sense we actually see that the very fabric of it begins to fall apart.

That is the whole reason why people have believed in the Bible for so long... They are told to have "FAITH" and not to ask too many questions (or accept the flimsy answers they are given)... which means they never actually read the text in too much depth... and when they find something that they dislike they make it a "symbol", find some NEW meaning that sits well on their palette and carry on their merry way.


That lays the burden of proof with those who are trying to prove that it is wrong


And we have done that. We have shown several instances where there are inconsistencies or the bible has reduced it to "symbols" and yet people don't see.

Then we get this wonderful "But there is historical reference of events in the Bible happening... so it MUST be true"

So I reply "I write a book that describes a meteor shower TODAY and also in that book it states that Aliens exist... If it is read in 100 years time and they PROVE the meteor shower actually happened, does that mean the REST of the book is true automatically???"... and yet they STILL don't see.

This is the problem Harry. Even when they ARE presented with questions they fail to answer them...

So to the question... why do I bother? Why do I keep responding? Well you see I have this character flaw... I find it hard dealing with people who don't understand something, especially when the evidence is right before their eyes. So I will attempt to explain to them in ways that perhaps they could understand... and it fails, so I try a different way and a different way... at some point it finally gets through and from that point forward they see it with amazing clarity.

However... religious people don't... and despite what I show them and what contradictions are made and what counter points are given to THEIR proof.... they still refuse to see.

There is a condition however... I'm not so egotistical to think that I actually have the right answers (despite what some may assume)... I try to keep asking myself "Is it THEM who sees it wrong or me?"... it keeps a person balanced. if you dont question yourself then you might get off the tracks... And so I reverse the situation, I look from their side, I put myself in their shoes and immediately all these questions arise... questions without answers and it leads me back to the same conclusion.

Do you think these people ever ask themselves if they *might* be wrong? Do you think they ever sit back and say "Mmmm... I wonder if there might NOT be a God"?

That is the difference between an open-minded person and a closed-minded person... NOT the fact of whether they agree or not... but wheather they are capable of looking at something from a different perspective.

To make the point... I can perfectly well look from the point that there IS a God. No qualifications, no ifs, no BUTS... no validations by saying I must be insane ala VVB. There is a "possibility" that he may actually exist.

Try and get that kind of open-mindedness from VVB or jdavision... I bet you will have some qualification or stipulation added to it. I GUARANTEE IT.


The Big Bang is an event, not a creator. There is always going to be the argument 'He instigated the Big Bang'


Try telling that to Kedaman. Read his post regarding this.

As for te argument of the Big Bang being instigated... who is to say it hasn't been cycling for eternity? Bang/Crunch/Bang/Crunch et al. If this were the case (and it hasn't been proven one way or the other yet) then there WAS no beginning to the universe... therefor the argument that "If there was a beginning then someone had to start it" falls completely on the floor.


Already sinners: Yes I think that's exactly what he's saying.


But what does "sin" have to do with it being impossible to ever get the situation I described above? If being a sinner DID stop the situation above then that would mean NOBODY would ever get 1000 generations of love.


How did they come to the conclusion that the galaxies were accelerating?


Yes I would like to know this as well... If this were true it therefor invalidates all Red Shift tests done to date


I do agree with Gen-X on one point - what Zandura said came over in quite an arrogant way. Calling those who don't follow your school of thought 'swine' is no way to live. Fine, encourage those who you believe to be speaking the truth, but try to be civil. You will only cause more tension between what seems to be two very distinctly opposed camps


And people say that I am the one doing the attacking, am arrogant etc, etc... It galls me that relgious people get away with things because of their belief while anyone who doesn't have a specific religious belief has to suffer as a result.


In my opinion I think Atheists definate those who don't have a explanation.


*sigh*

Point 1:
I believe the universe has always existed and has been a repetitious bang/crunch that has been occuring for all eternity. There was NO creation and NO beginning therefor requiring NO creator. The Human Race is the product of the chaotic interaction between components in the universe.

There is no evidence that can be repeated by even the layperson to suggest an omniscient being, but because "no evidence" does not equal "evidence of no existence" the conclusion is that "to the current knowledge attained the indication is that God does NOT exist".

So I have an explaination... that means I'm not an Atheist.

Point 2:
A 5 year old child believes in God not because they have an "explaination" but because their parents tell them God exists.

So the child has NO explaination... that means the good little christian boy is an ATHEIST!!!

Nice postulation Kedaman... once again another one that falls into a burning heap the second it faces its first test

Definition of a religous war

"Two people argueing over whose invisible friend is the best"

To all others:

If the Christian bible is to be considered as infalliable, that would mean the Koran etc are incorrect. Very much an egocentric viewpoint.

Are you saying that god cannot exist outside the mythology which exists in the bible.

Does the fact that Jesus expelled the money leaders from the temple, mean that US tele evanglists should also be expelled.

Matthew 7

1 "Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. 6 "Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you. 7 "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! 12 So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. 13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. 15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. 18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits. 21 "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.' 24 "Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; 25 and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; 27 and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it." 28 And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, 29 for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.

Apparently you have been speaking about me. Show me so that I may apologize.

[kedaman]

Slow down Gen-x, We don't need to talk about this since both you an I know you're wrong. You gave up!

I said that it was my opinion, not that you nessesary needed to be called Atheist. BTW, your nice explanation didn't explain a ****. Say "Universe exist because it exists, you have evidence of that", that's pretty useless whatever bullcrap you decorate it with.

You're going to either maintain your statements or leave this debate. Otherwise, I don't see any point in your jabbering.

[Gen-X]

VVB

I asked you to consider the "possiblity" that God does NOT exist and your reply indicated that in order for you to even consider that possiblity you would have to be completely insane.

Perhaps you are not reading what I wrote correctly?

"no validations by saying I must be insane ala VVB"

The "I" here relates to what you said of yourself in order to accept such a possiblity... I never said you accused anyone else of being insane. Would you like me to go through all the posts to find that comment or do you remember it now?


Buts lets look at the verse you decided to quote.

1. I'm happy to be judged because I accept the responsiblity for my actions. If I do wrong or if I judge poorly then I should not expect anything more than that. Anyone who does is hypocritical

2. I'm happy with that. Everyone judges everyone all the time... some call it "assumption", others call it "educated guessing" and some calling "estimating"... all in all its about weighing things up and coming to a conclusion. JUDGEMENT. Its only because of this entire verse Christians see judge as a dirty word.

3. I accept the logs in my eye, I actually ADMIT when they are there. Of course this passage is symbolic for picking on the faults of others when not looking at your own. We clearly see this as a symbol because of the way it is written... (sidenote : "The universe was created in 7 days" is NOT a symbol because it was written AS IS, it wasn't a story and it wasn't meant to provide a lesson as this is).

4. Does this mean that only those with small specks can offer to take the LARGE specks out of other people's eyes? So how do you determine who has the bigger speck? I hope you are not going to tell me that because you believe that AUTOMATICALLY means you have a smaller speck?

5. Interesting... This means nobody can EVER be able to say ANYTHING to ANYONE because we are all flawed and shall always remain IMPERFECT. While we are imperfect we cannot say a single word about another person.

6. "dogs" is used as a derogative term... I would assume during the time the bible was written dogs were both mangy and nasty... certainly not bred well as is the case today. So when Matthew wrote this he saw how nasty dogs were at the time and decided to use that as symbolic for people who are shall we say of low character. The same applies to "swine".

So in actual fact our oh so gracious Zandura was also likening us to dogs and swine... how insulting.

7. Another interesting verse. "Ask and it will be given you". If I ask and I DONT get then you will say I did not ask properly. This passage is the reason why christians look at the RESULT before the ACTION. If they were answered then they asked correctly, if the door was opened then they knocked correctly. If however the RESULT was not correct... then they didn't do what was asked of them correctly.

VVB, can you not see this?

8. This just reinforces the fact that if you don't "find" then you weren't really seeking etc

9. What man would give a stone when his "son" asks for bread? I would consider banishment from Eden the very first time the poor and ignorant son "Adam" did something wrong as a "stone"... wouldn't you?

10. Interesting. God created the universe, he created the garden of eden, he created the animals and EVERYTHING in it. So when Adam sought knowledge, when he sought to "know", God gave him a SERPENT that caused his banishment. How very interesting.... I take it then Matthew believes God is an evildoer by this statement.

11. This contradicts Verse 18. If the person is EVIL then he cannot know how to give good gifts to his children because "a bad tree cannot bear good fruit".

12. The only good piece of advice in the passage. This is something I think our law should take into consideration. When someone chooses to murder another do they deserve human rights?

13. Its easy to believe in God, just close your eyes, say everything is as a result of him, everything has a meaning, all is known and all are safe if they believe... I couldn't think of a wider gate.... but try to live a good life believing there is NOT anything beyond, that there is NOT anything forcing you (or terrifying you) to do something and you walk a very tough path... a narrow gate as it were.

14. Explain to me how believing is the HARD path and how not believing is the EASY path? Religion is WRITTEN, the bible is WRITTEN. You have all the facts you will ever want in the universe explained for you in a single book. Science on the other hand must continually struggle and strive to find answers, evolving, growing.. making its fair share of errors but becoming WISER as a result. That sounds like the HARD path to me... rather than having a book dumped in my lap saying "Its all here... look no further".

15. That sounds very much like "Don't listen to anyone else... if I lose your attention you might learn the truth. I will discredit everyone else immediately by putting you on your guard"

16. Blackberries. Probably one of the most sweetest of the berries comes from a thorn bush. Macedamia nuts, probably one of the most flavoured nut comes from the hardest shell. But who is to decide what the metaphorical equivalent of a "thorn bush" is? To a believer anything that promotes NON-belief would be considered a "thorn"... and so this verse basically says "If it doesn't agree then it MUST be bad fruit"

17 & 18. Renforcement of "If its good (read agrees) then its from a good source, if its bad (read disagrees) then its from a bad source". So the fact I am actually disagreeing with this entire verse would be making you think I am committing evil... maybe even the devil is making me do it?

19. Oooo... I wonder what the metaphor here is? We have been talking about "fruit" in the context of people's actions or words or offerings... the "tree" therefor must be the people who GIVE these things... WE now say they must be "cut down" and "thrown into the fire". Are they trying to say that all evil doers should be killed and destroyed?
Perhaps this was the reason why the religious felt so righteous in killing so many innocent people during the inquisitions... they were only cutting down the bad trees

20. If the result is BAD then reverse engineer to say the source is bad.

21. Simple verse saying those who try to believe but don't really mean it or haven't been "christian" will be turfed out

22. Mmmm... I wonder if Zandura thinks he did good in his post? Do you think he believed he, yourself and jdavison were doing "many mighty works in your name?" At one point someone even said they were delivering a personal message from God to me (go read it, its here somewhere).... Was it to serve their own purpose?

23. What happens about Ma and Pa Kent.. who lives the best life, followed everything BUT didn't believe. Will he also turn them away simply because they didn't believe? Did the fact their entire life was lived justly and with more decency than most christians mean they are turned away?

24-27. Now Matthew is big-noting himself. If you do this then you are wise... let me butter you up. If you don't then you are stupid. How egotistical is that???

28. They never said if the astonishment was as a result of understanding or as in they were astonished anyone could actually believe it?

29. So he was just strutting his stuff? Being a bully?


Thank you for bringing that verse forward.... it has highlighted even MORE the inconsistencies, contradictions and use of metaphors...

One thing it has shown though, and I am happy to admit this is that the bible does use "symbolism" not only to cover its innacuracies but also to tell stories and put points across.

I want to correct myself in saying that not ALL symbolisms therefor indicate error. I will REFINE what I have said previously and say that those symbolisms which clearly and obviously indicate a story or lesson (and anyone with common sense can see that) are not incorrect because of this fact... but those symbolisms which were NOT to tell a story or to give a lesson ARE.

THank you VVB for allowing me to correct a previous error so that I am now more knowledgable and what I know is closer to the truth.

[jdavison]

I think this situation is getting way out of control now. I had decide to step out of this thread that I probably shouldnt have started. It seem that it was going nowhere for either side. I simple meant this thread to be used to see what exactly they had a problem with in the bible. I admit that my initial post was a bit over zealous. Yes I am a believer. However I dont hold anything or judge against those that aren't, it's not my place to judge. Somewhere along the line this seem to become more of retaliation than a discussion. If I caused this I appoligize. All I can say from what I have seen is that neither side is really proving its point. I believe in science and from what it sounds to me everyone seems to agree that its not always right. This is not to say science is wrong but there is alot that con't be explain or understood. Where this is god or that our understanding is not up to par yet is irelevent now. I wish to appoligize to gen for snapping back and retaliating. Obviously our opinion differ but I hope that this wont be carried into other discussions and that we can atleast "play nice". Kenda, no offence but I'm not exactly sure what your points are but I appreciate your responses.

I guess what I am trying to say is my intent was not to draw lines and insult others but to find what people had a problem with or don't believe and see if I could clarify any of it. Would I try and convert somebody...Yes, I would. From a believers perspective its not to be supreme but out of love. I wish for no one to go through the torment that I beleive is to come. Do I think any less of you if you dont believe...No. I hope that you atleast understand this and why alot of believers behave the way they do.

I will not respond to anything on this thread from now on. If anybody would like to discuss this seriously with me you can email me at jdavison2000@yahoo.com

John

[Gen-X]

jdavison

I appreciate the sentiment.. and no it wont by carried into other discussions.. I will respond to you the way I have always responded to you and always WILL respond to you.. Agree when I agree, disagree when I disagree and say you have lost it when I think you have lost it ;) I would expect no less of anyone

Kedaman

You poor, stupid little moron.

I gave you my "belief". The fact it is a "belief" doesn't mean it is PROOF, nor does it even mean its RIGHT. It means "That is what I believe".

You on the otherhand put forward a "PROOF" and it was shot down in flames.

I don't care if people "believe" in God, they are most welcome to and if their life is better for it then I am happy... but the moment they say they can "PROVE" God I hope they come up with something better than your self-delusion in believing yourself God because the only thing in reality to you is yourself and what you can see (or what makes you see it).

I haven't bailed, I haven't given up... what I have done however is started to treat you based on the level of respect with which you deserve... I offered for us BOTH to take a step back, try to ditch the insults and the sarcasm but you just wailed right into it again...

Because of that you don't even deserve a response and I am kicking myself that I even bothered to give you one. I am completely and totally STUPID for doing so... because I should have learned a long, long time ago that you are incapable of anything but what you have in your tiny little head.... And I am not the first one to say so.

This is the LAST response I make to anything you say until such time as I see you starting to get a grip of yourself.

Sorry for the offense but you have ticked me off just one time too many... and after I brought forth the olive branch, its lovely to have the offer thrown in my face... last time I even bother with the likes of you. :mad:

[kedaman]

Dream on Gen-x, if you wan't to fight with pure sarcasm instead of logics, you won't get anyone decent thinking on your side, if that's what you want.

I want truth, not people on my side. No need of sarcasm.

You've probably thought you flamed down my proof using it very extensively, but since such things only happens in your imagination, I am not participating it.

[Iain17]

Where to start :confused:

VirtuallyVB

Referring back to Matthew 7.

1,2. I thought a big part of religion was practising what you preach. It seems however that the head of your religion (ie God) is above this, for he his the biggest judger of them all, if parts of the bible are to be trusted. How can you justify the annihilation of the entire human race, bar Noah and Co. God has seen fit to judge, but we are not allowed to judge. So why do you say that we are going to hell if we do not believe in your God. Is this not a judgement?

Continuing on from this train of thought. It seems God does share human emotions like jealousy, and anger. Yet he disobeys his infamous ten commandments. Thou shalt not kill being a good example.

If god is prefect then, surely we must be perfect if we are made in his own image. And because by definition, anything a prefect being does is perfect. If he got us wrong, then he is not perfect.


3,4,5 I am by no means perfect, i like everyone have my many flaws. I am particularly judgmental and very opinionated. I however will have the common decency to admit when i am wrong. As for removing specks from other peoples eyes, this often helps us remove the logs from our own. When you logically have to explain your beliefs, you begin to realize the flaws in them, and adjust your beliefs accordingly. Well some of us do.


12 While i agree with the sentiment, again it is a case of double standards, or pure and simple hypocrisy. Why if God is telling us to "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is god killing of people in floods, sending them to hell, and punishing the whole of humanity for two peoples mistakes? Does this mean that God would like us to send him to hell, flood heaven and kill everyone there?


As for the rest of it i think Gen-X covered most of my sentiments.


I think i can almost guess the reply now, and i have a feeling it will disappoint by dodging the point.


Kedaman

Lets be perfectly honest and frank. Your arguments are wearing a bit thin. It is time you abandoned ship. Even rats have the common sense to do this.

You never gave me a satisfactory answer to my postulation that your God was the Big Bang. Let me try again.

YOU defined your God as the creator of the universe.

I said there is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang, so let us say that is what created the universe. Now God = Big Bang. He did not cause the big bang, the big bang just happened.


I also have a problem with your concept of reality. (ie you exist, and what you see exists[or what causes the illusion.]) This is defining yourself as god. Nice was of invalidating what everyone says though. Come back with some proper arguments, and you will regain the respect that you once deserved.

If you knew anything about philosophy then you will know that the only way an argument can stand up to scrutiny is if it is backed up by logic and reason. Start using them.

[dvst8]

How did they come to the conclusion that the galaxies were accelerating?



Yes I would like to know this as well... If this were true it therefor invalidates all Red Shift tests done to date



I'm not sure. The article was not very specific. I suggest reading it though: Equinox July 2000.

What was said, was that these measurements were carried out in 1998, and have been under close scrunity ever since, and the results seem to hold, and only become stronger under scrunity. That is why T. Dickenson infers the existence of an unknown anti-gravity force... interesting stuff.


Question to believers:

Why do you insist that there had to be a reason or a cause behind the big bang??

dvst8

[kedaman]

At least you Iain haven't lost your mind yet so i may speak to you. Although I don't say you have much to say either.


Lets be perfectly honest and frank. Your arguments are wearing a bit thin. It is time you abandoned ship. Even rats have the common sense to do this.

You never gave me a satisfactory answer to my postulation that your God was the Big Bang. Let me try again.

Pointless...

YOU defined your God as the creator of the universe.

I said there is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang, so let us say that is what created the universe. Now God = Big Bang. He did not cause the big bang, the big bang just happened.

Still you say something like 3 apples = 2 bananas. A concept and a phenomenon is two totally uncomparable things. Whats so unsatisfactory with that? Can you answer me this Iain?

BTW saying "big bang just happened." is perfectly explaining, isn't it? Maybe for Gen-x but I hope you have better sense of logics.


I also have a problem with your concept of reality. (ie you exist, and what you see exists[or what causes the illusion.]) This is defining yourself as god. Nice was of invalidating what everyone says though. Come back with some proper arguments, and you will regain the respect that you once deserved.

This was also explained many times to Gen-x but I hope you will get this the first time. My proof is based on that Universe exists and you are part of it, and as universe is defined as everything, and God is not part of it, since he is defined as creator of it. In other words God does not exist in our univese. Which explains over and over again i'm not God. Otherwise I would say that was a nice try.

If you knew anything about philosophy then you will know that the only way an argument can stand up to scrutiny is if it is backed up by logic and reason. Start using them.

Now explain this to Gen-X. He need it.

[Iain17]

Kedaman


This was also explained many times to Gen-x but I hope you will get this the first time. My proof is based on that Universe exists and you are part of it, and as universe is defined as everything, and God is not part of it, since he is defined as creator of it. In other words God does not exist in our universe. Which explains over and over again I'm not God. Otherwise I would say that was a nice try.


I think i see where you are arguing from now. I still disagree though. Let me sum it up for you.

Premise 1 God is defined as the creator of the universe.

Premise 2 The only things that really exist in the world are : Yourself
What you see, or what causes the illusion of what you see.


Argument 1 :- Everything is now because of you.
The only thing you can know exists for definite is yourself. Why? There is no way of telling if something is an illusion or not, and you will never be able to find out what causes the illusion, because that may also be an illusion. If this is the case then the universe is an illusion. If you yourself is the only thing that exists, then your mind creates this illusion. This means that you have created the universe as you know it. Seeing as God was defined as the creator of the universe, you are God.


Argument 2 :- God does NOT exist outside of the universe
I will agree that in most cases god is included outside of the universe, and not subjected to the laws of it, in your case this is different. Why? Because there is no universe. It is just an illusion you have created, so there is no universe for god to exist outside of.


Conclusion
This may be correct, and you would not be able to prove otherwise, but why think like that. It is pretty safe to assume that things exist. Once you start accepting that, then we can start discussing things properly.




BTW saying "big bang just happened." is perfectly explaining, isn't it? Maybe for Gen-x but I hope you have better sense of logics.


This one always gets me. :confused: Why are you willing to except that God just IS and has always existed, but are unwilling to accept anything else as just always existing. There are reasons why the big bang may have happened, and none of them include God. If this is the case, i state again, God was the big bang by your definition.

Because the Big Bang is what created the universe. Lets say god started the big bang, other people might accept this, but by your definition God was the creator of the universe. So he must have been the big bang, not the creator of the big bang, but the big bang itself, becuse the Big Bang Created The Universe!

[frank ashley]

Iain17,

Sorry, but how do know that you are not an illusion. This invalidates your conclusion.

I would also like to know why god is just is.

[Iain17]

Oh for crying out load, don't you start on that as well.

[frank ashley]

Iain17

Don't worry, you have to be insane to take philosphy seriously.

But, WHY is god just is?

:)

[HarryW]

The big bang was the creation of the universe, not the creator. It was an event. It doesn't make sense to say that if God created the universe then He must be the big bang. Well maybe it does through some very complex proof, but I can't see it. If God created the big bang, then He created the universe in my eyes.

Not that I am saying I believe that is what happened, I just think it's a possibility.

More and more I can see people becoming hostile. As far as I can see there's something like this going on:

O
-|- <= ME!
Pro / \ Anti
<---------------------------------------------------->
pos. O O pos.
(1) -|- -|- (2)
/ \ / \

The pro-God people say that the Antis are in pos. (2) and the antis say that the pros are in pos. (1).

There seem to be very few people who are at one end of the spectrum. Try not to assume that because someone chooses to believe in God, they are unable to accept the possibility that there isn't a God, and also try not to assume that because someone doesn't believe, they're unwilling to accept the possibility there is a God.




Anyway... I think Kedaman was saying that that's all you can know exists, not necessarily what actually does exist. Judge for yourself whether that's true.


I don't think the believers are insisting that there had to be a reason or cause behind the big bang, I think they just think it makes more sense that way. And from the other POV, I don't think the 'unbelievers' are saying the big bang couldn't have been caused by God, just that they think it makes more sense that He wasn't involved.



Gen-X - About how the theological debate began. If I remember correctly (tell me if I don't, I'm sure you will ;) ) while on the subject of evolution and how it didn't make sense, as you were telling people, somebody posted a message that they thought it was down to creation etc... Now I'm not saying that they were right, but be honest, you were a little over-zealous in telling them they were wrong, and how you were insulted that they'd brought it up. It was something like that anyway, that's my memory of it. Probably a bit of a cloudy memory though.

My point is that although the creationist guy was the one that butted into an evolution thread, he was stating his opinion as everyone else was and that opinion is equally valid. Furthermore, it was just him to start with, and the others probably wanted to state their opinion too. The argument wasn't exactly instigated, it just developed.

I've never read the bible so I wouldn't know if God is deemed as perfect or not. Well actually I'm not even sure if the bible is a reliable resource for establishing something like that.


If he was I think He would have created a human race that was more tolerant of each other's ideas.


Ahhh... now you are starting to see some of the evidence. Don't you think it strange that such a wonderful and all-powerful God would create such a warped and corrupt race?


I am well aware of what this suggests, it's something I have been aware of for a long time. I am looking at this from a neutral standpoint (well pretty neutral), and I have looked at and considered many factors over the years. Basically I would like to think that He is, but I'm not convinced by the evidence. But I don't think I have to be absolutely convinced by the evidence to believe, because some of it comes from the inside. Do you know what I mean? Anyway I am halfway between the two parties. I am far from a believer really, but equally far from sure that God doesn't exist.

From my point of view, you've been twisting my words, so please post your reference from me that led you to this conclusion.

Perhaps it will show where our reasoning differs.

I am impressed that you looked at Matthew 7 line by line. The reason I posted it was to provide the "Swine/Pearls" reference, but at least you are re-reading the bible.

I'll take a closer look to your analysis of the chapter later. Skimming over your post, it looks like your belief is strengthened (further away from my belief). That is interesting because I think there is a bible reference about becoming more "faithfull" to your side (whichever side that is).

Regards.

Gen-X
Do you have a comment on my latest answer to your 4 recent questions before the Matthew chapter?

[kedaman]

Iain

First some corrections, you didn't read since you leaved the discussion earlier

Premise 2 Corrections
Universe consists of

Yourself including what you see
OR
You and What you see or causes it.

So in fact you must assume that these are true, not illusions

Argument 1 Flaws:
1. Contradiction: You implicate that universe is an illusion, but since it contains You (in both cases), it can't be.
Correction: Premise 2.

2. Fundamental flaw: Illusions cannot be caused by Illusions since they are part of the same Illusion.

Argument 2 Flaws:

Although it's totally correct in another aspect: Your Imaginasion (Replace all words Universe with Your Imagination and your argumentation will be correct), But since we talk about a universe containing You, it won't apply. See premise 2.

1. Irrelevance: So everything works fine except that you did oversee what universe is.




Why are you willing to except that God just IS and has always existed, but are unwilling to accept anything else as just always existing

Time is what exists only in universe. If you define everything as universe why not define always, in the same way? In other words I gladly accept it. In fact you just triggered a very releasing thought of mine, that God actually could create a two-way unlimited amount of time, no beginning and no end, which also could explain a cyclic bigbang theory. But since they've discovered evidence of accelerating expansion, i'm not willing to support it.


Because the Big Bang is what created the universe. Lets say god started the big bang, other people might accept this, but by your definition God was the creator of the universe. So he must have been the big bang, not the creator of the big bang, but the big bang itself, becuse the Big Bang Created The Universe!

What do you define Big bang as Iain?
1. Universe Expansion
2. Creation of Universe
3. The physical event, occurring when Universe was created
4. The physical event, occurring at the point of time we refer to as scientists observing a phenomenon explaining astronomic evidence.
5. Your choise


HarryW

Gen-X - About how the theological debate began. If I remember correctly (tell me if I don't, I'm sure you will ) while on the subject of evolution and how it didn't make sense, as you were telling people, somebody posted a message that they thought it was down to creation etc... Now I'm not saying that they were right, but be honest, you were a little over-zealous in telling them they were wrong, and how you were insulted that they'd brought it up. It was something like that anyway, that's my memory of it. Probably a bit of a cloudy memory though.

Maybe my memory isn't that good either but since i've been trough all the discussions, i can review it better, heres the debate history:
The debate began with artificial intelligence, then jumped into creation, then into God, while from artificial intelligence to evolution. Then the debate splitted into a) math by passing Gen-x view of "soul" was like quarks, dimensional and now is isolated in creation and ai thread, b) God, which couldn't be isolated since another topic, the bible started and got mixed with this. A scientific topic on timetravel and travelling faster than light got mixed into some threads.
So there's actually 3 ongoing debates:
a) Bible
b) God
c) Math


Anyway... I think Kedaman was saying that that's all you can know exists, not necessarily what actually does exist. Judge for yourself whether that's true.

Thanks for the understanding.

I don't think the believers are insisting that there had to be a reason or cause behind the big bang, I think they just think it makes more sense that way. And from the other POV, I don't think the 'unbelievers' are saying the big bang couldn't have been caused by God, just that they think it makes more sense that He wasn't involved.

Easily explainable thing: They don't want to have God around, because they think he's so unscientific, by diffusion caused by religion. So they leave a hole of unexplainable territory. In fact this hole basically covers all science and everything known since it's the source of everything. Replacing it with God would therefore be scientifically correct since it fits perfectly, without affecting science.

Gen-x
Have you calmed down yet since our drastical split?
Just like you, I also got tired of you, causing my sudden offensive. Now if we could forgive each other we could continue our discussion where we ended.
Do you accept that Science is not absolutely thrustable?

We start over with just assuming, no proof. So we are in that way more openminded, is that ok Gen-x?

"So why do you say that we are going to hell if we do not believe in your God. Is this not a judgement?"

Where are you people getting words that you are trying to put in my mouth. You seem to be arguing with yourself. I have never said such a thing. I don't even think I posted such a thing from the bible. Perhaps you had a bad experience in your past with the bible.

Don't mistake what the bible says for what I say. I am not your god or your judge. Find out what the bible says.

That is why I posted the full chapter that mentioned swine and pearls. And even then, I'd go back to a Greek/English Interlinear if I was really trying to fathom it. (OR ELSE I MAY CONCLUDE THAT PETER IS THE FATHER OF THE CHURCH--I don't conclude that). There are what I call "harmonics" in the bible. A first glance(harmonic) and deeper study (harmonics) and "Harmony of the Gospel(s)". Some say practical meanings and spiritual meanings. I would speculate that there is where much symbolism comes from.

I can only give you my understanding of what the bible says. Seriously, find out for yourself by reading or listening. http://www.bible.com

[Sam Finch]

OK lads and ladettes, Get your philosophy hats on, It's time for Sam's Crazy Agrument.

Let's Start With Some Assumptions

The Universe Exists

Justification

I exist (I think Therefore I am) I observe the universe, If The universe is just an illusion, it must be
a) In my Head, Therefore I am God.
b) Inside another universe, therefore this universe exists (because if it's an illusion it exists inside another universe or someones head(god)

The universe Runs according to a set of laws

This is Self evident.

That which is truly observed to exist Exsists

Again Self Evident

That which is not truly observed to exist, yet is not truly observed not to exist has a probability of existing

Justification

This is the basis of my argument, it is a Quantum mechanical Idea, Say we look at a wall, It is there because we can see it, we can touch it, now imagine a space where there is no wall, There is not neccaceraly no wall there, it could be that the photons passing through it are simply missing the wall and going through the gaps between the atoms (there's some quantum mechanics to explain why this could happen but it's fairly unlikley) we can walk through the space where this wall might be, but again there is a probability that all the atoms in my body are missing the atoms in the wall (again unlikley) the wall does not have a gravitational field but there could be another wall behind us to cancel it out.(more QM and we're getting spectacularly unlikley now) Etc etc

The Wall neither exist nore doesn't exist It pretty much completley doesn't exist but it does have that tiny little probability that it doesn't exist. This extends to exerything, everything has both a probability of existing and not existing, the more we observe it the more the probability of it existing swings to one or zero.




Now we're going to apply this last idea to the laws that the univere runs to, the laws that we observe and test are the ones that are most likley to be right, Netons Laws Of motion For Example were Tested and Found to be right, before relitivity it was considered very Likley that they were true, then relitivity came along and made them staggaringly less likley.

However, we see that our probability Idea Applies even better to laws than it does to objects, although Newtons laws have been shown not to apply in al situations If you Test them they are very likley to be true, it's only in a few situations that they are found to be false. The Laws of relitivity which replaced them are even more true, It's only in very very few situations in particle accelarators and the centres of black holes that they don't apply.

We Extend this Idea to reach the Following

The Laws of physics most likley to be observed are the ones that are most likley to be true

Now In orded to be observed the laws of the universe must be complicated enough to support intellegent life, The inner workings of the brain are still not understood and probably involve some pretty damned hard Ideas and complicated Physics and chemistry.

So surely the most likley laws to be observed are the ones most likley to support intellegent life, and the most likley universe to support life must have some intellegent being at the helm or a set of laws with it's own intellegence with it's ultimate aim to create life capable of understanding it.

So you all say, why does god not reveal to us the laws of the universe.

Because we would not be capable of understanding them, humans become more intellegent as they learn more and ultimatley have to think for themselves in order to find out these laws, by this process of inquisitive beings does God make us understand him. So why not just create an intellecent being out of thin air and give him the knowlege?

Because this is not allowed under the laws to which the universe runs (probably) The laws must have certain parts capable of supporting life and it is these which restrict god in his ability to create life, which is why is is under the slow process of evolution.



I'm not claiming that this is a proof of gods existance (although I'm not claiming it isn't) But I'm putting it up as a philosophical argument for you all to read.

[Gen-X]

Iain

Read your post on Matthew. Didn't you realise God WAS above everyone else? That he and ONLY he had the right to judge, to kill and to destroy whetever he saw fit?

Believers think that because is perfect he has the right to judge... that because he can see ALL he has the right to judge. Remember the saying... "Don't throw stones from a glass house"? God being perfect means that there isn't a LOG in his eye so he has the RIGHT to complain about the logs in everyone elses.

Accept how we have shown that God suffers jealousy and anger which has been proved in the passed to be a combination that leads to "irrational" behavior and mistakes. Therefor if these traits CREATE mistakes then God can make a mistake and if he can do that then he is NOT perfect and if he is NOT perfect then you are right.

Somehow I don't think believers would agree with you though

I really cant understand why Kedaman is still continuing... both of us see flaws in what he says and yet he still clings to it almost as dearly as believers do.

Maybe thats his "crutch" and without it he feels weak and afraid

dvst8

There have been theories for anti-gravity for a while... Just as we can get anti-protons and anti-electrons the theory holds that each of the 4 forces can be reversed.

I haven't read much about it but that is one of the latest theories on how we can travel through space without fuel. A nice big chunk of anti-gravity that makes us constantly "fall" towards our destination. As there is little friction in space we would effectively accelerate to close to light speed. I'm not so sure.

Kedaman

At least you Iain haven't lost your mind yet so i may speak to you. Although I don't say you have much to say either.


Is that how it works? They agree with you and they have something to say? I think everyone here has something to say and I am happy to discuss it with them providing they are not completely stuck in their own little imaginary world.


BTW saying "big bang just happened." is perfectly explaining, isn't it? Maybe for Gen-x but I hope you have better sense of logics


I'll go one better than that. The Big bang was caused by the PREVIOUS Big Bang which was caused by the one before that and before that... There was no "beginning" because it has been an infinate cycle.

I can't prove it... but neither can you prove it WRONG.

Iain

Good try on Kedaman's "theory"... but you didn't agree with him so you are automatically wrong.

frank

I would also like to know why god is just is


If believers had to explain how God got there then they would be saying there is something MORE than God. So they simply say "God just is". It makes it simple, it traces everything back to a single point and they can feel safe.

Harry

There seem to be very few people who are at one end of the spectrum. Try not to assume that because someone chooses to believe in God, they are unable to accept the possibility that there isn't a God, and also try not to assume that because someone doesn't believe, they're unwilling to accept the possibility there is a God.


I have tried to put this across but nobody listened. It is the same reason people assume that someone who doesn't believe in God is not spiritual or has no meaning in their life.

Here is the interesting thing though... Ask a Christian to talk about the possibility that Goes does NOT exist and see what answer you get 9 times out of 10.


Anyway... I think Kedaman was saying that that's all you can know exists, not necessarily what actually does exist. Judge for yourself whether that's true.


We know what Kedaman is saying... and if the only thing you KNOW exists is yourself then why wouldn't you think that you yourself ARE God?

Kedaman's theory is a very neat and very nice way of throwing absolutely EVERYTHING out the window so that you reduce it to the absolute barest minimum by means of paranoia (Is it real? Does it exist? How do I know? Everyone could be fooling me, it could be an illusion).


Gen-X - About how the theological debate began. If I remember correctly (tell me if I don't, I'm sure you will )


To be honest I couldn't be sure how it started. The factual side of what you said is about right but the implications that I was the one who started the furore is a little sketchy. Whether thats because I don't want to believe I started it all or because I didn't actually start it all I don't know :)

VirtuallyVB

From my point of view, you've been twisting my words, so please post your reference from me that led you to this conclusion.


I'm not about to start digging through 500+ posts to find the comment... how about I just ask you clearly and consisely to restate?

Please entertain us with your description of the possiblity that God does NOT exist


I am impressed that you looked at Matthew 7 line by line. The reason I posted it was to provide the "Swine/Pearls" reference, but at least you are re-reading the bible.


First, I know why you posted it but it only made matters worse because it confirmed the use of the word "swine" as insulting to everyone.

Secondly, read your statement again.. how damn condescending! You are impressed? "at least I am re-reading the bible"? Those words come across as loaded with arrogance. Ever since you started posting you have restated again and again for people to read the bible ("I urge you to read the bible ad nausiem"), as if they are all ignorant but will have their eyes opened if they read it...

But not just "read" it... actually taken the SAME meaning you had. If they came back after reading it and said "But I disagree with you, it is worse, it means this or that" you would say "You didn't read it PROPERLY... read it again".

And that is the problem.... you are using the religious context of the RESULT leading to the INSTIGATION.

"If they answer WRONG then they read it WRONG". "If they prayed and it didn't work then they didn't pray RIGHT". "If they believe in God then they SEE TRUTH".

I hope you can see that every time you do this it is only reconfirming what people believe... not that they take the evidence and draw the CONCLUSION from it... but instead that you take the conclusion and decide what the evidence is that makes it true. Can anyone say the word "bias"?

Now... I appologise for missing your questions, I truely didn't see them.. thank you for letting me know I missed them.


I don't know how the bible defines "perfect", but apparently you do. Please enlighten me


Without fault, without flaw, never wrong.

Can you tell me that God makes mistakes? That perhaps he "judged" someone wrongly? That he sent someone to hell that was innocent?


Who defines what is very good? A little advice: That's why you had better find out what your Creator requires of you


Apparently the religious define what is good. They decided Incest was "good" while populating the planet and then decided it was "bad" when the planet was sufficiently populated.

As for finding out what the Creator requires of me... If you don't ASK you don't GET... If he doesn't have the simple respect and DECENCY to actually let me know he exists and what he requires then I cannot be held to blame if I don't meet it ;)

Imagine someone walking up to you and slapping you across the face. You look indignantly at them and say "What was that for!?!?!". They turn to you and say "I was expecting you to make me dinner". To which you reply "But I didn't KNOW you wanted me to make you dinner"....


Limited is less than perfect, right?


Incorrect assumption. If "unlimited" is the containment of everything then this means it ALSO contains that which is not perfect. Therefor "perfect" would be the subset of everything that is possible, including only those things which are not in error or flawed which means perfect IS limited.

You keep making this incorrect assumptions... If this assumption was incorrect then how do you know your other assumptions about me and being sincere in seeking truth are ALSO not incorrect?


You are trying to grasp infinity with a finite mind


Actually I would accuse you of doing this. You see the universe as having a "beginning". In order to comprehend this you believe in the existance of a God who made it begin, who "created" it.

If you were actually able to grasp the concept of infinity you might understand that the universe could have existed for all eternity as a result of a cyclic big bang. No beginning, no start, no need for creation.

So which of us then is trying to grasp infinity with a finite mind? The one who thinks the universe MUST have a beginning? or the one who can clearly see the possibility that it has always existed?


Did the bible say that the son is thrown into jail? I think you will see that if the father is thrown into jail, that the son will suffer because he has lost a "bread-winner". No Pun Dude.
I am not trying to "twist" things, but I knew you would say that I did, so I jokingly asked if you liked my twist. I'm trying to provide you answers, although I owe you none


And if the father didn't actually earn an income and was a burden on the family? Or he beat the child?

It was a sin to beat the child and he was thrown in jail. Doesn't this then mean that the next generation is BLESSED for the sin's of the father?

As for you not owing me answers, you are the one who feels obligued to answer... as well as feeling obligued to keep asking everyone to read the bible. So who is it you keep owing for doing this?


I'll go one further (although many, if not all Pastors, will disagree with me).


Really? Then how do you know it is not YOU who are wrong in saying it if your religious peers would disagree with you? Are you arrogant enough to think you have an understanding they do not?


I say God is responsible for it all. But that makes us robots. We don't like that (right, dvst8?). I call it a will, but not a free will (deep thread potential). So from my point of view, I have to trust God. Indulge me for a moment: Others will be judged on the knowledge they have been given. (Can you say that you measure up to your standard?)


Now we have a point of agreement. If God does exist and did create everything I would agree that we do NOT have "free will" in the definition they want us to believe.

The knowledge we are given however is what has been decided to be given us by God. We don't have free will so whatever we get was already lined up for us. So that means our "judgement" was already decided before we actually existed.

Do I measure up to my own standards? absolutely and totally NOT... but do I have to? absolutely and totally NOT.


Thank God this is so, because I have wronged others and I "hope" (that's a faith thing) that I am saved. Although the bible does speak of assurance.
You also misuse evidence and proof. But that's just more carelessness that won't help you in your search.


I find it a scapegoat to say that everything wrong is absorbed by JC... its convenient to do that during your lifetime when no retribution is ever seen.

Please enlighten me as to the TRUE use of evidence and proof


Yes, that is my hypothesis (on their own works). Did/Can you find such a person to entertain this line of reasoning? By my belief, the only way we would be righteous to deserve this is by Jesus's substitution. Not on our own works.


So you are saying the bible is therefor WRONG because this situation can never occur... everyone is a sinner so there will never be a thousand generations of love?


Where are you people getting words that you are trying to put in my mouth. You seem to be arguing with yourself


Let me ask you... How do you know you are not coming across like this?

One thing I know I constantly fail at is getting my point across in the way in which I meant to. The "way" it comes out is attacking, sarcastic and probably a bit disrespectful... I don't tell people they are wrong for saying that because I understand it.

On the otherhand you keep saying people are putting words in your mouth or twisting what you say...

There is the possibility that in fact you are comming across in a different way than you intended and so they are NOT twisting your words but actually showing them back to you in the way they had been received.

If you are truely an enligthened and intelligent person who is open-minded then surely you must understand the possiblity that what they hear is not what you intended and it isn't their fault for getting it wrong because they aren't the FIRST to take it in exactly the same way.

That is what lead me to realise how sarcastic and confrontational I am... At first I denied it telling everyone they were putting words in my mouth... then I realised that too many people said it for it not to be true (you know the old Everyone else in the world is wrong thing)... I now understand that is EXACTLY how I come across even though that isn't how I intended to...

Can you accept that perhaps its coming out differently to what you intended? That these people are only reflecting your own words back at you as they saw them and that if more than one person saw it differently there is a chance it might be because that is how it sounded?

Sam

I read your post and agreed with it completely. Very well put.. I wish I could explain myself as succinctly as that sometimes.

I am sure Kedaman will say you are wrong, come up with nothing to substanciate it and then be happy he disproved you... but thats him.

I do however have one question for you.

We are talking about probability... and the probability that every particle of my body passes through every particle of the wall and therefor it isn't there.

What I would like to know is at what point does something that is "improbable" be considered as "impossible" simply for the layman?

I mean if the chances of me becoming a millionnaire was 1 in 1,000,000,000 on any given day then I can in all honesty say "I will *never* become a millionnaire".

Somewhere between the odds of 1 in 10 and 1 in a billion we draw a line in the sand and on one side it is "possible" and the other side it is "impossible"... we are finite and short lived creatures... we have to do that.

So I ask you... At what point do we actually decided something that although has a 1 in a billion billion possiblity.... really wont ever happen to anything with such a short time in this universe?

[Gen-X]

Sam

About your philosophical point on why we learn through science....

Why didn't God just create us intelligent enough to understand? He could create the universe but couldn't do that?

Also... Think about what this implies.

- God creates a universe
- Populates it with insignificant and stupid life
- He sets it up such that life can evolve
- He watches them gain knowledge as they evolve

It sounds like an experiment... like we are testtube rats that are being watched...

Whats the point of it all then?

[kedaman]

Gen-x Please, don't get mad :mad: again.


Here is the interesting thing though... Ask a Christian to talk about the possibility that Goes does NOT exist and see what answer you get 9 times out of 10.

If you get an honest anwer you get "I'm not sure" and that's for sure 9 times of 10. :D


Kedaman's theory is a very neat and very nice way of throwing absolutely EVERYTHING out the window so that you reduce it to the absolute barest minimum by means of paranoia (Is it real? Does it exist? How do I know? Everyone could be fooling me, it could be an illusion).

Don't say that Gen-x I didn't throw anything at all out of my window, i just compressed all air out of it and put it in my pocket. And I do not experience paranoia, just like Sam said we have our philosophy hat's on and that means we talk like this, now when I do anything else, in other words, live my life, i'm acting in and experiencing world what you would call "normally"

I don't think theres any idea talking symbolic now Gen-x, yeah you must have been startled i said that, if you define symbolic as diffuse then you may notice you used that a lot in your last post. And if you don't want to get symbolic, get rid of it and let's speak clearly. OR as you said we won't get anywhere. If you have something important there, restate it and i'll reply on it.



iain

originally posted by Gen-x
Good try on Kedaman's "theory"... but you didn't agree with him so you are automatically wrong.

I hope you don't leave again, because of Gen-x comment
I'm not disagreeing with you because that you disagreeing with me, i just put up some arguments against yours and I hope you don't ignore them just like Gen-x did. If something got unclear just ask.


Sam

The Universe Exists

Justification

I exist (I think Therefore I am) I observe the universe, If The universe is just an illusion, it must be
a) In my Head, Therefore I am God.
b) Inside another universe, therefore this universe exists (because if it's an illusion it exists inside another universe or someones head(god)

Olé! That's not working Sam, because you have to explain what Universe is first, and you explain it like this:
a) My imagination
b) The universe I exist in
So thats it, but we are actually talking b, all the time, because there's no point talking a.
Actually I can't proove God is not me if we assume that, but won't it get more clearer than it is, God exists anyway. That's the whole point in believing. You believe you're not alone and So do I.
WHOA! That got a bit too far from my philosphical spectrum.

Othwerways, i'm not going dive deep into quantum mechanics, but i'm not willing to disagree, i'm just not believing that word by word.

That which is not truly observed to exist, yet is not truly observed not to exist has a probability of existing

And I want to call this subjectiveness, because I think Universe contains no probablilities at all, well we don't know but we will get close.

Ok, i was going as crazy as Sam, but that doesn't mean stupid, well see what Gen-x thinks.



Gen-x next post

Why didn't God just create us intelligent enough to understand? He could create the universe but couldn't do that?

Also... Think about what this implies.

- God creates a universe
- Populates it with insignificant and stupid life
- He sets it up such that life can evolve
- He watches them gain knowledge as they evolve

It sounds like an experiment... like we are testtube rats that are being watched...

Whats the point of it all then?

It's not an experiment, if you do an experiment you expect a result which you don't know. God knows what he is doing. Thrust him if you need.

God didn't create intelligent life enough to understand that because that would not work out, but i'm of course not sure, maybe someday we're going to understand, maybe some of us already do. Don't expect i'm going to have to know a qwestion we can't answer because it i'mplies you don't.

Hope that got clear. ;)




But i'm sure it wont.

[Gen-X]

Kedaman

I'm only going to state one thing at a time with you... more than one overloads the "illusion" of your existance.


It's not an experiment, if you do an experiment you expect a result which you don't know.


I disagree.


A : Do an experiment
B : Don't know results

Postulation : If A Then B

I submit...

C(1) : Re-testing results
C(2) : Provide baseline to other experiment
C(3) : Confirm results for yourself
C(4) : Confirm they match calculated or predicted results
C(n) : Any number of possiblities

NEW Postulation : If A Then B or C(1) or C(2) or ... C(n)


Therefor original postulation of "IF you do an experiment THEN you expect a result which you don't know" is INCORRECT

Rebuttal?

[Sam Finch]

I've Just Noticed that My Phillosophical Post was probably on the wrong forum, There are to many about god and I don't really read them so I just put it on the one that was at the top, Oh well, Arguing about the Bible is pretty pointless in my opinion So I don't care.

Gen-X

We are talking about probability... and the probability that every particle of my body passes through every particle of the wall and therefor it isn't there.

What I would like to know is at what point does something that is "improbable" be considered as "impossible" simply for the layman?

That's a very hard question, I'd say winning the lottery is Possible as it does happen to people quite regularaly, Trying to draw a line isn't really Possible, It's like asking how far you have to go to be able to say you've been for a long walk or what's the first big number.

The probability of any visible number of photons Passing through a wall is probably Several Trillion to one (English Trillions, 10^18) Probably even less than that, I think you can Essentially Say that any Visible Fluctuation From Newton's Laws on a macroscopic scale is impossible but again Its very hard to decide where to draw the line, you cold define it as if the expected number of times it happens in The universe up until now is less than one then it is impossible, (I can't be Arsed to work it out, I can probably Give you some figure if you're really deperate but it's just an arbitrary definition anyway)



Why didn't God just create us intelligent enough to understand? He could create the universe but couldn't do that?

I think You've put your finger on the biggest Question this Raises, I Havn't fully Formed the Argument Yet, There are still a few thing like this to Explain away. I Can Think Of 2 Possible Arguments and here they are,


1 Is He intellegent Enough?

You Said Yourself that

A System cannot Create Directly, Not Understand completley the Workings of another System More Intellegent that itself

So In Order for Us to Understand the Workings of The Universe and God Completley We must Be More Intellegent than him, ThereFore He Cannot Create us Directly as We(Or at least the ultimate form that understands the universe) Must be more intellegent than him, So He must Take A Back Seat and let us Evolve

2 Would the created Being Observe the laws

The argument focuses on an actual observation of the laws of the universe, not just the understanding, what Drives us to observe them is our not understanding them, If we understood the laws of physics completley we would not build particle accelarators to observe the quantum mechanical effects that they show us.

They Could probably be combined into a single reason that covers it completley, like I said this argument isn't fully formed yet.

Also... Think about what this implies.

- God creates a universe
- Populates it with insignificant and stupid life
- He sets it up such that life can evolve
- He watches them gain knowledge as they evolve

It sounds like an experiment... like we are testtube rats that are being watched...

Whats the point of it all then?

I'm Quite surpised you said this, I would Have thought you'd have gone the other way, First off, I did not say that god created the universe, I said he was a personification of the laws that govern Our universe, this makes it impossible for him to exist without the universe and therefore he couldn't have Created it, Just everything in it.

Other than that let's look at some views of Life

1 Atheism

There is no Meaning to our existence, we are but lonley souls on a rock which orbits a firey ball in a harsh cold universe.

2 Convential Religion

God Created us and the universe essentially on a whim, he loves us in the same way I love my Dog, our only purpose is to praise him and boost his Ego, we are insignificant compared to him.

3 My Argument

God Created us because he needs us, We have a challenge and a purpose in life to Understand and observe the universe and discover it's workings, God will look after us and help us in our search, Without us(all sentient life forms in the universe) god is nothing, We have a task in life and an all powerful being to guide us until we succeed, which will bring with it the reward of the technology to do anything that is possible in this universe.

I would have thought you would have said that this was a far to optomistic view (as it happens I personally don't "Want" this to be true in the way you say that religious people want their view to be true, As I say I don't claim it to be a proof and if it is then I will have as much trouble believing it as anyone else)

[frank ashley]

Sam,

re your 1,2 & 3

1. Yes the universe is cold( v.cold), we are indeed orbiting a fiery ball and I'm far from being a lonely soul! (From an agnostic veering towards atheism )

2 Is god on an ego trip?

3. What the hell is the point of god creating all these laws/rules etc, creating the human race and then waiting for us to discover them. Hasn't god got better or more useful things to occupy his/her time?

:)

[Sam Finch]

I missed a couple of posts while I answered Gen-X, then forgot to go back to them

Ked


The Universe Exists

The Idea of this argument is to show that god exists, I went through this bit quickly because it's a fairly standard phillosophical argument and it's been discussed ad nauseum in this and other forums, but one more Time from the Top

I Exist (I think Therefore I am)

The universe Is either

Real (go on to the next argument)
A figment of My Imagination (Therefore I am God so God Exists)
A Simulation in another Universe, which is either controlled by something (God) or operates under a set of rules(Go on to the next argument)

If the universe is just a simulation in another universe we can apply the same argument to the universe it exists in (including this one about it existing)

Are We Happy on that one (Saying the universe Does not exist is not considered a valid argument in philosophy so I could have stated this without any proof at all)


Othwerways, i'm not going dive deep into quantum mechanics, but i'm not willing to disagree, i'm just not believing that word by word.


That which is not truly observed to exist, yet is not truly observed not to exist has a probability of existing


And I want to call this subjectiveness, because I think Universe contains no probablilities at all, well we don't know but we will get close.


You don't have to delve into Quantum mechanics at all to accept that it's right, The Best physicists in the world think it's right and the only people who think it isn't are the ones who havn't studied it.

Basicly the Idea is this

Say I have a die and an opaque cup. I put the die in the cup, shake the cup and turn it over on the table with the die underneath it.

What number was face up?

Nobody knows, there's a probability of 1/6 that it's 1, 1/6 that it's 2 and so on up till 1/6 that it's 6.

Because it hasn't been looked at you still have to say it has probabilities of being each number, now say I pick the cup up and look at it, It's a six, now I put the cup back on top.

Someone else comes in and I tell him about the die, I don't tell him what it is, When He looks at the die it will be a six, because I have observed it to be a six, He doesn't know this but It has been looked at and it is a six.

You can look at all the options of what happens and this probability Idea will still apply, It's how the universe works.


frank

re your 1,2 & 3

this was in answer to gen-x's posts about my crazy argument (6 posts up from here) Basicly it concludes that provided the universe exists God Exists with the soul purpouse of creating a life form that observes and tests all the laws of the universe. Gen-X pointed out that this was a pretty bleak view so went through the 3 views and pointed out mine was the least bleak, with some huge exadurations.

3. What the hell is the point of god creating all these laws/rules etc, creating the human race and then waiting for us to discover them. Hasn't god got better or more useful things to occupy his/her time?

God didn't make the rules, he is the rules, In order for the rules to be true they must be observed, which is why it's so important (read the argument)

[kedaman]

Gen-x
Rebittal, yes, you declare "know" as have a basic idea about.

Let's declare know as absolute know, you don't guess, you know a fact.

This flaws C

And i'm going to put another A instead of experiment:

A: fulfill
B: knows the result

Sam

A System cannot Create Directly, Not Understand completley the Workings of another System More Intellegent that itself

So In Order for Us to Understand the Workings of The Universe and God Completley We must Be More Intellegent than him, ThereFore He Cannot Create us Directly as We(Or at least the ultimate form that understands the universe) Must be more intellegent than him, So He must Take A Back Seat and let us Evolve

I'm not saying i'm disagreeing but i wouldn't think that would be a wise idea to accomplish something more wiser than you self.

I think God have to be more Intelligent
If God exists outside of our universe, where no laws are set, it would be logical that he wouldn't have hi intelligence restricted. By creating Universe, he creates laws, that retricts. And by that I mean he also restricts human intelligence.

Sam, I don't think 3 Sam's Argument was good.
God Created us because he needs us
I think He would have no needs, since there are no restrictions, but instead He want to give his love to somthing minor to him.


Someone else comes in and I tell him about the die, I don't tell him what it is, When He looks at the die it will be a six, because I have observed it to be a six, He doesn't know this but It has been looked at and it is a six.

You can look at all the options of what happens and this probability Idea will still apply, It's how the universe works.

But, each person have a different view of probablity against everything! That means the more you know, the more towards 100% and 0% the probabilities will go. I would like to believe that this means that there are no probabilities at all. Look at God, he knows everything, and that means there is no "randomness", or "probabilities".

Maybe physicists accept quantum mechanics, because it works so perfectly, that it describes universe perfectly, but I think it won't explain the fact that we exist.

I'm not sure but do philosophist accept quantum mechanics?

But know why you are holding strong.

If you read the title of the Matthew 7 post, "RE: Swine; Then perhaps you have another reason to "hate" the Bible. (verse 6)", you should have learned that I'm not interested if you come back with my conclusions or not. But you should come back with a stronger conviction. So don't post that I am saying that people have to believe what I say or else I say they are wrong and didn't read it correctly. A judgement (if there is a judgment) will show who is right or wrong. The parentheses here show that I entertain the possibility that I am wrong about if there is a God.

My description of the possibility that God does not exist (which I have never stated here, but could be inferred from statements similar to...) If I believe in the evidence for a big bang, then my conclusions for black holes must be incorrect, or I will have to devise a new spacial metric to cover my tracks and tracts, or investigate the white hole and alter physics in convenient regions. Funny, I believe that I have more evidence that our black hole theory is wrong (to a degree) and that we don't have to alter physics or introduce "Virtual Physics" to have matter leaving a black hole.

The fact that anything is here now means "Something Must Always Have Existed". Cyclic or not, a big bang must be reconciled with black holes. I just find the current theory amusing.

Then you say that I have said something, but do not back it up with evidence.

Doesn't your current view on perfection limit a perfect God?
[Therefor "perfect" would be the subset of everything that is possible, including only those things which are not in error or flawed which means perfect IS limited.]
Aren't we imposing what God ought to be? (The "we" here is all people) WE are all guilty of trying to grasp infinity with a finite mind. But that doesn't change my statement that YOU are trying to do so!

I don't follow your "incorrect assumption" argument against me because it appears to me that you agree with me that this view of perfect concludes that perfect is limited.

If you want to call it arrogance that I have my own convictions, that is your choice. I merely encourage that people come to their own convictions after reviewing the evidence, (so I provide references of evidence).

I believe that I instructed you that one man's evidence is another man's proof and perhaps the limit of claims as evidence approaches infinity is proof. But certain things may potentially never be proven and we reach them by faith (whether religious or scientific). That is why my "faith" was strengthened because I found evidence that I believed by faith. Although an Atheist may believe without the proof I require to believe by proof (due to his believing on less evidence).

I know I can come across as arrogant. I am still deciding if I should tell you to rise from "bowing humbly" (in the other thread). Rise and fix your gaze to the evidence of the stars.

JC IS a scapegoat. But if everything is absorbed, then no-one will face judgement. This is also where some Pastors may disagree with me. But will this apply to you? Do you trust in JC ?

Sounds like you don't want me to answer you anymore. Is that so it can appear that you have won an argument, or because you are not sincere?

Ahh, the father had no income and was a burden or beat the child. Sounds to me that the family suffered. And that the judgement limited the suffering of the generations. This is a mercifull God.

Twist things as you may, but be true to yourself.
-Shakespeare

[Gen-X]

Sam
So the bottom line is that we "each" make a personal definition of what impossible is.

Doesn't that make it subjective? A "long" walk for me might be a "short" walk for you.... So our terminology automatically indicates a personal reference to considerations we each make.

So when I say "It is impossible to walk through a wall", I am telling you that the chances of it happening in my lifetime are so remote that I can almost say it with assurity and be correct without ever being proved wrong during my limited existance.

Surely when we start talking about certain things, like say rolling a "7" on a 6 sided dice we can clearly use the word "impossible" knowing that there is NEVER a probability of it occuring.... but what if someone drew an extra DOT on the surface?

I guess the bottom line is that when talking about what is real and what is NOT the determining factor is the probability of something happening falling within the boundaries of what we each consider reasonable.

That is why we have "Occum's Razor".

Is it possible our universe doesn't exist? Yes... Is it likely it doesn't exist? No. Are we in some complex "Matrix" world or is the world an illusion of our own minds? Not likely.

Surely with this level of reasoning we can safely say that the universe actually DOES exist, that we actually DO exist and therefor throw out any idea that we are living in a dream world or that we are the only thing that exists?

Its a pity Kedaman keeps talking about the 1 in a billion rather than the other 999,999,999,999 that actually think differently.


A System cannot Create Directly, Not Understand completley the Workings of another System More Intellegent that itself


I thought it interesting you mentioned this... Isn't this what I was saying in relation to a human being creating an advanced Artificial Intelligence?

I know what you are going to say... That we create an intelligence that is NOT smarter than us but it evolves as we did to the point where it IS smarter than us... but think about it... If humanity is a 1 in a billion chance (possibly with thousands upon thousands of failures) then how are we going to "fluke" just the right conditions for success if it took the universe and evolution millions upon millions of years just to take us through the last 65 million years?????

Surely that is something we can place as a probability small enough such that most of us will subjectively call it impossible.

At the moment WE are the only form of advanced intelligent life. That makes the probability 1 in 1. There are billions of stars out there and we have found that there isn't life near them like ours (let alone planets.. they seem in short supply), so we adjust our figure to say we are 1 in a billion.... And yet we think ourselves able to recreate on a digital level within the next couple of thousand years what it took evolution a few million to do???


I'm Quite surpised you said this, I would Have thought you'd have gone the other way


Its called reflection Sam. You show someone what they actually said to you but using similar words. Sometimes it makes people realise what they actually said and how it actually came out and they gain some understanding. If you only look at things from one perspective you become self-centred (trust me, I know).... something which is TRUE cannot be slanted, it cannot be twisted.... that is why it is true.

"There are 26 letters in the current english alphabet"

This is TRUE. It cannot be twisted, changed, manipulated or altered.

Kedaman

Gen-x
Rebittal, yes, you declare "know" as have a basic idea about.

Let's declare know as absolute know, you don't guess, you know a fact.

This flaws C

And i'm going to put another A instead of experiment:

A: fulfill
B: knows the result


What? Why have you completely changed your own statement? You stated that the ONLY reason to do an experiment is because you do NOT know the results... I questioned that and now you are dribbling?

Why change A to "fulfill"?

The only reason you "fulfill" is because you "knows the results".

That is complete and total gibberish.

VVB

The parentheses here show that I entertain the possibility that I am wrong about if there is a God


That is not what I asked. I asked you to site for me the conditions under which God does NOT exist.

Surely your reluctance to do so, and your inability to come straight out and say it are proof that you are not truely (read that sincere) in your statement that you can entertain the possiblity he does NOT exist.

Here, I'll go first.

- God does exist
- For some reason he is keeping his presence a secret
- For some reason I don't see his existence around me
- If he created me and made me what I am then he doesn't
want me to see him or else I would
- When we die we will know the truth

To me this would have to be the conditions under which God would exist... It is based on the obvservations I have. Perhaps the 3rd one is a little bit of an assumption but the others are as factual as they get.

Now you try but with the opposite. I bet you find some way to invalidate it even if you do have the nerve to actually put words to it.

You went on about black holes and big bangs and theories about this and that but never ONCE mentioned God or how it ties into the fact that there is a chance he does NOT exist.


The fact that anything is here now means "Something Must Always Have Existed". Cyclic or not, a big bang must be reconciled with black holes. I just find the current theory amusing


Whats amusing about it? Localized masses overcoming the gravitational threshhold pull the matter within its direct vacinity into its core. As gravity weakens over distance its range is limited. The universe (The ULTIMATE source of mass) is currently in a state of expansion caused by the big bang. This acceleration is decreasing (supposedly) to a point that if it falls below the gravitational threshhold will start to contract (the central mass of the universe exhurting gravity upon all matter) and at some point reduce everything to a single black hole of such density that the amount of mass cannot be contained within the singularity and a big bang occurs.

There is ONE thing that DOES escape a black hole... and that is GRAVITY. It is "mass" and therefor gravity works on it....

Where exactly does the amusement arise?


Then you say that I have said something, but do not back it up with evidence


Much like the you saying God exists?


Doesn't your current view on perfection limit a perfect God?
Aren't we imposing what God ought to be?


Actually we are "supposedly" using the tools and communication abilities that he provided us. If he wanted us to consider him in anything more than what we were given to be able to make such determinations then we would have bene provided that ability.

God tells us in the Bible he is perfect, he is just, he is merciful. Now those terms aren't used with an infinate mind... they are used for the LIMITED mind. The Bible is WORDS and WORDS are limited... therefor the ONLY things you know about God are from a LIMITED source.

Of course we impose what God ought to be... your own BIBLE makes those impositions!!!


I merely encourage that people come to their own convictions after reviewing the evidence


Don't you mean your evidence?


But certain things may potentially never be proven and we reach them by faith (whether religious or scientific)


Perhaps we differ on definition here. "Faith" as far as my dictionary tells me is to have belief WITHOUT evidence. That is the whole POINT of faith. To now say that your "faith" has strengthened because of the evidence you have found is a contradiction. Your "belief" may have increased but your "faith" has diminished becaue you are talking less and less on the "word" of someone else and more and more on the evidence you say you found.

Perhaps you should give me your definition of the word faith, "I urge you to read a dictionary" and tell me how wrong their definition of the word is.


Rise and fix your gaze to the evidence of the stars.


You look within another man's garden before you have even seen the fruits of your own. Look not to the evidence of the stars but the evidence within your own hands... for you cannot reach the soil of the stars before you have felt the soil beneath your feet.


But will this apply to you? Do you trust in JC ?


I will be judged for my own actions. I don't WANT things I have done "absorbed" by someone else. I did them, I face the music for them. That someone thinks they can commit something wrong and then just pass it off to someone else is cowardice.

Do I trust in JC? Who is that? I have never met nor heard nor seen nor been introduced to the person.... If one day I DO see this person then perhaps we will have a little discussion... but until I actually know someone exists how can anyone say that I have done "wrong" by that person.

You find a 5 dollar note on the road... do you pick it up? Of course, you might even turn it into the police station like a good little boy... but the man who lost it comes back and finds it missing and his family are not fed as a result... So did you do wrong by the man? Of course not, you didn't even know he existed or was even there.


Sounds like you don't want me to answer you anymore. Is that so it can appear that you have won an argument, or because you are not sincere?


You enjoy questioning my sincerity don't you? Does it make you feel better to think that I am not sincere? That I am just spending my time writting this for no other reason than to cause anarchy and chaos? Mmmmm... now it sounds like you think I am the devil, sent here to personally corrupt your faith.

I dont care if I win arguments, if I lose as a result of gaining more knowledge than that which I started with (such as my realisation that symbolism does not *always* mean a coverup) then I am happier than if I won an argument....

But I am sure you don't believe that because I'm not sincere


Ahh, the father had no income and was a burden or beat the child. Sounds to me that the family suffered. And that the judgement limited the suffering of the generations. This is a mercifull God.

Twist things as you may, but be true to yourself


"This is a merciful God"

Yes but the "rules" stated that the person who "sinned", who "hated" God (I think beating one of his creations is a pretty good definition of hating someone) would have the next 3 generations "suffer".

Now you are saying that the future generations suffering was "limited" and that God is merciful. Doesn't that invalidate the actual statement in the beginning of 3 generations suffering for the sins of the first???

I wish you would make your mind up....

[dvst8]

Gen-x


but think about it... If humanity is a 1 in a billion chance (possibly with thousands upon thousands of failures) then how are we going to "fluke" just the right conditions for success if it took the universe and evolution millions upon millions of years just to take us through the last 65 million years????? ....
And yet we think ourselves able to recreate on a digital level within the next couple of thousand years what it took evolution a few million to do???


I really do not find this hard to imagine. In fact I am quite confident that within a relatively short period of time the human race will be able to artificially create a mind with the capacity to be far more intelligent than ourselves. Recall that my view is that we are completely insignificant, an accident of nature. Intelligence came to be as a tool for our survival. I do not think we were given intelligence by a higher power.

Look at the rate at which our understanding of the world around us has increased over the past couple hundred years...surely you will conclude that the curve is exponential. Why is it so hard to fathom that we will be able to produce an artificial race like our own withink lets say 1000 years? Why shouldnt we be able to "download" our minds onto digital media, let those minds self-replicate and continue to acquire knowledge? Science fiction...yes, but I think several people underestimate the rate of change of technology.



ULTIMATE source of mass) is currently in a state of expansion caused by the big bang. This acceleration is decreasing (supposedly) to a point that if it falls below the gravitational threshhold will start to contract (the central mass of the universe exhurting gravity upon all matter) and at some point reduce everything to a single black hole of such density that the amount of mass cannot be contained within the singularity and a big bang occurs.

I think you put too much "faith" in your idea that there will be a big crunch. It is my impression that the more convincing side of the evidence indicates that expansion will continue for ever...and I don`t think this really has any implications, other than the fact that that`s just the ways it`s gonna be. Why must we attribute a "meaning" to everything.

Sam


God Created us because he needs us, We have a challenge and a purpose in life to Understand and observe the universe and discover it's workings, God will look after us and help us in our search, Without us(all sentient life forms in the universe) god is nothing, We have a task in life and an all powerful being to guide us until we succeed, which will bring with it the reward of the technology to do anything that is possible in this universe.

This is all sounds very nice and flowery. I do not think you showed in your argument that God created us with purpose. How did this come about? What evidence do we have in front of us to bring us to this conclusion? You say an all-powerful being will guide us until we succeed...? What guidance? What being? How and where has he manifested himself? Through scientific discovery? Is that what you are saying?
If thats the case, then how does the following affect your logic: We, has human being in our current level of technological developement, are very close to being capable of wiping out the world around us. (See recent experiment with high-speed particle accelerator and strangelet theory....a slightly negative charge on one of these strangelets emitted starts a chain of matter-eating until all is wiped out--of course just theory...but if it was put into practive who knows what would happen!! :) )

So if we do accidentally wipe ourselves out, where does that put your God and his guidance? Are you saying this will never happen? Would that mean we are killing God? Does that really make sense?

I do not think your attempt at reconciling Science(Technology and human knowledge) as being God, really hold much water. Maybe I`m misinterpreting it.... if so, please clear it up, because it really is a neat way of looking at things. (eventhough i dont agree with it :) !)

jda and vvb

when were you first introduced to God? surely by somekind of teacher or teachings....so you must admit your mind was biased in a certain way. certainly you had the choice when you reached maturity to decide whether or not you would follow that path of belief, but you were necessarily biased one way....

All

Im not sure where what follows is going, i`m just going to go on a tangent, and follow it....

Consider the following experiment:

a boy and a girl are left alone to grow up together on an island (they arent related...lets avoid incest)

they start they own mini-civilisation. they are never told or instructed about the God that you and I have been introduced to in our culture today.

What do you think the chances are of that family/civilisation of reaching the same conclusions about God as we have? Very Slim!! What does this mean. Does this mean that your God does not love these people? Why has he not made himself known to these people? What is likely is that this civilization will develop its own system of belief, of worship but different from what we have today. does it make them wrong? will then not get into heaven?? there was no one to show them the way....
What if we left behind a Bible? Should we expect them to believe it? If they did, would they then be considered Good in god`s eyes, and if they didn`t would they have sinned?

But now let me take this situation, and argue against my original stance, from the opposite point of view:

These people are on the island, and they come to their own "scientific" conlusions about the limited world around them. They believe their island to be at the center of the ocean, they have no means of knowing what is beyond their furthest point of sight. they think the sun is their God...They think the water around them is evil... they reach some erroneous conclusion. we are on the outside observing this little experiment of ours, we see them screwing up, we see them make errors in their assumptions. So in this little colony, does this make us, the creators of this experiment God?? Well let`s take this through its logical conclusion....

Some people would argue this is the exact situation we find ourselves in. We are currently incapable of fathoming a God that could have made us...just like the Island people...

however, I would counter-argue as follows:

we created the island civizliation with no definte purpose. these people had no direct meaning or superior goal to their lives. they were happy to live as they wanted. we did not judge them, we did not control their soul, their destiny. they were not coming to our higher plane of existence when they died...i would say that this civilization given time would reach the point where it became sufficiently technologically advanced that it would seek out the rest of its world... could we avoid detection as their creators? perhaps. but i would say that as their science became more refined, they would eventually come to the realization that the world around them was governed by set rules. their so called gods had to obey these same rules, and the ultimate conclusion reached may be that their was no true God in this system.

Now take this one final step further: imagine the same island, but instead of having us plant two people on this island, just have a few long carbon strands...they synthesize into complex carbon strands, dna, simple bacteria, if the conditions are right (perfect) multi-celled organism, then maybe intelligent life flourishes on this island....we have the same civilisation...they develop in a similar manner, making fumbling mistakes, believe crazy things, but making progress along the way....they ultimately figure out the set laws that govern their "universe" and discover that infact there was absolutely no trace of any kind of god. they had just appeared...on their own..as a fluke. no greater purpose or meaning...does this make their existence sad?? i dont think so. but then you may ask, who created the island that they lived on...and to that I say: I don`t know how to deal with that, but i would prefer to let science reach a conclusion based on evidence, revise that conclusion if necessary, rather then blindly believe it was set their by mystical powers. but that is stricltly my preference.

i`m not sure if i reached any kind of conclusions with that...i dont think so. maybe just more questions... i would like some discussion on it...see what you think.


dvst8

[Gen-X]

dvst8

Yes our technology is increasing exponentially... But our knowledge of the human brain, how it works, WHY it works is not increasing at all!!!!

And yet we are expected to recreate intelligence when we don't even understand what it is, where it comes from or how it works?????

We keep looking in everyone elses back garden we have failed to look in our own.

What makes the difference between choosing chocolate over strawberry? What are the "EXACT" factors that go into the decision? If you want an artificial intelligence it means we must know ALL the variables in order to make it work.


Why shouldnt we be able to "download" our minds onto digital media, let those minds self-replicate and continue to acquire knowledge?


We could download our minds into digital media. What you would have is NOT a sentient being but a snapshot of the information stored in your brain at that point in time.

You are forgetting... we are more than just information... we are a series of "neurons" which are interlinked chemically. You can't just "copy" it somewhere else and expect it to work the same...

Thats like saying "I have this computer disk, I will just draw it on paper and it will still work just like a computer disk". You change the MEDIUM and you change the dynamics of the system.

- How do we know silicon is the best substitute?
- How do we replicate chemical engram creation?
- How do we store based on pattern rather than memory address?
- How do we replicate neuron function?
- Where do we store 50 Terabytes?
- How is it indexed?
- What is the process for filtering information?
- When is information lost?
- What priority do we place on new information coming in?

I could ask a thousand questions to which you would say "I DONT KNOW" and yet you expect to be able to create an artificial intelligence that KNOWS all of this!?!?!


I think you put too much "faith" in your idea that there will be a big crunch


"supposedly", "if", "providing"...

They are not words based on "faith". As I said, there are 3 possibilities, +ve, -ve and 0. One of them is bang/crunch, the other is entopy via constant expansion and the other is an already infinate universe.

I simply said "how do you know that it WONT crunch?"


It is my impression that the more convincing side of the evidence indicates that expansion will continue for ever


This "so called" convincing side uses only the doppler effect (red shifting) to determine the acceleration of the universe. Considering we can only see the smallest portion of what we consider the entire universe its ignorant to say that just because we can see "OUR" part expanding doesn't mean the rest is or at the same rate.

That is like me saying "Hey Guys! Look at this river flow... the entire WORLD must flow as fast as this river because if I look around me I see flowing water"


So if we do accidentally wipe ourselves out, where does that put your God and his guidance?


Considering the premise people use that God was responsible for everything, knows everything and made us what we are then that means God actually wiped us out as a result of the tools and teachings he gave us ;)


I do not think your attempt at reconciling Science(Technology and human knowledge) as being God, really hold much water. Maybe I`m misinterpreting it.... if so, please clear it up, because it really is a neat way of looking at things. (eventhough i dont agree with it !)


I have always seen "Science" as a personification of human curiosity, while "Religion" is the personification of human settlement.

One wishes to expand, grow, learn and find answers... the other is content to sit where it is, refuse to move and stay there for the rest of eternity.

I don't know if it is a Monday thing or if it really is you that has exhausted me. Maybe if we continued one-on-one I could be more confident that you have read what I have written. I know that you post alot, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe your attention is split among too many posts. I interpret your replies to me as evasive and you interpret mine the same way. I don't think I'll be replying to you in this forum anymore, but it is because I feel like I have to keep referring to my past posts that (from my point of view) you won't read.

I am on the verge of publishing a paper on matter being able to leave the event horizon of a black hole without introducing "virtual particles" and this would undermine my theory of the Big Bang opposing Black Holes and "who/what intervened" when the Big Bang was a black hole (if it was a black hole), and you say that I have not answered your question. This will be without using energy or gravity escaping as an argument. The intervention could have been by an advanced entity (not the God of the Bible) or a process following the capability of my paper (requiring NO god of any sort). Try to read the converse of a statement also. I don't have to say "God" when I propose a purely scientific possibility. If this science holds, then there is no need for a God. But now I have stated it (hopefully) as you desire and can grasp.

I believe that the quote was that the children would suffer (generations of the lineage). So you lost me.

On "faith": I consulted a dictionary (dictionary.com) and it said, "without proof or evidence", so I suppose I am arrogant to go against this dictionary, because I would say "without proof", but I would not say "without evidence". The bible says in John 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
So I would conclude that you (and the dictionary and perhaps everyone else in the world--a consensus thing, so you must be right--not--[because I am arrogant and consensus is not truth or fact]) must really be defining "blind faith". Because the bible seems to be providing evidence and saying to have faith (JC: be not faithless Tom, I just showed you evidence). And maybe you can add that to the tally of biblical (apparent) contradictions or warped definitions. Perhaps "blind faith" is true enlightenment required to "move that mountain by my word". I almost wish I had blind faith.

dictionary.com also seems to suggest that evidence=proof, and again I would disagree. I proposed an "In The Limit" definition in a recent post. I guess I'm just a rebel. Or a free thinker or just blind although I don't have blind faith. But I would say that I have faith by my (convenient as you say) definition.

Oh, and yes, believers are content.

[Gen-X]

VVB

So now you understand that the words you are using and the words we are "interpreting" are different.

You also understand that the meaning you give them is different to that which the dictionary and most other people give to them.

Could that explain why you feel your words are being twisted? Why you feel people are putting words into your mouth?

Not because they are... but because they use the meaning of the word as they are defined and not as you have changed.

You see a difference between "proof" and "evidence" and yet can you quantify it to a point where it is clear to everyone?

"and be not faithless, but believing"

To translate in "english" using the words that everyone was taught in school.

"and be not (accept without evidence), but (accept as true / have absolute faith)"

Or to remove the double negatives....

"and don't accept with evidence, but simply accept"

The statement says that the person is wanted not to seek any evidence but instead to actually "just believe", to trust without given anything to base that trust on.

It doesn't say (be not faithless Tom, I Just showed you evidence)...it says (be not faithless Tom, but just believe)


If I were to come to you and ask you to accept something as true you would laugh at me... why? because you don't see me as someone to trust. You see God as someone to trust and so you believe them immediately without question... without evidence (because you already believe) and so you have faith

It keeps going around and around... you believe because you have faith and because you have faith you see evidence to make you believe....

If you choose to no longer post that is your choice, but I would be saddened to think you stopped posting because of a difference in communication. You say I don't read what you write and yet I can correctly quote the definitions of words while you disagree with them... If I were to truely "miss" so much then why wouldn't I miss that?

As to your description of God not existing.... I didn't ask you to define the scientific conditions under which God didn't exist... I asked for your PERSONAL and EMOTIONAL response to it just as I did for you. I even gave you an example to show you what I was trying to mean... does that mean I didn't read what you wrote? Or that I was clarifying what I wanted?

"believers are content"

If only that were true... perhaps then the church would have been "content" not to murder thousands of innocent people during the inquisition.... Or they wouldn't "invade" other countries professing to "save the natives from the devil" by evangelising to them....

If they were truely content they would be happy to sit at home in their own little world and live their lives... instead they stand on street corners bellowing their beliefs to the world and they take over Television stations cajoling and guilt-tripping people out of their money in order to be saved.

I am content to know who I am, what I am and where I am from... I am also content to know that I can be wrong and wont suffer for it....

Can you actually say that you wont suffer if you are wrong?

[dvst8]

Gen-X

I am content to know who I am, what I am and where I am from... I am also content to know that I can be wrong and wont suffer for it....


Very true...! 100% agreement


You change the MEDIUM and you change the dynamics of the system.

So what? Why would we our physics not be able to predict the exact new behavior in the new medium...?


- How do we know silicon is the best substitute?

I don't think I ever implied that. I definitely do not think this to be the case. Holographic storage seems like a possibility....


- Where do we store 50 Terabytes?
- How is it indexed?

hehehe.... this is pretty near sighted Genx...
10 years ago, someone could easily have said "Where do we store 50 Gigabytes?" Today we have the means....
WIthing a couple decades, I'm certain we will be capable of storing EXAbytes of information.... I can't believe you don't see it that way. "640K RAM should be enough for anybody..."

I can't necessarily answer all your questions, but they are definitely answer-able. So we don't know anything about the brain. Should that imply that we will NEVER know anything about the brain? Certainly not. 100 years ago, we didn't know anything about communication theory. Today just look at how pervasive communications is, from television to the internet... I really think it is pretty much limitless what we will be able to do with science...
(within physical constraints of course) But I believe anything that is physically possible will be achieved by Science eventually. What's to stop us?

One other thing...why do people threaten to leave a thread?? Should this strike fear in us? What kind of leverage does that really give them? "I'm going to stop posting if you don't start listening"
Am I the only one that thinks this is increadibly childish?

dvst8

[Gen-X]

dvst8

So what? Why would we our physics not be able to predict the exact new behavior in the new medium...?


We don't WANT to predict the new behavior... we want it to "mimic" what we have now... if you are downloading your brain to a computer you want it to behave the same way or else it really isn't a digital copy of your brain is it?


I don't think I ever implied that. I definitely do not think this to be the case. Holographic storage seems like a possibility....


I don't think you quite understand. We are "carbon" based life. If we were to make intelligence it needs to be based on an element and if it is a computer it uses "silicon". Ok, so you say "Holographic storage".... Wha materials are used for this???


hehehe.... this is pretty near sighted Genx...
10 years ago, someone could easily have said "Where do we store 50 Gigabytes?" Today we have the means....
WIthing a couple decades, I'm certain we will be capable of storing EXAbytes of information.... I can't believe you don't see it that way. "640K RAM should be enough for anybody..."


Your not getting the point are you?
Every single human being walks around with 50 Terabytes of information within the small area that is his skull. Now we are going to replicate this single human brain and all its abilities. That requires storage space. I know that in years to come things will be smaller, faster ,etc,etc...

But the point is we don't even know how the human brain STORES or RETRIEVES information... how the hell are we going to get a computer to do it when we don't have a clue ourselves.

Just saying "I am certain we will be capable in the future" doesn't answer the question... it says you BLINDLY just accept Science will be able to do anything.


I can't necessarily answer all your questions, but they are definitely answer-able


If course they are "answer-able"... you just say "I am sure they will in the future" and leave it hanging without anything at all. Isn't that what religious people do? "God exists, evidence is in the Bible..." and leave it at that?


So we don't know anything about the brain. Should that imply that we will NEVER know anything about the brain? Certainly not. 100 years ago, we didn't know anything about communication theory. Today just look at how pervasive communications is, from television to the internet...


And that is the point.... We HAD a brain 100 years ago and yet we didn't look at it... And yet communications came along and we discovered it and expanded it... and STILL the brain went untouched.

It seems humanity is too eager to look "OUT" to bother looking back IN. Perhaps if they finally decide to spend some time studying the human brain they will get somewhere... But until they do you can't just say "I bet they will" for the heck of it.


I really think it is pretty much limitless what we will be able to do with science...
(within physical constraints of course) But I believe anything that is physically possible will be achieved by Science eventually. What's to stop us?


You see this is BLIND faith in science.. this is what VVB was talking about (and funny enough accused me of).

You say science is limitless (pretty much) and then immediately afterwards say "within physical constraints of course".

What does that mean? That if its possible we will do it? Then how do you know it is not "physically" possible to replicate the human brain inside a computer??????

What's to stop us? The LAWS OF PHYSICS... the LAWS OF CHEMISTRY. We cannot do what cannot be done. We cannot create matter, we cannot breath "metal".... There are just some things that will NEVER be possible.

How do you know an Artificial Intelligence isn't one of them?


One other thing...why do people threaten to leave a thread?? Should this strike fear in us? What kind of leverage does that really give them? "I'm going to stop posting if you don't start listening"
Am I the only one that thinks this is increadibly childish?


No its called human nature and something we have all done at one time or another. As for childish.... can you honestly tell me you have never been childish? ;)

[Gen-X]

I dont underestimate what Science can do... but at the same time I don't just say "One day science will do it", even if I think its "plausible".

Thats what healthy scepticism is. To not immediately believe science will get there, OR that it will never get there. You have read several times how I praise science and now you read where I have critisized science. That shows that I don't blindly have faith in it but it also shows that I don't believe it can do everything.

As for reading about science I read many different sources. Have you heard of the "Leech-u-lator"? I kid you not, neurons from a leech grafted to a circuit board and used to be able to do simple arithmetic.

All that means is that they have worked out how to electronically stimulate a neuron... nothing more. Yes it does put them closer to the end goal but we are talking A.I here... not cybernetics or cyborgs.

In its purest form AI is about creating a sentience, a presence formed COMPLETELY inside an artificially created container that is self-aware and has the abilities as defined by "sentience". At this point in time only humans and some higher level mammals have been "labelled" as having this.

Intelligence ONLY exists in carbon based life... it doesn't exist in trees or rocks... So why wouldn't be consider the fact that the medium in which it is in is important? Intelligence needs a vehicle and in our case it is neurons, carbon and dna... What do you propose AI would use for a medium?

We are learning more about things all the time... but we are also learning things that are NOT possible. A few years ago everyone was raving about FTL... now science has made breakthroughs that show it might not work as a result of factors they didn't consider (infinate mass etc, etc). Just as science oncovers something it also comes against those WALLS.

AI is one of those things we don't know enough about to actually understand if there is a wall up ahead. All AI research (and I have researched it at University) is based on "mimicing" the human brain and its functions... and we do that by looking at the "OUTSIDE" and saying "Yeah, that seems logical we do it that way"

[rathunter]

trying to prove the bible is wrong or right is as wise as trying to prove Silmarillion or Cthulhu mythos are wrong or right. Who wants to believe, has evidences enough. Who don´t, has contra arguments... it is simple contraproductive...

You strike me as a "survivor".

[HarryW]

I can't necessarily answer all your questions, but they are definitely answer-able. So we don't know anything about the brain. Should that imply that we will NEVER know anything about the brain? Certainly not. 100 years ago, we didn't know anything about communication theory. Today just look at how pervasive communications is, from television to the internet...


Whoa, that sounds familiar dvst8! That's more or less exactly what I was thinking (maybe I didn't say it clearly) when there was the original AI post in December, entitled "Grey VB world" for those that are interested.

Gen-X, you said this:


Intelligence ONLY exists in carbon based life... it doesn't exist in trees or rocks... So why wouldn't be consider the fact that the medium in which it is in is important? Intelligence needs a vehicle and in our case it is neurons, carbon and dna...


I wasn't aware that we had come across any lifeforms that are Si based. I don't follow the journals to the same extent some here do, but I would have thought I'd have heard about it if we had discovered a lifeform that was non carbon based.



So we don't know anything about the brain. Should that imply that we will NEVER know anything about the brain? Certainly not. 100 years ago, we didn't know anything about communication theory. Today just look at how pervasive communications is, from television to the internet...


And that is the point.... We HAD a brain 100 years ago and yet we didn't look at it... And yet communications came along and we discovered it and expanded it... and STILL the brain went untouched.

It seems humanity is too eager to look "OUT" to bother looking back IN. Perhaps if they finally decide to spend some time studying the human brain they will get somewhere... But until they do you can't just say "I bet they will" for the heck of it.


I'm sorry, I don't see the relevance of this first paragraph (beginning "And that is..."). Could you explain please?

Yes, we had a brain 100 years ago, and I'm sure some did look at it, although with limited understanding. With limited tools, there was not much scope for further investigation I would have thought.

I think it is a matter of opinion whether a digital copy of oneself is in fact a lifeform. If we were able to recreate a life environment in a computer simulation (or some equivalent means of emulating a universe) with digital inhabitants, made from copies of real people, would those digital versions be considered alive? Would they be considered to be the same person? Could you cheat death by copying yourself to a simulation in this way, and continuing to live your life in a computer?

I am also somewhat confused by your statement, "Perhaps if they finally decide to spend some time studying the human brain they will get somewhere..." I am absolutely sure that there has been a considerable amount of time devoted to studying the human brain. Furthermore, I am convinced that there will be a considerable amount more time spent on that same subject.



This "so called" convincing side uses only the doppler effect (red shifting) to determine the acceleration of the universe. Considering we can only see the smallest portion of what we consider the entire universe its ignorant to say that just because we can see "OUR" part expanding doesn't mean the rest is or at the same rate.

That is like me saying "Hey Guys! Look at this river flow... the entire WORLD must flow as fast as this river because if I look around me I see flowing water"


He said 'more convincing' not 'convincing'. Check your eyes for logs please :D I say this because you have presented this argument:


The universe (The ULTIMATE source of mass) is currently in a state of expansion caused by the big bang. This acceleration is decreasing (supposedly) to a point that if it falls below the gravitational threshhold will start to contract (the central mass of the universe exhurting gravity upon all matter) and at some point reduce everything to a single black hole of such density that the amount of mass cannot be contained within the singularity and a big bang occurs


which is presented as a statement of truth, or your opinion at least. It is hypocritical to say that dvst8 is making an assumption, that he cannot prove his argument, when you make the above statement. I can understand that you might have used the closed universe theory (is it a theory or a theorem? I can never remember) to help your 'no God' argument, because it implies no beginning to the universe.



I'm sorry to keep at your statements Gen-X, it's just a matter of differing opinion...


"and be not (accept without evidence), but (accept as true / have absolute faith)"

Or to remove the double negatives....

"and don't accept with evidence, but simply accept"


Is that definitely the statement with double negatives removed?

"and be not (accept without evidence), but (accept as true / have absolute faith)"

"and be (¬accept ¬with evidence), but (accept / faith)"

I can see only two negatives here to cancel each other out, and that makes:

"and accept with evidence, accept as truth / have absolute faith"

Is my logic flawed?


And on a final note to Gen-X, I see you have asked some questions regarding Sam's proof for his #3 scenario. Well, Sam said this if you hadn't noticed...


I don't claim it to be a proof and if it is then I will have as much trouble believing it as anyone else

[wwjd]

All this Bible talk in a VB forum? Hey, I might as well jump on the bandwagon. Lets not take the Bible's word for it, lets look at what science has to say. Science has never proven evolution. Evolution is merely a theory based upon the thesis by Charles Darwin. However, if you ever read what Charles Darwin had to actually say you would see that the theory was merely that... a "theory". Darwin himself noted that there were HUGE problems with his theory. His theory was based merely on the similarity between structural and physical appearances of different creatures, and he noted himself that he could NOT account for such huge complexities, such as the eye and the egg for example, to prove his theory that they merely evolved out of nothing by pure chance. And that was BEFORE we knew how complex things really were! Saying that we descended from apes comes from a theory proposed by Darwin in relation to our body structures (hands, feet, etc...). Science of today for some reason rests upon this paradigm as if it were proven, which it is not. It doesn't even make sense.

Knowing what science knows about genetics today, Darwin himself would laugh at his theory. We know today how complex DNA is and that, for example, although apes also have 46 chromosomes, they are inifinitely different from ours. Each species is infinitely different from others on the genetic level. To say they would just morph out of nowhere into a new species is ridiculous. You put a sheep in a room and let it sit there forever... it will never morph into something else... it will never clone itself. Man had to clone a sheep... proof that higher intelligence is needed for creation. There is room for wide variety in each species, but each species, no matter how many similarities they may have on the physical level, are not even close on the genetic level.

Also, this whole idea of chance is ridiculous as well. You don't have to be a statistician to figure out that this notion is completely LESS logical than the universe (and everything in it) being created by God. For the amount of time scientists believe the universe has existed you would be lucky if chance could produce a single protein molecule... much less TWO... or even a single celled organism. Just to spell "the theory of evolution" with scrabble, your chances are once in over eight hundred million trillion trillion to get each letter and space in order. Have a computer do a billion random tries a second, and it would still take you billions of times longer than the supposed existence of the universe to spell it.

So then the universe must have been around forever, right?
Nope. Science's own second law of thermodynamics proves that any closed system will eventually run out of energy. We wouldn't be here, and nothing would be from a long time ago if the universe was "eternal".

Anyway... don't take my word for it :) Sorry it turned out to be a book. Hope you enjoyed it.
Now can i see some good VB help in this forum or what?

[mbay]

I am sorry, but I dont belive in god and this is why...

A careful reading of the bible suggests the world was created 5000 years ago. This means that there was nothing on the earth later the 5000 years ago. While scientists find fossils almost daily over millions of years old. Errr how did they get there???

Religion was used thousands of years ago to keep people in order and to give them an incentive to work hard and abide by the law. If they were good they would go to heaven, and bad go to hell. It kept people in order gave people an answer scientific questions that were hard to explain.

Also some of the stories in the bible are more unbelievable that stories that you tell you children. How can a grown up actually believe in these fairy tale stories.

M Baynham

[wwjd]

just a heads up... if people actually DID carefully read the bible they would notice many things... one of them being that the Bible certainly NEVER claims that the universe is only 5000 years old. There are certainly lineages of birth outlined in certain places, but an inspection of the actual language used in no way identifies a father-son relationship, eg. "person1 begat person2" does not necessarily mean anything more than person2 was a descendent of person1. Therefore some uninformed people may try to say that these lineages denote an explicit relational length of time (father-son, father-son...)which is a very dangerous assumption.

Also, carbon dating and all of the other dating methods can be very easily flawed. They are based on very large and possibly inaccurate assumptions about conditions throughout the centuries (air quality, humidity, climate, etc.). In addition, any kind of contamination in the specimen can be catastrophic to the resultant "age" guess. Finally, there is absolutely NO means to validate these dating methods on the merits of a mathematical expression for the radioactive decay of the certain element, eg. Carbon-14. We cannot take something known to be 500 or 1000 years ago and claim validity based on this test for something that claims to be 1 million years old. Your margin of error could be enormous, and you have NO way of determining what that error is. Scientists make HUGE assumptions by extrapolating backward like that, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it can very easily be WAY off.

Nobody can make you believe in God and religion has nothing to do with it. Religion is man's creation... we are God's. God's laws are written on our hearts. Deny it if you want, but its true. Want proof? Can you tell me the only difference between Mother Theresa and Hitler is a cultural one? Of course not. The knowledge of morals is born in us. We are created in God's image... we are rational, moral, and personal. No other creation comes close to fulfilling those three things but humans.

As far as the fairy tale thing goes... well, you are entitled to your opinion. The fact remains that most of these "tales" are backed up by historical and archeological evidence. The Bible is not a book of stories... it is hisorical and evidencial. Anyway, just my 2cents again. I am done now :) If anyone wants to take this discussion OUT of the VB forum I think it would be a better idea. Feel free to email me and we can discuss :)

here's a good article for those who are interested:
http://www.erols.com/myage/articles/Fat_Chance.htm

[Gen-X]

You really like to jump around the different laws of Science, claiming some are wrong and others right.


Chance is LESS logical? And yet you automatically accept the age of the universe... strange.

What are the chances of finding the letters in scrabble to spell the phrase you said? Now factor in the fact we have a hundred million trillion trillion stars and planets and other celestial bodies... funny... now that chance comes down to 1.

2nd law of thermodynamics? We haven't proved its a closed system yet. Another flaw.


I dispute Darwin's theory of evolution as well myself but the FACT is that all forms of life on this planet share 95% of the same genetic code... That would be the best indication that all life sprange from the same source more so than Darwin's limited understanding of the process.

Did you know that a Banana matches human DNA by 50%?

[wwjd]

So... if the chance comes to 1... where did all those stars you counted come from? Nowhere?

And say the universe isn't a closed system... then it would still require a source of energy (God) to keep things in motion.

All I can say is that I thought the exact same way most of you do before I was saved. I used to think it was all nonsense. I would swear up and down how stupid "religion" is and blah blah. It was for weak minded people, etc. etc... I've heard it all before because I said it all before. The point is... we can debate back and forth on this forever. I could go on and on. If you want more proof start by looking at the millions of lives changed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the power of God... including my own... then again maybe that won't even do it for you. Some accept it, and some never will.

The beauty of it all is that I do not have to defend God. I can uphold what He has revealed to us, but I ultimately am powerless. And who am I to defend God? I am nobody. I am only one person out of countless numbers He has created and will create in the span of existence. As long as man exists there will be many who will go out of their way to deny Him... its nothing original. God will defend Himself on His own time.

Just a note: I know this is supposed to be a VB forum so this is my last reply on this thread... like I said... this debating could go on forever. If anyone seriously is interested in chatting about any of this you can email me here and I'd love to share more with you: allroy@wpi.edu

Thanks

[Gen-X]

wwjd

So... if the chance comes to 1... where did all those stars you counted come from? Nowhere?


The product of the big bang. As gravity is a law matter will always attempt to clump together to form a perfect sphere and as the most abundant element in our universe is Hydrogen it would stand to reason that stars would form as a result of gravity acting upon Hydrogen.

If some scientific postulations are correct (these are just as valid as those opposing it) then the universe has been a continual cycle of bang/crunch/bang/crunch So this collection of matter ALWAYS existed.


And say the universe isn't a closed system... then it would still require a source of energy (God) to keep things in motion


I just realised something....

Your statement about the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't apply here. Those laws discuss about the expenditure of energy from a closed system. Energy is converted and released from the system. We are talking about the universe which is NOT a closed system in the sense that energy is never released "outside" of it and thus the overall energy of the universe never changes.

Don't forget we are talking about a universe that is potentially both infinate and finate at the same time, the collection of mass that is the universe is a 3-dimensional convexation of what we call time/space such that it is both closed but also infinate.

As energy is NEVER destroyed it simply changes form, be that heat, light or something else.

We eat animals, animals ate plants, plants drew energy from the sun. Everything is a transition of energy... nothing lost and nothing gained.


All I can say is that I thought the exact same way most of you do before I was saved


And all I can say is that I thought the same way you do before I woke up and opened my eyes.

Whats the difference?


I could go on and on. If you want more proof start by looking at the millions of lives changed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the power of God


Should I include the millions of lives LOST as a result of things like the crusades? The Inquisition? And many other genocidal retributions done in the name of the SAME God?


Some accept it, and some never will


I will never accept I am an "apple"... that doesn't mean I am not being openminded... it means there are some things that just simply are not true.

As for you saying "accept it", that means it was a conscious choice for you to accept that as a possiblity. That makes it "subjective" and as a result you believe because you have already made that choice.

Therefor it doesn't mean God exists, or that you have "seen the light"... it simply means your acceptance has solidified itself for no other reason than you choice to believe.


The beauty of it all is that I do not have to defend God


Yet people such as yourself do so every single change you get... like some obsessive compulsive disorder where you just have to pipe up with some verse out of a 2000 year old book you cannot even confirm was written by a specific person accept through word of mouth and the hope that the person who told you told the truth.

Where was the Bible during the 8th Century AD? Do you know? There were no printing presses then, so who held it? How many copies were there? Was it the original copy? Where DOES the original copy rest now?

And yet you believe in this book and yet you do not even know its history.


I can uphold what He has revealed to us


What YOU have revealed to YOURSELF


And who am I to defend God? I am nobody


I have always loved this of the religious. "I am nobody, I am humble, I am a speck of dust". Your religion dictates that those who are MOST blessed are those who are most humble. So you are actually being vane and completely conceipted to say you are nobody, accept instead of using common society as the benchmark for the definitions of those terms you are using the "benefits" of your own religion


I am only one person out of countless numbers He has created and will create in the span of existence


So tell me... Why did he create the Bhudists? And the Hindu's? And the Mueslims? Was it some sick amusement to create people in a country that was never "exposed" to his teachings, let them make their own religion?


As long as man exists there will be many who will go out of their way to deny Him... its nothing original. God will defend Himself on His own time


How can you deny something that doesn't exist? To "deny" means you believe to start with. Is that how limited your view is? That anyone who does NOT believe is actually "going out of their way to deny"????

I will let you in on a little secret... If God doesn't step in to "defend" Himself fairly soon... there wont be a single person on the face of the planet that will listen. Religous numbers are dropping significantly the world over, they are becoming disallusioned with the people at the top of those religions using them for their own purpose the whole time suffering absolutely no retribution in doing so.

Catholic Priests rape little boys and get away with it... the most holy of holies are able to sodomise weak and innocent people and yet God sits back and does nothing.


I know this is supposed to be a VB forum so this is my last reply on this thread... like I said


Ah... We have another one who likes to come in, say their piece and then cover their ears so they don't hear the truth

Its a good way to maintain your faith. Say what you want, when you want and then ignore anything anyone says back or else you might find yourself questioning and that is a sin that will put you in hell forever right? Don't question just believe, thats the definition of faith.

"To believe without evidence"

Go look it up in a dicitionary


If anyone seriously is interested in chatting about any of this you can email me here and I'd love to share more with you


What is your definition of "seriously interested in chatting"? Someone who believes? Someone you can convert?

Or are you going to dismiss anyone who has a different opinion as seeking to cause trouble and not wanting to genuinely "share".

How F*#king typical. I am sickened every time I see this blatant ignorance, ever time someone says "Hey I am open to talking about this... as long as we are agreeing and you will accept what I say or I can convert you"

*PUKE*

[wwjd]

you wrote:

>So tell me... Why did he create the Bhudists? And the >Hindu's? And the Mueslims? Was it some sick amusement to >create people in a country that was never "exposed" to his >teachings, let them make their own religion?

I figured I should at least shed some light on this one for the benefit of some.

God created everything. God created all humans as well. Man chose, as we do now, to separate himself from God and go his own route. Through the ages man has invented "religions" as an avenue to meet with God. The only problem is that they are still tainted because we are trying to have communion with the creator on OUR terms. Thats not the way it works however. Thats like a child saying to his parents "I won't obey my parents, but instead I'll invent my own idea of how a child should behave and what a child should do to please his parents". That is shear nonsense. God has revealed to us many things. There are tons of proofs for it... and one could start with prophecy, but thats another issue altogether.

So, then. If God is perfect, why didn't He just create man to love and worship Him? Why are there so many of man's "religions" that are all so different? The answer boils down to one reason... LOVE. Love is not a feeling. It is an act of the will for the good of another. It could be through praise, sacrifices we make, enduring together. A man who loves his wife doesn't think, "wow... she really makes my heart pitter-patter". He is obviously attracted to her physically as well, but love involves choice. The man chooses to love his wife by making sacrifices for her, working long hours at his job, praising her, buying her flowers, etc.

In much the same way God loves us and wants us to love Him. What good is it to create a bunch of automatons? Is that love if creation was pre-programmed to love God alone by default and free-will was never a part of the picture? No! That would NOT be love at all. We would be nothing more than robots. We choose to return God's love by choice. That is love. Love involves choice. I love God because of His great love and mercy... because of all the mercy He has shown me... and all the changes that have resulted from me realizing where I went wrong (and continue to go wrong) and then running to the Lord with open arms. I cannot explain enough how much God transformed me out of His love. And I did nothing but accept Him and love Him back... thats all. That is love and that is why "religion" seems so un-unified. It is because we have the freedom to choose. We are naturally bent to want to do things our own way and disregard God's will completely... so we will obviously have various opinions on what "religion" is corrent. Religion has nothing to do with it. A relationship with God is nothing about relgion. A relationship with God is God ordained and NOT man ordained. We open our eyes, reach up out of faith, and He reaches down out of purest grace and love. It is about love...

allroy@wpi.edu

[Gen-X]

What a load of complete and utter self-delusional garbage



God created everything. God created all humans as well. Man chose, as we do now, to separate himself from God and go his own route


So tell me. How is it that a child born in India "chose his own route" when Christianity wasn't even presented as an option to him????

People "believe" in whatever the cultural religion that is around them... For you it was Christianity, for others Bhudism.

Don't start believing that everyone else has chosen their own path or decided how THEY will approach God, it was already decided for them based on what they were exposed to as a child.


Christianity is an SPECIFIC religion that exists in SPECIFIC places.... you are basically saying that in those places where Christianity does NOT exist, the people turned away from god or attempt to worship him in their own selfish way.

Congratulations!!!!

You have just managed to offend every other relgion on the face of the earth and proclaim that YOURS is the right one and they are all trying to worship them on THEIR terms while you are doing it right.


I must really try this religious gig sometimes... the contempt and egotism it seems to breed into people is amazing.

[wwjd]

Call it garbage if you want. I just thought I'd let you all know something:

Jesus loves you... ALL of you... those who love Him, and even those who deny Him and spit on His name...Christ loves us all.

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)

Take it for foolishness, or search your heart and consider that it may be true.

I obviously do not have all the answers or all the proofs. I never claimed to, and I will not pretend to. Also, for some more information... I was neither raised Christian nor are any of my friends Christians.

True Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship with God. Whatever people did in the name of Christianity in the past I cannot help. There are many "religions" and cults today that claim to be Christian and there always have been. Crusades, inquisitions... I cannot help what people have done in the past. It just better proves man's attempt to take things into his own hands. The truth always ends up tainted and people get hurt.

The basic point is that ALL of us are born with a knowledge of the existence of God. We can deny it if we want to, but we all know in the deepest part of our soul that God exists.

Let me ask you something (and this is open to all readers)... If you believe in the Big Bang theory (note... its merely theory), where did that initial mass come from? Knowing that mass is conserved, you would say that it maybe existed as energy. But where did that energy come from? Where did the first physical part of our universe come from and how did it get there? Where did space and time come from? Do you really believe that saying it always existed makes scientific sense in the physical world, or it is just an assumption to make another assumption sound more logical?

Also, do you believe in an after life, or is this the extent of our existence? Are we just a large grouping of cells that by chance happen to work in some order to produce a living organism? Do we then just live a fruitless life in vain and then just die and decompose? Is that it for us? Is that what your heart tells you...that we are purely physical and thats it?

allroy@wpi.edu

[Iain17]

wwjd

First off, and because i have asked this before, and i have never had a satisfactory answer. Why do you have such a problem with the universe always existing? You asked where the matter came from to create the universe as we know it. Well i say, what if it was always there, but a lot of people find this hard to fathom. Yet you will accept god as always having existed.

You : God has always been there.
Me : Why, where did he come from?
You : He was always there.
Me : So why can you accept god as having always existed, but not anything else. What is the difference?
You : "Insert Answer Here ..."



As for me personally, i do not believe there is an after life. Even some Christians i know do not believe there is an after life. They believe Heaven and Hell are a state of mind. Which i can find easier to accept than some mythical garden of Eden in the sky. Besides which, the majority of religions state that if you do not believe in their God, then you will go to hell. This means that everyone goes to hell in the end any way. Population of Heaven = 3. Population of Hell = ?

The only life after death there is, is that the energy from your dead body is passed on to other living creatures. In a sense you never die, as the energy that made up your body will never disappear.


*Sigh* Back on to God as perfect.

Another proposition of mine that never got a suitable response.

Me : So God is perfect then?
You : Yep.
Me : Completely?
You : Yes, he is a completely perfect being.
Me : Right. So, by being perfect he can do nothing wrong.
You : I suppose so.
Me : So if God is perfect, and can do nothing wrong, then I am perfect.
You : ?
Me : Seeing as god created me, and anything a perfect being does cannot be flawed and by defintion must be perfect, i must be perfect. Even if i do not believe in him, if he created us, i must be perfect.
You : "Insert Response Here ..."

[wwjd]

Here's an interesting event to think about:

I don't know how many of you know who Saul of Tarsus was. In the time of Jesus Christ were the Jewish members of the Sanhedrin. These were prominent Jewish members of the community, high priests, teachers of the law, etc. One very respected member, named Gamaliel, had a student/protege named Saul of Tarsus. (Keep in mind these people are all historical figures, whose existence is verified ouside of the Bible.)

I don't know if all of you know this, but the Jews of the day vehemently opposed Jesus because he challenged their traditions and such. In fact the Jews eventually turned Jesus over to the Romans to be crucified based on trumped up false charges. Anyway, this Saul of Tarsus was a young and vital member of the Jewish community committed to the Sanhedrin, and more importantly, to making sure these "Christians" or followers of Christ were arrested and dealt their proper punishment. Saul was responsible for many arrests and even executions of early Christians within a few years after Christ's ascension. Saul was esteemed in the community, respected by very noble Jews, and in line to become a great leader in the Sanhedrin. He had it all. He had fame, education, leadership, honor among men... you name it.

Saul was on the was to a town named Damascus one day. He was on his way to arrest some Christians as a matter of fact. On the way, Saul was stopped by a blinding light. He heard the voice of Jesus ask him why he was persecuting Him. Saul cowered in fear as did those who were traveling with him who heard the sound, but didn't see anything. Saul was without his vision for 3 days. He was led into the city by those who were traveling with him. Saul, as instructed, met a man named Ananias, who was a disciple of Christ. To make a long story short... Saul spent time with the disciples there in Damascus and then returned a changed man.

Saul of Tarsus was the apostle Paul who wrote almost 2/3 of the New Testament. Since it can be verified that Paul existed, was Saul of Tarsus-a prominent Jewish figure who previously opposed Christ, had his life changed, left behind all that greatness and respect in his community, and eventually wrote 2/3 of the New Testament, how can you explain the transformation and the fact the Paul obviously believed his transformation to be true because of the many many times he was put in prison was eventually executed for being a follower of Christ... all of which are also historical facts. How can this be? It can only be if it is true. No man would leave everything behind that was so good and join a life of poverty, persecution, imprisonment, and eventual execution for something that he was only %90 sure about. Paul was %100 positive... and %100 positively changed by the power of Christ.

[wwjd]

haha... I have seriously got to get to work, but just a quick response :)

To me, and don't take my word for it, it doesn't make much sense that something physical, something tangible that you can hold in your hand could have just always existed. There had to be a point where it came into being.

God, on the other hand is spirit. He is not physical and He is not tangible. He has existence in and of Himself. We cannot fully comprehend God because He is inifinite and we are finite, but we can apprehend that He exists.

Take care

allroy@wpi.edu

[wwjd]

hahaha.... ok.. one more for now

you wrote:

Me : Seeing as god created me, and anything a perfect being does cannot be flawed and by defintion must be perfect, i must be perfect. Even if i do not believe in him, if he created us, i must be perfect.
You : "Insert Response Here ..."


My response goes back to a previous thread about love. God did not create us as the "perfect automaton" to love Him by default. We are not programmed robots. If we were, it would not be love at all because there would be no choice in the matter. Love involves a choice, so we are created with free will. Out of that free will man chose to sin and to follow another path. Which leads us to where we are today...

Just a quickie... there are whole books written on that topic :)

Thanks.

allroy@wpi.edu

[Gen-X]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You are a complete and total fool my friend!

Listen to yourself? You ignore the questions people ask, ramble on your own delusional path and then sit back with a smile on your face like you did something right.

Your ignorant about the universe around you and the only thing that comes out of your mouth is the pre-programmed drivel that has been bashed into you.

You actually admitted the reason WHY you believe in God and you never noticed it. You stated indirectly that you cannot accept the fact that at death you are simply GONE... which shows your belief in God does NOT stem from any evidence but instead from your own fear of ending in NOTHINGNESS.


All of your information, every last WORD that you have gained on the subject of God and what you "believe" happened either came from people (your peers) or from books that have no PROOF of validity.

How do you know the Bible was the one written 2000 years ago? How do you know who wrote it?

Where exactly WAS the Bible in say the 8th century? There were not any printing presses which means it had to be written by hand. That time was called the dark ages due to the lack of man's progression. The book (or books) would have had to travel several thousand miles to reach where it did, to somehow leave Africa, make its way over or around the mediterranian and somehow cross the english channel.

Your "Christianity" is an Anglo-Saxon knock off imported by the church around the 11th century who decided to include the OLD testament because it contained what they considered the "rules" by which they could control the masses.

I truely pity you.

[Appologies to anyone whom I offend with this post, including those religious, but this person just irks me with his complete ignorance and total unabashed zealousness. Its people like HIM who thought they were doing "Gods Work" when they burned innocent people at the stake because they didn't UNDERSTAND what they did in their lives and were not TOLERANT of other people. Its people who think like THAT which cause wars and hatred and drive a seperation between the people of this world]

[Iain17]

Gen-X

I wouldn't lose any sleep over him if i was you. I have just seen his replies to my questions, and i can't actually see where the question was anserwed.


Everyone Else

Could someone with more than two neurons to rub together be so good as to post a reply to my questions.

[CreepingDeath]

Ok, I will start this message by stating that I am a firm believer in the Christian Bible.

Iain

You ask "Why am I not perfect?" Well, God is perfect... if he made you perfect, you would be a God. God gave us free will so that we would love Him on our own, not because He forces us.

Gen-X

What happened to you? You seem to have this irrational hatred for all believers (and God for that matter). Were you brought up Christian? something else? If you have never been a Christian, how do you know that it isn't the right way?

All

I challenge any of you to try being a Christian for just a few months. It can't hurt anything, it will only help. If you really give yourself to God, He will help you see. And if He doesn't exist, then nothing will happen. So give it a shot.

-CD

[Gen-X]

CreepingDeath


Well, God is perfect... if he made you perfect, you would be a God


So God "purposely" created an imperfect creature? So then isn't HE to blame for everything that goes wrong considering he was the one that didn't make us perfect?

If we hate people its because HE gave that to us, if we KILL people its because HE allowed us.


God gave us free will so that we would love Him on our own, not because He forces us


Read your bible. "If you love me I will bless a thousand of your generations. If you hate me I will curse your sons, and your son's sons".

Does this sound like "free will" to you? I could corner you and say "Do what I say or I will kill you". Does that mean you have free will? Of course you can choose to die...

Don't confuse freedom to choose with being threatened with an eternity in hell as being "free will"


What happened to you?


I got tired of people believing themselves so far above the rest of their fellow men that I decided to speak my piece. You believe that you follow the one "TRUE" God, who created the entire universe and everything in it.

That my friend is called "EGOTISM" and I HATE it almost as much as I hate ignorance.


You seem to have this irrational hatred for all believers (and God for that matter).


"Irrational"?

Please explain the analytical process that you completed in order to assertain that what I have written is "irrational"?

Simply because it does not agree with what you say does not make it so. I have presented my argument with clarity, with examples... at no time have I been "irrational".

The actual word itself indicates a lack of "rationalization" and yet that has been something I have done an innordinate amount of .... rationalization, analysis, reasoning.


Were you brought up Christian? something else?


My parents believe in God but do not attend Church. I went to a Catholic Sunday School by choice and as a result of a very dear old lady whom is Catholic and who is like a grandmother to me. My parents never forced any religious belief in me.

I reached an opportunity where someone I was dating was a Christian and I decided it wouldn't hurt to try it out. I listened to what they said, I watched the people and I spent 2 years travelling many places and speaking with many people. I attended Bible Study with groups and with EVERYTHING in my life I analysed it to determine its validity.

What I found was that those at the "top" of these religions were using it for personal gain, that the ministers sermons (and I saw hundreds of them) were geared to what they PERSONALLY wanted told, and I saw the manipulation.

I asked questions during Study that people could not answer, and I was told to "just believe". I watched a Christian couple weep because their parents were going to hell because they simply didn't "accept" what their children did, even though these people were more Christian than most.

I saw what I consider to be such utter contempt for everyone else, xenophobia, seperatism, egotism and everything else they "claim" they are above like putrid worms infesting that which they considered the most sacred.

Now I am sure you will say "Ah, so you had a bad experience, that doesn't mean everyone else is like that". But the funny thing is that I still watch people, and still the stereotype holds... each person I meet who has a religious belief (specifically Christian) share exactly the same traits, I watch on the news how Catholic Priests rape little boys, I studied history on how people were burned at the stake and how innocent people were murdered in the name of "God".

To top it all off I found inconsistencies in the Bible, I read of its origins during the 11th century when the Old Testiment was "borrowed" from the jews in order to control the masses....

Just to round things out I see the reason why people choose to believe, I see how they "need" to believe just to get by in this world.

I consider it ignorance of the highest order, and ignorance at that level is what causes problems in this world. It is the reason why women don't have the freedom to choose what happens to their own bodies... because some religious "freak" decides the baby she is carrying has more rights to life than she does, how bigots stand on the street corner and "SCREAM" at people who pass by that they are all going to hell, I see egotism and blindness...

I am not a perfect person, I have many "flaws". My biggest flaw is that I cannot stand "injustice" or "dishonesty" and Christianity just ticks off that flaw more than anything else.


If you have never been a Christian, how do you know that it isn't the right way?


Have you been Bhudist? or Mueslim? How about Hindu?

No? Then how do you know Christianity is the right way????

You really put your foot in your mouth with that one.


I challenge any of you to try being a Christian for just a few months. It can't hurt anything, it will only help


You know that is EXACTLY what I thought when I did it.

I just love your "God-Almighty-Holier-Than-Thou-Avangelism".


If you really give yourself to God, He will help you see


I shall re-write this for people as it is meant :

"If you really give yourself to insanity, then it will help you see"

Because that is what you are asking. To choose is to believe... and once you believe you see whatever you WANT to see.

A man who sees pixies considers himself insane. If he "knows" he is seeing them then he can help himself. If however he "gives himself" to the belief they are real then he is LOST forever in believing them.


And if He doesn't exist, then nothing will happen. So give it a shot.


And now I am going to challenge you. Try being non-religious for a few months, do not think a SINGLE thought on religion or God and see how you go.

[CreepingDeath]

You have a problem with me because I openly declare myself as a Christian. You just wrote a long reply telling me how ignorant and egotistical I am. You don't even know me, yet you are so quick to judge me. This is the irrational hatred I am talking about. I am not saying that your argument is irrational.

God gives us more chances than you are willing to give Him credit for. We have our whole lives to find Him. God did not create us as evil beings, Adam and Eve were blameless until they disobeyed God (which they were free to do). After that, God still took care of them, but they were no longer blameless. God does not strike us down the moment we sin, so you shouldn't act as if He does.

I have had a period in my life where I wasn't actively religious. I feel a lot better about myself and my life now that I am. As far as other religions go, from my point of view, it will hurt me to devote myself to them. If I die while I am "exploring" I will go to hell.

About your religious stereotypes, yes, you do hear about priests raping little boys. However, personally, I think that the Catholic denomination is very contradictory to begin with anyway. The priest are treated as dieties. As far as the street corner preaching goes, has Jesus not said "Do not cast your pearls before swine."? You should not blame an individuals mistake on their religion.

Now have your way with me. Call me moronic, egotistical, ignorant, and anything else you wish. Hate me for my beliefs. I feel bad for you. I will be praying for you whether you like it or not.

-CD

[Gen-X]

CreepingDeath

*Sigh*


You have a problem with me because I openly declare myself as a Christian. You don't even know me, yet you are so quick to judge me


Is that how little you bother to analyse?

I did not make a "quick" judgement. I based my assessment on several factors. That you "announced" yourself Christian was to your credit because it indicates you are willing to place your background open in order to have your points taken in the correct context.

I analysed your post, noted your behavioral similarities to others who have made similar claims, noted your avangelical attempt, mused to myself over your name being "CreepingDEATH", deconstructed your attempt to justify to yourself how God can be perfect and yet create "imperfect" beings and then drew my conclusions based on the information that I have at hand.

Isn't that what you have done to me? you read my posts and came to a concusion based on "WHAT YOU KNOW".

The funny thing is that only Christians attempt to say "Judgement" is bad... because they have been trained to... and yet we "Judge" everyone all the time and not even realise it. Of course some say its a "guess" or an "educated assessment" but it all boils down to making a decision about some else.

"What happened to you?"

Is that not a JUDGEMENT that you decided something must have happened to me in order for me to repond as I do?


God gives us more chances than you are willing to give Him credit for. We have our whole lives to find Him


Lets try a simple question... Can actually answer it?

A Boy is born in India, spends his whole life not even knowing Christianity exists.

How many chances is this person given to "believe"????
What will happen to him when he dies????


Adam and Eve were blameless until they disobeyed God


God gave them contradicting "rules". He told them to go out and explore, to live life and then told them NOT to do something. He didn't explain what would happen if they did and they (being good and never having SEEN evil) didn't realise what they were doing...

And yet God punished them and banished them for the very FIRST offense they ever did. Is that a perfect God? Where was the forgiveness?????


God still took care of them


In which part did he take care of them? When they had to struggle to live? Or when their first born sons started killing each other???


God does not strike us down the moment we sin, so you shouldn't act as if He does


Mmmmm... disobey God, Get out of Eden.

Sounds like striking them down the moment they sinned to me


I feel a lot better about myself and my life now that I am


So religion is a comfort to you? Something that you "require" in order to feel good about yourself?

Interesting....


As far as other religions go, from my point of view, it will hurt me to devote myself to them. If I die while I am "exploring" I will go to hell.


You hypocrit!!!!

You asked me if I hadn't tried Christianity how I would know its right and yet when I ask you the SAME question you say that you Don't BELIEVE another religion could be right but you would explore anyway.

THAT is irrational.


However, personally, I think that the Catholic denomination is very contradictory to begin with anyway


So now you cast dispersions at other religions? That is some of the "egotism" that I am talking about. "I am right, Catholicism is wrong". Your a member of the "winning team" while everyone else is on the "losing side".

Now your Egotistical and Pious


The priest are treated as dieties


Isn't Jesus treated as a Deity? He is the "SON OF" God... not a God himself and yet you worship him and the Holy Spirit as if they were dieties as well.

God said not to worship "Idols" or "Symbols"... and yet isn't the "holy spirit" a symbol? Is not Jesus an "Idol"?

Make up your mind... you sound as contradictory as you claim the Catholics are.


has Jesus not said "Do not cast your pearls before swine."?


Now you say the common person on the street is a "swine". So you cast dispersions at EVERY human being that is not Christian. Again you are being egotistical and "Holier-Than-Thou"


You should not blame an individuals mistake on their religion


Why not? You do.

If a person does GOOD then you say "God did it", if a person does BAD you say "Man did it".

If you cannot blame the religion for the individuals mistakes then you cannot PRAISE religion for the individuals mistakes. To do one and not the other is MANIPULATION.


Call me moronic, egotistical, ignorant, and anything else you wish


I wont call you a moron because that is a dispersion. I will however call you ignorant because that is a word that correctly describes what I personally believe is your lack of seeing things infront of your nose. I will also call you egotistical because they are traits you have displayed.


Hate me for my beliefs


I don't hate anyone... I hate ideas and concepts, I hate ignorance and people thinking themselves "above" other people. That you have those traits means I hate those traits not you.

I actually pity you for your belief because it has no foundation and at the end of your life you will be sad. If I am wrong then at the end of my life I will realise my mistake and be HAPPY.

So either way I will either be right or happy... while either way you will be right or dead.


I will be praying for you whether you like it or


Don't push your religion onto me. How DARE you be so inconsiderate, selfish and immoral!!!!

I wouldn't tell you that I am going to sacrifice a chicken for you whether you like it or not so don't start casting unwanted dispersions at me like that.

[Iain17]

*sigh*

Will i ever get an answer that deals with my question, or is it because you can't answer the question. I will state it again, in light of people misreading it or deliberately misunderstanding it.

I will start of with the premises to my argument.


Premise 1 : God is completely perfect
Premise 2 : Everything a perfect being does, by definition must be perfect


Now i will assume you can grasp these two fundamental concepts. They are not difficult to understand. Just to make sure, i will expand on the 2nd one a little.

Premise 2
This will make perfect sense if you think about it. If a perfect being did something that wasn't perfect, then that perfect being could not have been perfect, because they did something wrong.


Ok. Now i have explained it as clearly as i can, maybe someone can reply to the following postulation, without dodging the point, or have you no answers?


Postulation
Now we have defined God as being perfect, Everything he does must be perfect. If something he did was not perfect, then by definition God would not be perfect. So, as you insist on God being perfect, and that is seen as an unshakable truth in the religious world, I must be perfect. Because if he got me wrong, then he wasn't perfect in the first place.



In anticipation of an intelligent response.

[dvst8]

iain
I read somewhere (maybe an earlier post in this thread) that someone (i think the guy who claimed to be a prophet) said Man is a reflection of God. (Hence the claim that Man is created in His image). Agreeing with your postulation, this would seem to indicate that WE must all be perfect. How can the reflection of perfection be imperfect? I too, await an answer to this.

Gen-X
Have you not already had this identical argument with countless people--me included--in this thread (and others) before? You should just start referring people to past posts...might save you some typing :)

Creep
At what point do you realize you may be wrong? Do you acknowledge that you being wrong IS a possibility? How many inconsistencies in your argumentation must be pointed out before you accept that you may be in error?
Not too long ago, I shared your opinion. But after having some very serious discussions with people in these forums, and doing some very earnest thinking, concluded that I had been in error. I am a much happier person today because of it.

[HarryW]

I must really try this religious gig sometimes... the contempt and egotism it seems to breed into people is amazing


Sounds like you'd fit right in ;)

[kedaman]

Why do you have such a problem with the universe always existing?

Iain, I had an idea i posted here a while ago about having an universe that have always existed, but also been created by God. Did you remember that one? Simply based on that God is not bound to any time and so when he created it, he must have created the whole history which could be as unlimited as in one direction as in two.


You : God has always been there.
Me : Why, where did he come from?
You : He was always there.
Me : So why can you accept god as having always existed, but not anything else. What is the difference?
You : "Insert Answer Here ..."

Therefore i think it's pointless in discussing God bound to any time at all.

Gen-X, i'm going to ask you a qwestion;

Is Free Will Perfect?
What does creation of Free Will mean?

By clearing out this I could see your definition of perfect.

We are of course assuming that God is perfect.


That my friend is called "EGOTISM" and I HATE it almost as much as I hate ignorance.

You hate ignorance? If you hate, you must be ignorant, therefore you hate what you do, you hate yourself, you hate humanity, and you are purely ignorant. Just how would it be if you realized this?

[Iain17]

Kedaman

Forget about time, Time has only existed since the formation of our 4d universe. This means that the universe has existed for all time.

So what I am asking is why do people accept God as always having existed, but can’t accept the universe as always having existed.

Maybe universe is the wring word, as people see the universe as it is today. So ignore the fact that the universe is currently in a 4d shape, and just think generally about the question.


Also, I am sick of hearing things like this.


God, on the other hand is spirit. He is not physical and He is not tangible. He has existence in and of Himself. We cannot fully comprehend God because He is infinite and we are finite, but we can apprehend that He exists.


Ignore the fact that God is supposedly a spirit. Just explain to me why people can accept one thing as always having existed, but not another.

If "something exists now"
Then "something must always have existed"

(Where the "If 'something'" isn't necessarily the same as the "Then 'something'").

Is that agreed here?

[HarryW]

Who thinks time is infinite in both directions, one direction, or neither direction? Just out of interest.

Intuition would say that it's infinite in both directions, but it's not necessarily that simple.

[kedaman]

Iain, don't count Time as the fourth Dimension because it would limit you from thinking objectively

<----------<--------<-<-<-<-<>->->->->------->------------>--------------->
Past Now Future


Just if we live in a predetermined world, which is nessesary if we assume God exists, Time line would look like this, and independently for each space vector in universe, so that would mean Time cannot count as a dimension, without getting subjective.

Anyway If universe expands from a specific point in time it would look like this
[/code]
>>->-->--->----->------->-------------->--------------------> |
Beginning End
[/code]
Where end is a specific point where the last > is entered. Although this would never happen since universe would expand forever, and there would always be particles and radiation, moving. Unless time would collapse in lack of movement which wouldn't happen according to todays physics.

If Time was created, you could probably wonder why; The purpose of time is movement and so there isn't a special need to make it unlimited. On the other hand it's possible that time would have to be unlimited to have a proper meaning.

I'm suggesting it does not matter if wheather you limit it or not, it wouldn't change anything at all.

Also - everything have always existed, because always refers to the amount of time universe comprehends, meaning also Universe has always existed. Don't get me wrong, i'm sure "always" is a useless term beyond time.

If youre not comfortable with someone talking about God, you probably just don't understand, and therefore ignore, that's called ignorance. Be patient and you could try to learn something instead.

[Gen-X]

HarryW

Sounds like you'd fit right in


Come and join me :)

Kedaman

Iain, I had an idea i posted here a while ago about having an universe that have always existed, but also been created by God. Did you remember that one?


If it "always" existed then it could not have been "created" as the two words are mutually exclusive.

Thought that one was obvious.


Is Free Will Perfect?
What does creation of Free Will mean?


What is your definition of "Free Will"? The "Free Will" as discussed by Biblical people? Or the english definition of the word "Will" as related to the other word "Free"?

I don't think there is a Biblical Free Will so how can I tell you if something I don't see as existing is perfect?

And I completely don't understand what you mean by "creation of Free Will".


If you hate, you must be ignorant, therefore you hate what you do, you hate yourself, you hate humanity, and you are purely ignorant. Just how would it be if you realized this?


"If I hate, I must be ignorant"?
Explain that one?

If I hate MURDER does that mean I am ignorant of murder? That I don't understand it properly... that if I can to truely understand MURDER I would not hate it?

While hate CAN stem from ignorance... not ALL hate does.


Iain, don't count Time as the fourth Dimension because it would limit you from thinking objectively


hhhehe... I love this one.

"Dont think of it as an orange... it will limit you from thinking objectively"... "But it IS an orange".

Hehehehe...

Time IS a dimension... therefor it means it has no limits (even Sam would agree with me on this). To suddenly say that time has a "beginning" is subjective... not objective as you think.


If youre not comfortable with someone talking about God, you probably just don't understand, and therefore ignore, that's called ignorance. Be patient and you could try to learn something instead.


HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! :D

You know I missed your crazy ideas Ked.

98234932849012723498347572934723 24897273498475 21983 47475

Did you understand that? No? Well you must be ignorant. Be patient and you could try to learn something instead.

Where DO you get these warped ideas??????

VirtuallyVB

Not sure what you are trying to say. I have read what you wrote several way and can't really make out what you are trying to mean.

If something exists now
Then that SAME thing though not having always existed, is MADE UP of things that have always existed. (ie atoms)

[kedaman]

The problem with you, Gen-X, Is that you think you know everything

While actually you don't know anything at all.


Not being personal at all, just putting Gen-X representing humanity pretty well here too.


If it "always" existed then it could not have been "created" as the two words are mutually exclusive.

Thought that one was obvious.

I know that, but we aren't we talking about creation here? Creation means something, and it's not in any ways prooved been impossible. So saying if creation is possible, you can create infinite Time, causing everything to exist, in other ways always. Not too obvius right`?

YOu could stop using the word create but using it implicates that you are openminded to a wider scope

I don't think there is a Biblical Free Will so how can I tell you if something I don't see as existing is perfect?

That's not the issue here, why do we discuss God at all if we don't assume he exist first. If youre having to go for ignorance, you would just exclude yourself from discussion and show your hate instead.
That is wrong.

And I completely don't understand what you mean by "creation of Free Will"

notice that with creation I use the same term as before, I think you should know what creation is, by now.


hate CAN stem from ignorance... not ALL hate does.

And why are you so sure about that? Think about everything, let's take murder as a sample. You know murder means something really disgusting, but you can't explain it in any ways at all, it's just a concept created from your observations, it's only in your mind; you are bound to be ignorant.

Hate is just a very unpleasant way to show ignorance.



Iain, don't count Time as the fourth Dimension because it would limit you from thinking objectively


hhhehe... I love this one.

"Dont think of it as an orange... it will limit you from thinking objectively"... "But it IS an orange".

yeah, i know you love to think you know what you see.


Time IS a dimension... therefor it means it has no limits (even Sam would agree with me on this). To suddenly say that time has a "beginning" is subjective... not objective as you think.

Time IS a dimension, yet it doesn't build up a four-dimensional coordinate system with space. Because Time is a dimension to a vector, not a coordinate. I'm not sure whether Sam is going to agree with me, but Time is relative, and that makes it subjective.


HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

You know I missed your crazy ideas Ked.

98234932849012723498347572934723 24897273498475 21983 47475

Did you understand that? No? Well you must be ignorant. Be patient and you could try to learn something instead.

Where DO you get these warped ideas??????

Yes, i perfectly did understand that, but arent you just confirming your ignorance again Gen-x?
Just talking reason to any human makes him think you're warped, that's because he's warped.
Don't deny it again.



HarryW

Sounds like you'd fit right in

Or you could join me, :)
Religion and Science are both the same language, the language of fate.
Believe it or not, but I want to Believe :D
VirtuallyVB

If "something exists now"
Then "something must always have existed"

(Where the "If 'something'" isn't necessarily the same as the "Then 'something'").

Is that agreed here?

I think we should agree on that everything has always existed

[Gen-X]

Kedaman

The problem with you, Gen-X, Is that you think you know everything


Are you that ignorant?

What may appear to you as me knowing everything is in fact me being simply "sure" of what I do know. That doesn't mean I am right... it means I trust what knowledge I have based on what is available to me.

If I discover in the future I got something wrong then I correct it and again I am "sure" with what I know.

Don't confuse confidence with some self-deluded assumption that I know everything because I don't.


I know that, but we aren't we talking about creation here?


I "assume" you mean "but aren't we talking about creation here?" (the sentance doesn't make sense as it is).

As for the rest of that passage it made next to no sense.

"Creation" is the process of bringing something from nothing. It is a "relative" term.

One could say you "create" a baby. That is because where once there was no baby there now is. Hence something was "created".

In actuality you could take the perspective in that the baby was formed from an influx of energy from the mother, and that this energy came from the food that was eaten to the point where the baby was NOT created but instead was formed from "pre-existing" components via conversion.

The same applies to the universe. While some could take the perspective that the occurance of the "Big Bang" was the "creation" of the universe, this would be because they limit their perspective.

My personal definition of the word "creation" in relation to the universe is that it was the addition of energy where once there was not... and that is not possible in my estimation because I personally believe the universe has always existed and what "caused" the big bang was the previous one.

To use YOUR terminology, you see the creator as whatever "caused" the big bang, which was the preivous one, and the one before that, and before that... and so on. So for every "creator" that you say there was a "creator" of that "creator".

Why can your mind not cope with this? Why does it have to manufacture some "external" source?


That's not the issue here


That IS the issue here. You are asking me to make comment on a concept without having defined what that concept is.

If I give you an answer based on MY definition and you use that answer based on YOUR definition then we only get confused. Surely the first thing we should do is actually "DEFINE" what it is you are asking?


why do we discuss God at all if we don't assume he exist first


For the same reason why psychologists discuss "invisible friends" with their patients. That we discuss something does not make it true.

Again you fail to see the simplest of understandings.


youre having to go for ignorance, you would just exclude yourself from discussion and show your hate instead


You mean as those people would that make their comments and then leave, saying they will not enter into a discussion?


I think you should know what creation is, by now


I do... but it isn't the same definition that you have. While mine takes the broadest term there is, your is limited to your own perspective.

To date nothing has ever existed in our universe that was not derrived from another part of it, a play of energy being converted and transfered from source to source.

That you would take this evidence and "suggest" that it MUST come from somewhere shows a lack of understanding of the concept of infinity. That fact you must draw a CREATOR, CREATION, BEGINNING or END is the biggest proof of this lack of understanding.


And why are you so sure about that?


Because I read what you wrote next and nearly laughed myself off the chair. :)


Think about everything, let's take murder as a sample. You know murder means something really disgusting, but you can't explain it in any ways at all, it's just a concept created from your observations, it's only in your mind; you are bound to be ignorant


Actually you are more wrong than you have ever been before and once again you have me doubting your rationality.

Murder is NOT disgusting for some unknown reason, its disgusting because I would not like it to happen to me. I would not appreciate someone forcefully removing my life and so I "HATE" it not because I am ignorant of it but because I am completely and totally INFORMED as to what it is, what its effects are and what the end result is.

Do unto others remember...

I have witnessed firsthand people making poor judgements due to ignorance and I have personally felt the results of those. So I HATE ignorance... not becaue I am ignorant (though we all are to some things) but because I dislike the effects of it that I have EXPERIENCED.

I have my own rights, the right to speak, the right to live, the right to not being stopped in doing what I want unless it violates someone ELSES rights to the same thing.

Therefor I HATE everything that would violate my rights and because I am NOT selfish, I HATE everything that would violate someone elses rights for the same reason.

So explain to me using your warped view of the world how it is I am "ignorant" about murder then?


Hate is just a very unpleasant way to show ignorance


Pleasant?

So you are saying Hate is pleasant and ignorance is not? I would have thought it the other way around....

But then again I am thinking as a rational person to someone who thinks they have to "experience" murder in order to truely be able to hate it. :)


yeah, i know you love to think you know what you see


And I know you love to see pink polka dotted elephants that fly around your room at night. :D

Guess which one gets a free stay in a mental assylum???

Opening your mind is a good thing, it lets the air in to keep it fresh... but unfortunately I think you have opened your mind TOO far and your brains have fallen out :D


yet it doesn't build up a four-dimensional coordinate system with space


It doesn't? How does it not?

I think you are thinking too much like a three-dimensional being to see it. Again Sam would be shaking his head at your statement.


Because Time is a dimension to a vector, not a coordinate


Just as "Length" is a dimension to a vector... whats the difference?


I'm not sure whether Sam is going to agree with me, but Time is relative, and that makes it subjective.


3D space is "realative". Each of us places ourselves as the apex and determine the results from there. That means everything is subjective.

Where DID you get your schooling from? A cornflakes packet???


Yes, i perfectly did understand that


Then what did it say?


Just talking reason to any human makes him think you're warped, that's because he's warped.
Don't deny it again.


Ah, but here is the trick. You then ask someone else, and someone else, and another, and another....

If at the end of your search you have a 50-50 split you say "the jury is out". If you get a 90-10 split in your favour you say "HE IS WARPED", if you get a 10-90 split in THEIR favour you say "Gee... Maybe *I* am WARPED".

I have more people that say I talk sense than those who don't... and those who say I don't seem to have other people that say THEY don't talk sense. So the natural conclusion is that if we had to pick a warped person it would have to be you ;)


Religion and Science are both the same language, the language of fate.


Are you a Scientologist?

"Fate" is a pre-determined path that we MUST follow. If we don't then it wasn't our "fate". Therefor your definition of "Free Will" doesn't exist because if it did it couldn't exist alongside "Fate".

Make your mind up... are we "Fated" or do we have "Free Will"?

So we found a point of agreement. Something existed, now something else exists (in a different form at best).

The constant here is change.

For instance, the internet didn't always exist, but something existed before it. Something always existed. You know that I will say it is God and I believe you will say it is the universe.

You seemed to be saying that hate isn't always bad. Develop that and you'll begin to understand a jealous God.

I thought we dealt with perfection already and the fact that it is limited.

On will:
I believe we have a will, but not a free will. Definitions are in order here.
You most likely have to eat tomorrow, but you can probably choose what to eat. The will part is the choice of what to eat. The free will part is that you must eat (no free will). You may choose to not eat and therefore die, but the penalty for not eating is decided.

[Edited by VirtuallyVB on 07-23-2000 at 09:53 PM]

[Gen-X]

VirtuallyVB

So we found a point of agreement


Yes we have.


The constant here is change.


I would define it more precisely in saying that the constant here is "change within a closed system". This is based on our understanding that energy is never lost within a closed system and that it only takes other forms.


For instance, the internet didn't always exist, but something existed before it. Something always existed. You know that I will say it is God and I believe you will say it is the universe.


Using your own analogy. Even though the internet didn't exist, the "something" that existed before it was in the same place, inside the same system.

On the other hand, God (as you have said) exists outside our closed system and still exists even though we now have our universe. How then do you explain this?


You seemed to be saying that hate isn't always bad


Then that is a failure on my part to be specific enough.

In my opinion there is a difference between "hate" and perhaps "loath" and "dislike" and "being wary of", though I consider them all degrees of roughly the same concept.

When I said I "hate ignorance", it may have implied to you that it was the worst form of hate whereas I was just being general in using the word....

I could say "I hate getting up in the morning" and I am sure you would not automatically assume that means I have some deep seeded loathing that boils my blood to the point of seeing red that I just have to kill "getting up in the morning". Instead it means that it is something I do not like to see, or do etc, etc...

This is what I mean what I use the word in such a general context. I thought that is what everyone else was using as well... I certainly wasn't indicating the "Biblical hate" which I believe is an irrational and erroneous emotion that causes people to act unjustly or incorrectly.


Develop that and you'll begin to understand a jealous God


I already DO understand a jealous God... but that isn't what some people believe is true. As part of my philosophy in the consideration of the existance of God he would not only be jealous but also imperfect and often vengeful.

My proof for this is in his own words of loving someone who loves him for a thousand generations but punishing the son's of someone who hates him... That to me is spiteful vengance and proof that if God did exist he is not only imperfect but also suffers human foibles.


I thought we dealt with perfection already and the fact that it is limited.


Not sure what this was in relation to. "We" meaning yourself and I have dealt with this and I think we came to the conclusion of that which is "perfect" is not "everything" be the nature of the fact that perfection MUST exclude that which is NOT perfect making it a subset.

So in other words... That which is perfect is INCOMPLETE, unrounded, one-sided, unbalanced.

Sorry if I am going over it again :)


I believe we have a will, but not a free will. Definitions are in order here.


Again in my philosophy for the existance of a God I agree that we would not have free will. So again it goes against those who say we do.

We seem to be agreeing a lot here


The free will part is that you must eat (no free will).


But I still have a choice. I can choose to starve myself to death and thus die.

So I ask then... If God tells us "If you don't obey me you will go to hell" isn't that the same as me not eating and dying?

To choose to do something that results in your ultimate death (or eternity in hell) is the same thing.

So we are FORCED to make the right choice for purposes of preservation. There is nothing "Free" about that at all... in most circles that is called "Terrorism".

I am a little confused though... I think you mixed up the 2 terms and that you meant the "Free will" part is in choosing what to eat but the "No Free Will" part is in having to eat.

If that is the case then you would agree with me in saying that while we have the "choice" in what we do in our lives we have NO choice in following God.

There is a difference however....

If we choose to NOT eat we die because that is the law of the universe...

If we choose to NOT follow god then we go to hell not because its a "law"... but because a sentient, conscious and "reasoning" being has "decided" we are going to hell.

They are 2 vastly different outcomes... like me putting a gun to your head and saying the the law of the universe relating to velocity of a projectile that kills you for not obeying something I told you to do rather than the fact I Pulled the trigger myself.

Surely you must see this?!?!?!

[HarryW]

The fact that more people don't post massive long messages doesn't necessarily mean they agree with you. I more or less stopped responding to the religious threads on this forum because I have much better things to do than spend years typing.

Also, I don't appreciate being patronised several times per post.

I have no problem with the idea of a jealous God. I mean there's phrases like 'The wrath of God' and 'Struck down'. Just watch Pulp Fiction, that explains it pretty well. I am also not convinced that God would be perfect.

I also don't think that the universe needs a beginning to be created. If God exists, I don't think of Him as some kind of big white-haired, bearded guy in a robe who physically exists. In my mind it's not necessary for Him to have any form of physical presense anywhere, meaning He can reside outside our universe and/or not be made of energy or matter.

kedaman didn't say that hate was pleasant, he said the exact opposite to that, he said it was unpleasant. You're a bit over-zealous when it comes to getting one over on him I think.

Given the 'hate of murder' topic, though... Why do you fear death? I'm not saying I don't, I want my life intact, but what is the actual reason for it? Would it matter if you did actually cease to exist? Apart from the effect on other people I mean.

I know it's obvious that people have a huge problem with the act of murder, but as kedaman said, do you actually know why? The will to live is just an instinct if you don't hold religious beliefs after all.

"God he would not only be jealous but also imperfect and often vengeful"

He is jealous and says, "Vengence is mine says the Lord". But as regards perfect, I think you restated it below the above statement when you said, "That which is perfect is INCOMPLETE, unrounded, one-sided, unbalanced.", except you have to watch your context. I prefer to say limited.

When I wrote it, I thought it could be misinterpreted because I wrote the converse, "I am a little confused though... I think you mixed up the 2 terms and that you meant the "Free will" part is in choosing what to eat but the "No Free Will" part is in having to eat."; but I meant "free will" is the set of things that are fated or must happen, while "will" is a choice along that predetermined path. So I maintain that "free will" is the issue that we must eat, the choice of what to eat is "will".

I'll have to relook at the part below the above statements and where you say "Surely you must see this?!?!?!", because I didn't readily see this. Maybe after lunch on this Monday. I hate Mondays ;)

[kedaman]

Aah, Gen-X seems like you forgot everything we talked about in AI and Creation thread....

Nothing is ever created, just changing

That's what you meant right? That is as earlier mentioned, agreed, at least i am agreeing.

But Creation opens a wider scope, just because it has a meaning; "God created universe" therefore making a large amount of terms meaningless or ambigous. But you have to take this, as a part of the Assuming we do when we discuss God. You have to accept.


Why can your mind not cope with this? Why does it have to manufacture some "external" source?

This is like saying "Why can't you understand that there is no explanation", which is as you should know, totally unscientific. If Eintein explained something better than Newton and make up new rules, we will use them because you will get more correct results with them.

I have said it and say it again, you don't have any explanations at all, and that makes you in any way comfortable?


That IS the issue here. You are asking me to make comment on a concept without having defined what that concept is.

If I give you an answer based on MY definition and you use that answer based on YOUR definition then we only get confused. Surely the first thing we should do is actually "DEFINE" what it is you are asking?

You missunderstood me: I meant that the issue is not that you don't think there is a Biblical Free Will, especially when we all know that.
The Issue is whether Free Will is perfect or not, if we assume it.

Agreed on that we should define everything, especially as you like to missunderstand as soon as it is possible.
But now i'm asking you again you again, to define Free Will, and if you'd like to call it Biblical Free Will, it's ok as if you don't define it, i don't know why you are arguing something you don't know a **** about.


For the same reason why psychologists discuss "invisible friends" with their patients. That we discuss something does not make it true.

Again you fail to see the simplest of understandings.

Then Leave, and don't come back before you accept what is assumed.

You don't discuss something that is true, you discuss wheather it's true or not. And we are not assuming your imagination as true.


You mean as those people would that make their comments and then leave, saying they will not enter into a discussion?

No, because they are not showing their hate, like you do.

I do... but it isn't the same definition that you have. While mine takes the broadest term there is, your is limited to your own perspective.

First, If you examine what we have talked about in over 100 posts, you'd probably notice that creation is not a limitation, it's a extension. Second, there is no meaning with creation inside our universe. Your is the one limited, and limited to your imagination.

That you would take this evidence and "suggest" that it MUST come from somewhere shows a lack of understanding of the concept of infinity. That fact you must draw a CREATOR, CREATION, BEGINNING or END is the biggest proof of this lack of understanding.

you mean that you have a lack of explanations, that's what it is all about. BTW, CREATION, BEGINNING or END, Is not my Drawings, and Creator is probably shared between the majority of humanity.

I understand what Infinity is but is not a explanation, and every scientist should know that.

Because I read what you wrote next and nearly laughed myself off the chair.

So you became sure on something if you start laughing, that's interesting, LOL :)

I would not like it to happen to me

HAHA, Trapped! How do you know Murder, actually means something? No, you don't and if you try to explain, take your time because I want to have definitions of everything you explain, and your personal proof that it exists. You remember that carrot?

You are as Ignorant as everyone else to almost everything, you believe what you observe you believe in science, you give a **** about if it's correct or not, just because it seems correct, and that's humanity in a nutshell. I'm just one of i don't know how many who don't need to be bound to any ignorance at all, by not having any beliefs at all. Although i'm as normal as anyone else and as you say "rational" and ignorant, just because i want to act, interact.


And I know you love to see pink polka dotted elephants that fly around your room at night.

No, you believe you know something, and i love to see orange is at looks like, not with pink dots or anything.


I think you are thinking too much like a three-dimensional being to see it

Just what did you just say? How can you point me out for being thinking three-dimensional, as everyone else does it? Aren't you the one irrational here? Ok, to the point, i know exactly how a four dimensional coordinate system works, but that doesn't mean there is any in reality.

Just as "Length" is a dimension to a vector... whats the difference?

*Laughing* (I'm so sure about what i say because i just falled of my chair, LOL)
Sam surely could explain you the difference between a vector and a coordinate.

3D space is "realative"

I'm sure Sam wouldn't agree with you.

Then what did it say?

98234932849012723498347572934723 24897273498475 21983 47475
The four numbers you were typing on the keybord laughing and thinking about how i would react.

Ah, but here is the trick. You then ask someone else, and someone else, and another, and another....

If at the end of your search you have a 50-50 split you say "the jury is out". If you get a 90-10 split in your favour you say "HE IS WARPED", if you get a 10-90 split in THEIR favour you say "Gee... Maybe *I* am WARPED".

Ah, but here's the bug. You realize 30 years later, a scientific discover that says everyone where wrong. You cannot actually think, what the most people thinks, must be the right thing to think. Are you religious=? ;)

"Fate" is a pre-determined path that we MUST follow

That's not what i meant, you believe somthing, you have to take something for granted, it takes fate, as you already know english is my second language and you should respect that, instead of trying to missunderstand me whenever it's possible.

[Gen-X]

Harry
I will try and keep it short for you ;)

Explain how a universe that has no beginning is "created"?


Given the 'hate of murder' topic, though... Why do you fear death?


I believe you have misunderstood the problem. There is no fear of death, there is the reluctance to have someone else choose the TIME of that death. Here is the fundamental difference.

I have a right to life, and to choose that life. That someone else takes that choice away from me is what is repugnant with murder... not the fear of death itself, not the ceasing to exist part, nor even the impact on others... but the fact that I have had taken from me the "right" to decide my own fate.... Something every man should have.

I live by 2 rules in my life :

1. Do not intentionally FORCE someone to do something they don't want

2. Do not intentionally HURT someone unless it is something they want

Everything else in life I think in some way fits into those 2 rules and I think it is clearly obvious that murder, theft and everything else fits in there nicely.


do you actually know why?


Yes and I have explained it here for the second time.

At what point are you failing to understand my explaination of EXACTLY what the problem with murder is?

VirtuallyVB
I would continue to say unbalanced and incomplete.

Everything in moderation... The earth was formed from things that were positive and things that were destructive. ANY entity, be it worldly or not that is composed completely of only "positive" things would be completely unbalanced and one-sided. You require the temperament of BOTH sides to be able to truely see things.

It is one of the basic principles of Eastern Philosophy... Yin and Yang. What is good if it does not have evil? What is shadow without light?

You do confuse me though. You use "Free will" to talk about the type that is not free to choose... and "will" to talk about the type that is. How can one NOT misinterpret whe you use the word "Free" in a context that goes against its meaning?

Kedaman
English is your second language and while I respect that fact that doesn't give you an excuse to say what you like and not have the "concepts" challenged.

All you ever seem to say in your posts is the exact opposite to mine... you state something as if it stands up on its own merrits and say it like a child "I'm not you are!, no I'm not you are!"

I have neither the time nor the inclination to even bother replying... I am taking the advice of some other people on here in not getting dragged into a lengthly discussion with someone who it has been proven to my own satisfaction is diametrically opposed in his views and whom I personally believe can not see reason.

You have the same view of me and so you should be thinking the same thing... but funny enough, your thoughs seem so alien to me, confused and jumbled I guess you will think something different.

Either way, I appreciate your attempts to describe what your opinions are but lets not waste everyone elses time by simply clashing on things we know are not going to change

I say we don't have a free will, but we do have a will. Since the negative is on the free will, those statements will tend to look like we are not free (which IS what I am saying).

[Gen-X]

VirtuallyVB

Ah. I think I kind of, perhaps understand what you are saying.... though you are saying it under the context of God actually existing so perhaps that is where my confusion came in (Its hard trying to put on your "God does exist" hat in order to look at things from other peoples point of view sometimes).


The way I see it is this... Nothing is random in our universe... everything is as a result of a billion, billion, billion influencial factors between an almost infinate amount of matter.

As has been showed with Chaos Theory (Now Complexity Theory) what we perceive as Randomness stems from our inability to calculate the sum of all the factors in play.

Notice however that not only are we unable to calculate them but we are also unable to "change" those factors (accept the major ones like getting out of the way when a car is coming). Therefor this makes it as close to "free will" as we are ever likely to have.

If the influencial factors are minimal, such as walking without a barrier and only having air resistance, downward gravity and a few other factors... we are free to move as we please.

If however the infuencial factors are major, such as a wall is in front of us or our path falls away to a chasm, then we are unable to take a particular action as a result.


So as far as I see things, even though at a sub-atomic level we really don't have any choice at all, it is the culmination of a nearly limitless different interactions that provide us with what can be macroscopically described as the freedom to choose our own path.

Funny enough that kind of contradicts what I said months ago about there being some level of randomness at the core when you get down far enough but I have learned since then something about the nature of complexity theory.

[kedaman]

Gen-X, maybe i should clarify what i'm saying so that you don't taking everything for "alien, confused and jumbled"

Just pointing out that as usually we don't get along, but several times, we can talk reasonable, let's just make up a rule:
We don't offend each other or start using sarcasm anytime you find something confusing, or irrational. Instead, i could explain if you just asked, OK?


Funny enough that kind of contradicts what I said months ago about there being some level of randomness at the core when you get down far enough but I have learned since then something about the nature of complexity theory.

Oh, nice we can agree on something at least. I just read and wondered when you changed your mind.

Will vs Free Will
Hmm, I don't think there is too much difference, maybe in scope;
Free Will (as i think) Is a certain switch between 0 and 1, you make a digital choise from one thing to another. Some times you have to make complex decisions which you have a system of several switches, several yes/no anwers that you answers to and find your path of acting. An important dimension here is, Bad vs Good, which can be binary on an simple decision or degreed, if you have several decisions.

How does this system work?
Your mind, your brain is asking you qwestions, like "do I really need to go to work today? I'm so tired." You anwer Yes/No, meaning (and here's your conscience taking actions) you could choose to go to work or stay at home and continue to sleep. If you get a bad feeling later that you should have got to work, it's probably that you choosed the bad alternative, and the more Bad vs Good swiches you turned Bad, the more you regret it.

This is some kind of method God Uses, something integrated with the concept Free Will that, you will be punished for choosing the wrong alternative, by yourself.

Now I don't want to pull the bible into this, but i've heard that 2/3 (which may also be considered as the majority) of us, are going to choose heaven before hell, Good before Evil, God before Devil. (maybe 2/3 is such a magical constant just because of some digital switches)

This may sound like a good reason to have God's creation around, instead of sorrow or being anxious about the results. Gen-X mentioned the dark side a lot, but something says me that it's just 1/3 of the whole cake.

So while we assume universe is NOT Random, we can also assume God has total control of what he does, he is in other words both omniscent and omnipotent. That would be logical if he had to do the decision, to let universe begin (or start existing, just don't refer to time with "begin")

The point is that Our Existance, implicating God choosed to give his idea a meaning, is a proof that Humanity was a good idea. So don't be disappointed with Life.

[b]Infinite Time in both Direction[b]
Surely you think this explains very well how universe works, but actually infinity just makes a jump over the problem. A scientists job is to Find out, Explore, Explain, not to put infity into each unsolved problem (Actually they hate it when they get infinity in their calculations)

But for creating Infinite Time, why wouldn't it be possible to create a such thing? For God it must me as easy because for him everything is possible. Actually wouldn't it be harder to put the breakpoints where it starts and stops:
[_ _ _ _ _ TIME _ _ _ _ _]
_ _ _ _ _ _ TIME _ _ _ _ _
Dunno, it's not a programming issue so God would do as he wanted to do, nothing stops him, at least i don't think that matters at all.

For God, only thing that comes first is Humanity, with Free Will, so he put that first on the list and made universe to fit the rules he made with Free Will. I mean that Univese is a product of us, that Univese is meant for us, therefore Time could be just put into [ ] or not depending on us.

When you throw a dice, you will only get what it should be, it's modelled to fit you, if you win a money game, (which changes your life), then it's the dice that was modelled to get a 6 instead of a 1.

So my point was that Time's just totally irrelevant in this issue (God's Existance)


Ah, Why can't i get sleep? it's 8AM

[HarryW]

The only thing I am failing to understand is why you are totally stuck thinking in the same way about this all the time. Why is murder a bad thing? Again, I think it is a bad thing, but saying "because I don't like it" is just not an answer. Does the universe give you rights? No, civilisation has granted you rights. Leave that behind and consider the true meaning of murder. Where is the harm in it? Well, people suffer mentally (physical pain included), but that is in the mind. Nobody has innate rights, that's something we have tried to establish to ensure people have a good standard of living.

it's just a concept created from your observations, it's only in your mind;
What kedaman said was perfectly valid, what makes murder disgusting to you is in your mind.

Just because someone says something that you can't immediately understand, it doesn't mean it's a ridiculous statement or that you should try and make them out to be a fool. You're only making yourself look bad by thoughtlessly slating everything kedaman says.


I can't explain how a universe with no beginning is created. I don't have a big problem with the concept though, because if God exists then I don't think time would limit Him. He would be omnipresent, anywhere and everywhere in all dimensions (ie. including time). If you were to hypothesise for a moment that God exists, would you consider Him unable to create an infinitely long, straight piece of string? I personally wouldn't, and at the same time I would not be able to explain how He would do it.

Also, what's with all the capitals? There's no need to shout, we can all read perfectly well. It just aggravates people, but then maybe that's what you want.

I appreciate the 'keeping it short' bit though, good on ya ;).

[Gen-X]

Harry

You keep asking "but why?" and I keep giving you answers.

Q: "Why is murder a bad thing?"

A: Because it takes away my choice to live

Where did I ever say "because I don't like it"?

My life is my choice, my actions are my choice.. as long as I do not violate that choice in other people then I am free to do what I want.

Murder is the violation of that choice.

Which part of this are you failing to understand? At what point are you drawing the conclusion that simply because I repeat my answer which holds perfectly I am "stuck" on something?

You breath air don't you? Why? Because you "like to"? No... Because its something built into you... an involuntary action performed by your body as a result of your genetics getting you to survive.

"Murder" is the antithesis of survival and therefor any organism with sentience will consider the termination of its existance as a bad thing.


Nobody has innate rights


Murder is a human term... applied to the killing of one "HUMAN" by another "HUMAN". Very few people will say the killing of a pig for eating is "murder" (unless they are activists). That is the difference.

A bear in the woods that kills a wolf to protect its young isn't considered a "murderer".

Therefor as the term is completely human and it is only used in the context of our own civilization (from where the word came from) then yes we DO have innate rights based on the exact same reasons we used to develop the word in the first place.


What kedaman said was perfectly valid, what makes murder disgusting to you is in your mind.


Actually it is more about perspective than mind. If I was the one killing another human being I wouldn't find it disgusting because I am still alive... if the shoe was on the other foot I would feel differently.

What makes murder "disgusting" is the fact it goes against the genetic desire to survive, pure and simple.


Just because someone says something that you can't immediately understand, it doesn't mean it's a ridiculous statement


Exactly. But failure on the part of someone who says something to see a clear deliniation of fact, who overlooks an answer when it is given, avoids ever mentioning the answer and then proceeds to maintain their own answer without evidence IS considered to make a ridiculous statement.

If I make a statement and someone disagrees, they provide the proof of their disagreement. I then use their proof and show what holes it has. That shows that I have HEARD their answer and replied to it.

Explain to me how the violation of the survival instinct to maintain life is my own "mind" deciding it is disgusting? All forms of life will exhibit this trait and they don't have "minds".


I can't explain how a universe with no beginning is created


Then you cannot say someone elses explaination is wrong. Thats like saying "Your wrong, I don't know why but you are wrong". That is stupid.


If you were to hypothesise for a moment that God exists, would you consider Him unable to create an infinitely long, straight piece of string?


I would consider the fact that if it is an instantaneous creation of an infinate entity (such as time) then it would indicate everything that ever HAS happened and ever WILL happen has already happened... If that is the case and everything is all said and done as far as God is concerned why even start it in the first place?

Why create something that you have already begun and ended? What is the purpose?

If you believe that God created an infinate time then that completely invalidates any "purpose" in life because a purpose is an "END" to which you attempt to reach and considering there is no end and it has already been determined means there isn't a purpose.

So which is it?

Or are you going to maintain that we have a "purpose" to being here, we are heading in a direction to achieve something and that God already knows whether we got there in the end or not?


Also, what's with all the capitals?


They are used, as it the occasional bolding, or italics to give emphasis to areas where I believe they are deserved. Shouting is the complete capitalization of a sentance. A SINGLE word being capitalized is for you to give emotive factors to what I write. If I were talking to you I would give those words emphasis... If you don't like it then obviously you fail to understand the meaning to the word "communication".

Why did you put a smiley face at the end of your reply? And why did you quote the "keeping it short"? Isn't that so you can be emotive?

Why then do you think you are the one who decides what is considered valid ways to do it and what is not?

[Patch]

I have proof that God exists and the bible is true. I have the experience noted in the bible. I received the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. I was baptised by full emersion. This the salvation that the bible talks about. It's an actual experience that is given from God that you don't forget. It changes your life radically and is acutal proof God exists whether you like it or not.

On the cration question, a day can be translated as a period of time. God created man on the 6th day and formed Adam first then Eve on the seventh.

[Gen-X]

I have proof that God exists and the bible is true


1. "Show" us this proof?
2. How do we know you are not a lunatic?
3. How do you know you weren't hit on the head and daydreamt it?


a day can be translated as a period of time


You know this is what I find really strange. The Bible is written so that we can read it right? And it uses terms that WE can understand because its MEANT for us to read right? And when it says "It must be 10 cubits long" it is talking about a HUMAN measurement so we can get it the correct length right?

So why all of a sudden would God write the word "Day" and mean a Millenium?????????

He said "6 Days" and he created it in "6 Days"... If he really meant it took him 6 Million years to create then he f*&#cking would have said "And on the 7 Millionth Year he rested".

I just love it when crackpots like you stumble into here... with less than 20 posts to your name and start preaching as if the sun shone out of your a**hole.

:mad:

[frank ashley]

Gen-X,

Right on!

Surely this proves that the bible is a game of semantics.

[HarryW]

You just said that murder is bad because it takes away your choice to live. Well why is that bad? What's wrong with that? It's taking away your choices, yes? It's the removal of choice that you have a problem with? Well what is implicitly bad about the removal of choice other than the fact that you don't like it?

Actually it is more about perspective than mind. If I was the one killing another human being I wouldn't find it disgusting because I am still alive... if the shoe was on the other foot I would feel differently.

What makes murder "disgusting" is the fact it goes against the genetic desire to survive, pure and simple

In that case, if someone does not find murder disgusting are you saying it's a genetic problem? Are murderers all mutants?

What makes murder "disgusting" is the fact it goes against the genetic desire to survive, pure and simple.


This is exactly what I am saying. Exactly it. 'The desire to survive', you said it yourself. It is a desire, it is a thought, an emotion. Instinctive or not, it is in your mind. You yourself said that animals do not object to murder. You also said animals don't have minds. Well... don't you think that might be linked?

And even though you disagree, I hold my comment that nobody has innate rights. It is part of our philosophy on life as human beings.


I can't explain how a universe with no beginning is created

Then you cannot say someone elses explaination is wrong. Thats like saying "Your wrong, I don't know why but you are wrong". That is stupid.


You're right, that's very true. And that's also why I never said anybody was wrong about it. My exact words were
I also don't think that the universe needs a beginning to be created.

I don't think it needs a beginning to be created.

What I did not say was that the universe was created, or even that my opinion was right. Nevertheless it is my opinion. I think you are confusing me with someone who holds deep religious beliefs about these issues. I am intrigued by both sides of the argument.

The objective of that statement was to bring up the idea that maybe time could be infinite in both directions and also the universe could have been created. If you disagree with that then that's fine. I am not going to try to force my opinion on this on anyone, I'm just stating what I think.

[dvst8]

Supporters of the Bible enjoy using 'substitutive meaning'. They will say, "Well if you take this word to mean this, then it makes sense." Is that not falsifying what was originally said? Does that not directly imply that the original statement had an erroneous or misleading element to it?

[Edited by dvst8 on 07-26-2000 at 08:10 AM]

[DavidRupe]

I recall the original question to be "why do we attempt to disprove the bible?"

Your right, there really is no need to disprove it at all. All the conflicting statements and rules do it for us. Besides any true believer would never accept any real proof that the bible or any part of it was incorrect.
I think we do it, so that we may free just one person from getting trapped in the brain washing fear we call Religious Belief.
So I assure you, we are not trying to take you from GOD. We just want to help others make an educated decission before deciding to disable a large part of thier ability to accept facts for the rest of there lives. Its like this code

'**********************
'Defaults when you are born
blnAcceptFacts = True
blnFearHell = False

Do Until blnDead = True
If blnBelieveBible = True Then
blnAcceptFacts = False
blnFearHell = True
Else
blnAcceptFacts = True
blnFearHell = False
End if

If blnAcceptFacts AND Not blnFearHell Then
MsgBox("Your Smarter and living fear free.")
End if
strLearnNewFacts = strLearnNewFacts & NewFact
Loop
MsgBox("Your dead and nothing matters anymore.")

Most religious people were captured while very young, never having a chance to hear the other side of the story. Once you have lived believing these stories as fact for so many years it becomes difficult for the mind to even accept truth when it is presented. It creates a society of people in denial of the real world around them. I think it is a terrible thing. That is why we attempt to provide the other side of the story to people before deciding to commit them selves to a GOD they will never see. That, and the devil asked me to do it.

[HarryW]

Yes of course, as soon as you become religious you become a miserable, idiotic, mindless zombie, and the only reason you don't top yourself is because it's against your religion.

Maybe you have never met anyone religious. Most religious people I have met are in a state of near-constant happiness, not quite sure why. I suspect it's the fact that they feel loved by God and they are friends with millions of people that they meet in their religious community. They don't fear hell because they think it's somewhere other people go.

I think someone on this forum said that hell doesn't appear in any Christian writings until the middle ages, and that it was made up to get the peasants to work hard and pay taxes.

I will accept that perhaps religion can get in the way of some ideas, I mean in one US state (Texas?) it is illegal to teach kids about evolution or the big bang, they have to teach creation. That sucks.

I don't think that anybody, let alone someone who would post a message like that, is smart enough to figure out if there's a God. I'm pretty sure that nobody will ever prove or disprove it to anyone else. They might prove it to themselves, but then they just appear to be a bit of a lunatic and people tend to ignore them.

[DavidRupe]

Well HarryW,
I didn't mean to upset you. You are correct, in all the years I have debated religion with Religious people, they appeared the happiest of all the people I knew. However, I personally could not be happy living the way they did. The idea of accepting the Bible as truth without ever questioning it was to difficult for me to do, and I suppose that is why I am not a believer.

In this world of instant knowledge, via the internet, I think we should all try and challenge everything we believe to be true in order to discover the greater truth. Science does this all the time and finds greater knowledge in the process. Yes, theories are disproven everyday. But, at least science accepts the new truths and moves forward.

It is very dangerous for us to teach our children to never challenge things we consider sacred. Anything that is true can only be strengthen at the attack of disproving it. But before we can honestly challenge our beliefs we must first be willing to accept the answer, what ever it should be. In that we find our problem with religion because it is based on unwaving belief in the face of any contrary facts. Nothing good can come from such a principle and nothing has.

The very idea of believing anything without the willingness to accept contrary facts should be considered close minded and dangerous to society. This is true for anything from believing UNIX is the best operating system to not eating meat. So its not just religion but the manor in which we require people to join our faiths. We demand total acceptance without question, for salvation. Its like giving up your mind for the promise of eternal happiness. I guess its true what they say, ignorance is bliss, thats why my religious friends are so happy!

Well, I have chosen to keep my mind and freedom of thought, you can have my soul.

[vbsquare]

For me, my personal proof exists within my own experience of God. My personal proof convinces me that God exists, but my personal proof may well not extend to convince others that God exists.

I'm not here to try and press my beliefs on to others, but simply to give my point of view. For me I believe in God due to my own experiences and the way I see things. I may be wrong or I may be right. But for me it is something that I believe is right and that is what I will try and live my life to.

The only way that we can really tell (that is, for everyone to be convinced that God exists) is to wait until we are dead, and see what happens. But unfortunately that is a bit late to let the rest of the world know what is happening.

So for me I have a faith and a belief that covers that uncertainty.

Please don't take my comments the wrong way. I'm not here to say that you are wrong and I am right, but simply to state my personal point of view.

[Gen-X]

Harry

I have a genetic desire to eat, and another to breath

Are you saying that eating and breathing are in my mind?


No? Well don't twist my words ;)

[frank ashley]

HarryW,

Thanks for referring to my post about hell being created in order to subjugate peasants. (At last, someone has referred to a post of mine!)


Gen-X

Breathing is a reflex action and eating is an impulse, I desire a Ferrari (how shallow am I).


:)

[dvst8]

vbsquare

In "Mere Christianity", C.S Lewis puts forth a similar argument. He suggests (paraphrasing here...don't have the book in front of me) that a reason to believe in JC is that when we die, if Christians were right, 'who's side do you want to be on?'. You advance this same argument saying that we'll see when we die, and that you have covered that uncertainty.

At the time I read this book, I classed myself among the Believers. When I read the above passage, I was highly impressed, and figured that this would strengthen my Faith.

But now that I see things from a different perspective, I realise how empty such an argument is. 'Believe in something because you don't want the OPPOSITE to be true'.
Such statements play on the fear of death that many people have. It's almost a threat: 'You'd better Believe, OR ELSE ...' I personally don't fear death in any way, so it's an empty threat.

dvst8

[DavidRupe]

Your right dvst8,
Everyone I ever asked said they originaly came to believe in JC or GOD for fear of HELL. Once, committed they no longer feared and therefore were happy and content. I was the same way when I was young and almost opened my heart to JC for fear of the consequences, now I am glad I did not.

HarryW tells me religious people do not fear hell, but I say thats balony. Everyone fears HELL and desires heaven. So, lets settle this by suggesting that religion stops pushing HELL and Heaven. Lets just see how many followers they get if there are no consequences or rewards.

Everyone I every asked tried to get me in there religion by asking me "What if your wrong?" There right, this question was powerful because initially it seems like I would be giving up nothing more than offering my mere belief in and acceptance of some heavenly ruler. But, if I every did give my unwilling love to a ruler based on these concerns, it would not be sincere. I would think the only way JC could accept my belief in him would be if I had no fear or reward tied to such a faith. So until the threat of HELL and the promise of Heaven are removed from religion, I could never freely and sincerely accept a ruler in heaven and neither can anyone else.

[vbsquare]

I don't believe what I do because I am scared of what might happen to me if I don't believe. As I said, the reason that I believe in God is because of the experiences that I have had.

I totally disagree with the attitude that 'if you don't believe then you will goto hell!' etc etc. I think that is wrong.

But for me, my experiences of God make me believe and that is enough for me.

[HarryW]

Well David, I agree with you that a refusal to receive any different ideas is a bad thing. I think that's one of the ways in which people decide what they think is a cult and what they thing is a religion. Perhaps religion does impair the judgement of new evidence by creating a bias, but that is nothing peculiar to religion.

vbsquare, that is very very close to my outlook on religion.

Gen-X, yes, (surely you were expecting this) I would say they are in your mind. The fact that you need to do both of them to live is the reason that they are present in your mind.

Frank, you're more than welcome :) and I hope one day you get your Ferrari. I'll settle for a Lear Jet. Apparently you can get a Russian jet fighter (with all military ordnance removed ;)) from http://www.iwantoneofthose.com for only 150 grand. Do you think they take credit cards? :D

[HarryW]

Oh my mistake, a snip at £175,000 ;)

Read (or listen to) the Book of Job.

http://www.bible.com

http://www.bible.com/bibles.html

Posting of these sites does not necessarily attest to agreeing with their published doctrine.

[Gen-X]

Interesting.

So Breathing is a reflex action? Actually its not... Its called a "Semi-Autonomous Impulse". I can stop myself from breathing but if I pass out my body will instinctively breath again.

Harry, I am sorry to say this but based on your last comment your a moron ;)

At a genetic level my body requires food to survive, my lungs require air to breath.... and at a genetic level my instincts will attempt to save my life to whatever capacity it can.

While the mind can impose control over these, the end result is always DEATH.


What you are saying is that If I stop thinking about eating I could live forever. :D

[HarryW]

No, you are confusing concious thought with the mind.

I am sorry to see that you have stooped to insults because you cannot prove your point and may have to admit you're wrong. It reflects badly on you.

There are only 2 parts of the body which send out nerve impulses to the rest of your body - the brain and the spinal cord (for some reflex actions). If someone removed your brain you would not breath, and you would not eat, in fact you wouldn't do much. Now that's bloody obvious, but you still seem to have this thing about genetics being something to do with thoughts. Genetics obviously will put instincts in place , but how are those insticts enforced? They are somewhere in your mind.

As you say you can impose control over these instinctive, vital functions, but that has nothing at all to do with genes.

What YOU seem to be saying is that if you suppress your instincts with concious thought, you are changing the effect of your genes, something which is completely laughable. Once your instincts are in place in your mind, your genes have nothing more to do with it.

As I said, the reason these instincts are present in your mind is that you need them to live. That's a result of whichever evolution theory you want to believe, and if you didn't have the instincts you would probably die.

Your genes are just a blueprint for your body to be built by, surely you can agree with that? Your very own 'genetic code' is a set of preprocessor instructions run at compile time.

Quite honestly I am amazed that you think people find murder 'genetically' abhorrent, this is one of the strangest opinions I have ever come across. What about murderers, are they genetically defective? Were they born murderers? Come on, explain it, tell me that murderers and those who don't have a problem with murder feel the way they do because of their genes.

*Walks off shaking head*

[dvst8]

Harry
Are you saying that the human genetic code does not include something about self-preservation? I'm quite sure that's written into every living organism's genetic code.

Also, there is quite a bit of evidence to show that behavious IS infulenced by genes. So in fact, murderers may quite possibly be predispoped to murdering people. I'm not saying this is absolutely true, it's just something that is being researched quite heavily right now. It comes down to the argument of NATURE vs NURTURE.

dvst8

[HarryW]

No that's not what I mean. My point is that genes are a run-once operation. Once your brain has been constructed they have no further effect on your mind. My argument was that the feeling that murder is bad is in your mind, and Gen-X said it was in your genes, not in your mind.

Perhaps we are misunderstanding one another, because in some ways both are true, but in that case it is in both your mind and your genes. My initial statement was that it was in your mind, so if it's in both that validates my statement, and invalidates Gen-X's argument that it is not in your mind.

I almost wrote something in my last post about nature/nurture, and I agree that it is a debatable point whether behavioural deficiency is genetic, but if that is the case, then the behaviour is carried out through the mind, conciously or not.

[Edited by HarryW on 07-28-2000 at 08:56 AM]

[Gen-X]

Harry

I believe we are misunderstanding each other.

To me the term "mind" and "brain" are 2 different things.

Something which is "in your mind" indicates a conscious thought, a "choice" as it were.

Something which is "in your brain" indicates an autonomous or instinctual reaction.


Genetics is certainly NOT "run-once", they impose upon you every single moment of your lives because they are the whole reason why you remain in the structure you are.

What is it that stops you from turning into an amorphous blob? Or your cells simply wandering into different corners of the room? Genetics.


I disagree with your belief that it is "in your mind" because as I have said it is not a choice. It is however "in your brain" as your brain is the ONLY place that transmits signals (the spinal column sends signals that originated from neural responses).

When you put your hand near a fire you pull it away, that is an instinctual response. The same goes with hunger, breathing, defication and preservation of life.

They are all instinctual responses and Murder is not a case of personal disgust or a moral "choice" but simply the extension of an autonomous response to remain alive.

[HarryW]

Well if you want to redefine the terms, then I will agree that it is 'in your brain' as you put it. I don't really consider 'in your mind' to mean only concious thought, but if you have different definition then that's fine.

Your examples of cells turning into amorphous blobs of organic matter - yes that is in some part genetics at work, but those cells are being built at the time genetics come ito play - recompiling a module if you will.

[frank ashley]

If a tribe across the next hill are stealing your food supply then murdering them must be a good thing because once you've killed them all you and your food supply are safe.

But, for them it is a bad thing (obviously).

Murder then must be contextual.

War is murder, true or false?

[HarryW]

Gen-X, will you please just, like, try to understand what I say for once?


I don't really consider 'in your mind' to mean only concious thought


Your examples of cells turning into amorphous blobs of organic matter - yes that is in some part genetics at work, but those cells are being built at the time genetics come ito play

I think your definition of 'in the mind' is a bit odd, but I'm willing to accept that maybe you were thinking differently so I'm not going to keep on at you about it.

And where are you missing the point about genetics and cells? They are involved in the construction of new body parts, I already said that - they are not constantly involved, they are involved in the building of cells. Cells which are then used after they are built. Thus not actually involving the genes any more.

Look, if you haven't got anything useful to say then just don't say anything, this subject is dead, it was dead as soon as it was established that we have different definitions of 'the mind'. I think I'm right by my terms, but if you have different terms then I cannot reasonably say you are wrong, because your opinion is based on your terms.

[Gen-X]

Frank

Firstly, murder isn't contextual... whether it is seen as good or bad is ;)

Secondly, It is interesting you brought up the issue of War. Some would call it murder and others would not.

The point which I am always curious about is whether a soldier who is performing his duty for his country and following the orders of his superiors would be considered a "murderer".

There is a saying... "All is fair in love and war", which I think kind of explains how war is "exempt" from the murder situation to a degree.

Harry

If I switch a gene on within a cell then that cell changes. Thus genetics are ALWAYS in use.. not just in the cells creation.

But your right... There is nothing more to say on this topic because you aren't willing to even try to redefine what you are getting at under any "mutual" terms of agreement... I'm happy to redefine mine if it will help your understanding... but if you ain't going to move there isn't much point.

[HarryW]

Why would I change my standpoint when I'm right? I don't think we're ever going to agree on this, so I'm not going to bother to bang my head against your brick wall any longer. I don't need any help understanding your point of view, you have explained it and I don't agree. I have already said that in your terms I cannot say you are wrong, so I'm not going to. Why sould I redefine my terms to suit your needs? I am happy with my own terms thank you very much.

You're right though, I'm not going to move, and there isn't much point.

[Gen-X]

Harry

So we are both right but both say the other is wrong because we use different terminology????

Great lot of sense that makes.


The original postulation was you saying Murder is something that a human being has no "explaination" of finding disgusting.

I then told you that there is PLENTY of explaination and gave it to you, indicating it right down to a genetic level.


So going back to the beginning (which all good debates should) do you still believe after all of my explainations there is no explaination of why murder is disgusting???

[HarryW]

That was not the original postulation. The original postulation, by kedaman, was that the fear of death is in your mind.

You have decided to have different terms for the mind, and thus have been arguing a different point to me, as far as you are concerned.

You have made no useful comments regarding the way I think of it, so I see no need to bother with your explanations of something totally different, the way you think of it.


So we are both right but both say the other is wrong because we use different terminology????

Great lot of sense that makes.

How can you be so blind as to think this is a sensible comment? The idea you have presented here is both an inaccurate account of what I said, and flawed anyway.

If I am making my point and you are using terms in a way other than the way I am using them, then we are quite bloody clearly saying things about different points, and neither of us can reasonably say the other is wrong. I have never said you are right about this and I don't intend to. I have also said that since you are using different terms I will not say you are wrong.

Take the word 'Rock'. To an English-speaker, that means a big stone. In German (if my memory serves me correctly) it means 'skirt'. Two meanings for the same word. Neither can be said to be wrong.

It's not that hard to fathom. I am sick of wasting my time explaining this only for you to attempt to patronise me and prove your unimaginable arrogance in your certainty that you are right.

[kedaman]

Ah, HArry, have you finally discovered Gen-X real characteristics? A brick wall

[kedaman]

I tried to post something a while ago, but i forgot

Reality Illusions
| |
\_________/
Observations
||
\/
Mind (or brain or whatever)
||
||
\/
You

This shows a one-way path of information coming to you, and the observations being a projection of either reality or illusion. Everything goes trough the Mind part (or the brain you wanted to call it) therefore you can't know if you are in matrix complex or not. A suggestion is that you are alone and therefore murder is impossible.

[ser]

OK, i have a very good question for all of you who are stead fast in beleiving every word of the bible. What about all the other religions? What about Greek Gods? What about every single African tribe that pray to 5 or even 10 Gods? Should we dismiss that? Should we go and bang them on the head and say 'No your wrong'? I dont think so. The point im trying to make is if a group of people have nothing to belive in.. they make something. I have never heard of tribes seeing 'religious signs', other than rain or a storm or something like that, and big whooptie doo. We all know where rain comes from and why it happens so it isnt a religious sign. Back to my point, i think that people made all this up. Just like the Easter Bunny and Santa (i know there used to be a real one, but theres no way hes that old).

[kb244]

As Catholic(christian etc) In the past (and still today) most people will go around knocking people around, as far as your question of other religions, we should only tell them the words, and let them decide for themselves, I myself dont belive we should be saying whose right or wrong, it's supposed to be purely out of choice whether or not you want to accept another religion. Also from a biblical point of view, if a certain person had never heard "the word of god" (ie: the bible) they are technically inocent , and have no sins attacted to them, unless otherwise they have heard the laws, and knows the laws of the bible, from a biblical point of view, I belive that if you commit a sin, and you do not know it, then that sin isnt burdened to you, but if you later find out it's a sin you much confess, and so on, blah blah blah.

Romans4:15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

Reminds me of six years ago when the Attorney General (I think) said, "If we make it legal, crime will be reduced". I got a good laugh out of that one, but it's true.

Do you know how we can have zero crime (against man's law in the U.S.) with one vote?

Can't find the reference now, but there is something about "the law being written on our hearts"; another "everyone is guilty" thing. This one reminds me of my recent speeding ticket when the copper pulled out well over the speed limit after busting my butt.

[hitcgar]

I went to see an optomologist last week to get my eyes checked.

While sitting there looking at a poster of the human eye I
remarked to the doc that the eye is an incredibly complex
machine. Of course he agreed. Then I said, "Well, what
do you think? Could that be the product of chance?"

He ardently responded, "No sir. That is not the product of mere chance. That is impossible!"

Does not the One who made the eye see? asked a certain singer a few thousand years ago.

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree. - Darwin

So, one of the greatest arguments for the existance of God (bible aside) is still the argument from design.

Sir I. Newton had in his study a celestial globe, on which
was an excellent representation of the constellations and
the stars which compose them. His atheist friend, having
come to visit him one day, was struck with the beauty of
the globe. He approached it, examined it, and, admiring the
work, he turned to Newton and said to him, "Who made it?" "
No one! " replied the celebrated philosopher." The atheist
understood, and was silent.

Some philosopher once said, "the greastest evidence of the existance of God is banana cream pie."

Think it over really long and deep and you'll see that there
is method in that madness! Why does anything 'taste' good?
Why does taste exist. When you answer that then explain the
rest of the human bodily inter-connected functionalities.
They all begin to scream for design and therefore a Designer. Then when you've done that - you'll never
finish - you can start looking at misquitos, birds, plants, etc....ad infinitum.

It is far more ridiculous to suppose that all this intricately
desiged universe, built with obvious purpose and astounding
inter-connectivity just 'evolved' or Big Banged into being
than it would be to state that the Windows operating system
and all it's functionality and apps (that you and I write
with significant efforts to design) just fell into place.

The majority of micro-biologists KNOW there is a God.:eek:

However, they cannot speak too loudly about this since all
of their project supplies, fundings, their credibility and
their chances of getting more work would be abruptly cut
off by government agencies dedicated to theories of
origins based on natural selection.

In the words of one such micro-biologist - when candidly asked whether the complexities of the human genome could be the result of chance functions of an un-directed nature -

"No. This requires genius beyond genius and could not possibly be the results of chance". An echo of the
words of Dr. Duquette mentioned above.

In china you can critisize Darwin but not the government.
In America you can critisize the governement but not Darwin

Waht is life exactly anyway? Does anyone really know what life itself is?

//***************
Besides the great points made by C.S. Lewis in his the abolition of man masterpiece is that without an absolute
intelligence defining an absolute rule of action there are
absolutely no grounds of defending any moral issue
whatsoever and in fact morality itself could not exist.

Read it you skeptics if you dare - no one has ever refuted it!

Without absolute moral law there is no foundation for
arguing any one thing against any other thing (morally).

Who defines right and wrong? Right and wrong themselves cease to exist without the absolute from which to measure.

In fact if no measuring rule exists nothing can be right or wrong.

As for the bible it has been the most hated book in the world since always. Why? This itself is evidence or argument in it's favor.

Voltaire arrogantly claimed that the bible would cease to
exist within his own life time once he got finished proving
it wrong.

In twenty years Christianity will be no more. My single hand shall destroy the edifice it took twelve apostles to rear.

25 years after his death a bible publishing house was built where his house stood.

The bible has defended itself throughout all centuries in spite
of unending and relentless efforts to destroy it's credibilty.

As for the argument proposed above concerning Adam and God. "Where are you?"
It has little to do with symbolism.

Are you a parent? Have you never said to your child, "What
have you done?" Knowing very well what the kid did! Well
it's the same principal. "Where are you?" Waiting to obvserve the response.

It may be a tender expression of a responsible parent than
some super-spiritual symbolism. Besides, who has never
heard someone cry out things like,"What have you done?!!?" when someone
did something that would bring dire consequences?

These types of arguments against the bible are simply dumb questions with simple straightforward answers to anyone who
takes the time to reflect on the subject.

Hear the meaning within the word.-
Shakespeare

Most arguments against the bible have been more than
adequately refuted time and time again - indeed the same old
Bull S*** comes back in every generation. The reason is because
those who dislike it's teachings or whatever never bother
to read the opposition's refutations before opening their mouths!

man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but usually manages to pick himself up, walk over or around it, and carry on. W.S. Churchill

As for the devil? Well if you don't believe there is an absolute evil and so an absolutely evil one then you're not
living on the same planet as the rest of us.

Go tell that parent who's missing son was just found raped and
mutilated in a city dump garbage can that there is no devil!

Go make friends with some genuine long time satanists and then put yourself on
their bad side and see what happens to you - then come and tell us there is no devil!

Take a good look at the atrocities committed in this present
year. Timor, Kosovo, Africa, the list is long. Last century
was loaded - WWI, WWII the holocaust, the slaughter of millions in China,
an estimated 20M religious and political prisoners living in concentration camps
in former atheist USSR not to mention an estimated 165M
christian martyrs, Pinochet & cie.,
the list is staggering.

Have you never looked real evil in the face? And shuddered?
You've been living in american comfy, easy freedom with all
of our technological conveniences and gadgets for so long
you can't see the devil for the fire!


It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.
- Albert Einstein

In the end what you believe or not will not effect facts.

If you don't believe that men have walked on the moon (I met
a guy who doesn't) that won't change the fact that they
have. And if one believes a lie that doesn't make the lie truth.


...man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but
usually manages to pick himself up, walk over or around it,
and carry on. A lie gets halfway around the world before
the truth has a chance to get its pants on.

I am ready to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
- Sir Winston Churchill

After all's been said and done there's a lot more been said than done.

I'd like to continue this pleasant discussion (I could go on for days) but I have some VB etc to do. ;)

...you said that Microsoft Programs went through a design phase.

While I am on your side for this discussion, I must apply this present point for the Design Argument to the side that design is NOT required for typical Microsoftian results.

Remember this the next time you hit Ctrl-Alt-Delete and end up Cold-Starting anyway.

I will now resume reading the rest of your post.

[Gen-X]

I'll play along with this....



If the design of us is the proof of Gods existence...

Then the design of disease, mutation, plagues, killer bees, grizzly bears, great white sharks, tidal waves, hurricanes, tornadoes etc is the proof of his utter and total contempt for his creation and his wish for us all to die



Makes sense to me :)

[HarryW]

We all die one day.

Jeez, some people are said to be looking at the world through rose-tinted glasses - what kind are you wearing Gen-X? Lighten up, sit back, relax a bit, get one of your millions of girlfriends that you tell us all about to give your shoulders a massage. Drink some cold draught beer. Go to your happy place, and everything will suddenly seem so much better :)

[Gen-X]

Harry

I would say my glasses are realistic but you have all heard my argument on Optimists and Pessimists and Realists ;)

As for the chill factor, your right, but I don't drink beer and the girls are getting restless that they aren't "the only one" which is causing me grief.

:D

[kedaman]

I think Gen-x is a bit more pessimistic than that, but for the glasses, i think they have a variety of filters that you'll never see, even if you compare with your friends. I had an idea that the more different we are, the more realistic we can be, but since 99.9% (or something like that) of our DNA is the same, there's probably only 0.1% of the filters we know about ;)

[Gen-X]

Then perhaps I see more realistic than anyone.

Who knows where my DNA came from and unlike MOST people my mental conditioning in childhood was given by people other than those who gave me my genetics so it wasn't reinforced.

[kedaman]

Perhaps you are, but i don't think you should call youself a realist amongst others then.
What i meant was that the scope of humanity is small, and your scope as an individual is even smaller.

[Gen-X]

I would actually disagree with that Kedaman.

It takes but a single individual to increase the scope for ALL of humanity so while humanity "as a whole" is limited in the scope that it may have, a single individual can focus to expand that scope and therefor would have a larger scope than the whole.

If this were not the case humanity would never discover anything or get anywhere... only by people who HAD broader scopes than humanity were we able to understand the earth wasn't flat and we were NOT the centre of the universe.


That is something I dislike about a lot of people on this list. They rattle out the "If people who are smarter and more into this than I am haven't thought of it then what chance do I have to think of it"... so they immediately stop thinking and stop searching believing they wont get as far as other people... If everyone had this attitude nothing would ever get done... Einstein would have never bothered because if "other" scientists couldn't come up with Relativity how could he possibly have.

It takes but a single step to get the ball rolling... to question if the rest of the world is taking that SAME step before doing yourself is to force yourself to sit in a small room and NEVER come out.

[kedaman]

You may have missunderstood me, Gen-x

I didn't place the common known information as humanitys scope, i placed, by all individuals known information.
Furthermore these individuals can trade this information, and compare it to each others, the common parts are expected to be more true, therefore you have a "wider" scope, therefore you know more.

My point is that does that make it anymore true that 3 people believe in something, than that one does?

Does that make it anymore true that 3 people observe something?
A)
No, not if you believe in a objective universe, if something is true, then it actually is, for everyone.
B)
Yes, if you believe in QM, it's both true and false, but it's more true than false than before.

I have a good example, let's say three spotlights in a dark room. You point them all at the same place, you may see everything verý clearly than if you point just one on that spot, but the scope isn't any larger. But if you adjust the spotlights a bit so that they just overlapp each other a bit, you have a much larger scope.

I think i can build more on this sample, i just want to check if you agree on this,,,

[Gen-X]

*sigh*

Here we go again :(

I state something... Kedaman says I am wrong and states something else... I reply to it and then he comes back with a "you misunderstood me" and goes off on a completely DIFFERENT track to everyone else.

:mad:

I was talking about the fact that while the group as a whole may not be able to come up with new ideas or discoveries an individual may have the scope to go BEYOND what the collection does and therefor it is incorrect to say that a single person does not have the ability to discover something new.

Whatever the hell you are talking about is completely, totally and absolutely different and completely off-topic as far as what I was saying.

If you would care to bring it back to talk on the same issue then I am happy to do so... if however you wish to continue saying I am wrong on a totally different thing to that which I was talking about then find yourself a wall.. because it is far more interested listening to you talk about unrelated things than I am.

Either learn better english or give up trying to "get with the program" because we are all watching a science program while you are watching Sesame Street and saying we are all wrong.

:mad:

[kedaman]

Whatever the hell you are talking about is completely, totally and absolutely different and completely off-topic as far as what I was saying.

You quoted me, not the other way around, if you think it's completely off topic, then i think the same of you.

I state something, Gen-x says i'm wrong and states something else...

That's exactly what happened to me, and the pattern seems to continue.

Now we aren't actually talking about science here at all, you replied to my statement and the statement was the scope of humanity compared to individual

[HarryW]

It's true Gen-X, you disagreed with what kedaman said, not the other way around. To me what he said made sense and was related to the topic of 'the scope of the individual'. I said it made sense, to be honest I don't know whether I agree with you or not Kedaman, it's a very fuzzy-around-the-edges kind of topic. Sounds pretty reasonable though.

Btw I think the fact that somebody can speak/write near-fluently on a complex subject such as this in a language not native to their country is quite remarkable. I wish I could speak a foreign language properly but... well.. . I just haven't spent the time learning one I guess.

[Gen-X]

Kedaman started talking about "filters" to which I made a comment about DNA.

Then he said "Thats not what I mean" and started talking about "scope of humanity".

Now if that isn't someone showing many different heads to the same beast I don't know what is.

So I picked him up on his "Scope of the individual is SMALLER than the scope of humanity" but he went off on another tangent again.

SCOPE OF HUMANITY

Lets get this right off the bat :

Scope - The range of one's perceptions, thoughts, or actions


Now my point was that an individual have perceptions and thoughts that humanity as a collection CANNOT have. The whole world thought the earth was flat until an individual found it was not.

Hence Kedaman's original statement that "Humanity has a small scope, An individual an even SMALLER scope" is incorrect.

That is what my response was about and that was what we were talking about.... While kedaman may have made sense in his reply it certainly wasn't about the topic at hand which had started to allude around the point of "why bother, your not going to come up with something the 'brains' of our world haven't already thought about".

It seems Kedaman's reply is not talking about "scope" but about the ability to transmit information from one to the other.


My point is that does that make it anymore true that 3 people believe in something, than that one does?


Your previous post said "My point is" and it was certainly different to this point.

Who was talking about the truth in something being in the number of people who believe it?!?!?! Is that his idea of "scope"?

Funny... Our definition of "scope" doesn't talk about information, amount of information or even validity of information but simply about the "range" of the information that can be obtained.

This is what I am talking about when I say that it is a language problem...a misunderstanding of the word "scope" and as a result it leads to these discussions that are NOT following what the topic was about. I am sure he has the ideas ok in his head but when they are translated the words are used in contexts that are alien to the meaning of the words themselves.

Having said all that I do agree that reaching this level of understanding in a non-native language is remarkable, its a shame that it causes these problems where BOTH of us think the other is misunderstanding.

But I am sure neither you nor Kedaman will see what I am talking about here... Damned if you would ever admit that perhaps I could have been right.

[HarryW]

No no I can see what you're saying, but I think you have both misunderstood each other. The stuff about DNA and filters I didn't really understand but you seemed to feel confident enough of his meaning to reply to his post.

From the way I am seeing your two different points, they are both equally valid. You do also seem to have different interpretations of 'scope'. Kedaman has said that although your scope (by his meaning of scope - another definition of scope is 'The area covered by a given activity or subject') can be different to humanity as a whole, it can never be larger since the scope of an individual is a subset of the scope of humanity. Gen-X has used a different definition of scope (I suspect it was from dictionary.com) to prove a different point, saying that an individual can have ideas and discover things that no other part of humanity could do. These two ideas are not mutually exclusive, in fact in some ways they imply one another.

With the proposal that more people believing something doesn't make it more true I think kedaman is following on from the idea that the scope of humanity is the union of the scopes of all individuals, not the intersection of the scopes. The idea being that, as he said "the common parts are expected to be more true" (common parts = the intersections of the scopes of individuals) and although that information becomes more reliable in some ways, it doesn't change the truth or untruth of it.

I think language is a bit of a barrier here but with a little thought and a little empathy you can fathom out the gist of it.

So in summary, Gen-X is equally as right as Kedaman :)

[Gen-X]

In the interests of truth, justice and the Australian way...

:D

How would you propose we get over this language barrier that seems to rear its head quite often in our conversations?

[hitcgar]

Has anyone actually gone out and read C.S.Lewis' "the abolition of man" as I suggested? Obviously not.

For those of you who keep bringing up the age-old argument
of human suffering as a pretence to the alleged non-existence or pre-eminent incompetence of God I suggest
another book by Lewis - "The problem of pain".

This kind of argument is really phoney. We blame God for what is clearly stated throughout scripture as the results
of generalised rebellion and criminal behaviour in our tiny little part of the universe.

As a just magistrate and executive legislator God cannot allow rebellion to go unnoticed (nor unpunished).

No more than our national law-enforcers, justices etc. could without the consequence of actually promoting
rebellion by ignoring it and leading us all to a state of anarchy.

Most of you who complain about God's actions being evil should first off take up the issue with Him personally. If
your motives are wrong though He won't even listen to you let alone answer you. He'll just let you rave 'til you die
and discover the awful truth too late.

If some puny little punk came off the street to challenge you to a fist fight would you listen? It would be below
dignity for a grown adult to take up the fight. You'd probably ignore the kid and go on your way. Well God ain't
no fool and considering that He's infinitely bigger than you it's no surprise He completely ignores the vast
majority of such insignificant defiance.

If He paid attention, that would be like a judge listening to and answering a criminal whose attitude is one of
persistent defiance to the Law. It ain't gonna happen. What do you think God is? An idiot who has not deep and perfect
knowledge of the inner workings of our selfish hearts? Or that the "love of God" is some fuzzy kind of funny feeling
of fickle human emotions that binds Him to perpetual mercy with no righteousness?

Rather the love of God is benevolence in the highest sense of the term. It is willing the highest good of Himself and
all creatures. All according to their respective designs, purposes and importance.

To think of all powerful and all knowing as something that can act foolishly, create irresponsibly and react to human
injustice, perversions of every kind and human atrocities without penal sanctions and punishments is just childish.

No human governor who acted like that would draw any respect from any but criminal minds.

Fortunately for us He also exercises the most amazing patience in the face of our wickedness, perpetual unbelief
and stupid rantings claiming He doesn't exist in the face of "genius beyond genius". But their is a time-frame limit
to that patience.

The ultimate insanity is when humans begin to question their own existance. Claiming that perhaps it is all an
illusion. Perhaps the "I think, therefore I am" hypothesis is really an illusion as well.

Well, just let someone come up to you and point a gun at your head and you'll change your mind very quickly!
Suddenly you won't care much for the "illusion" of that gun! Because you know all too well what kind of reality it
threatens you with.

You say things like, "Well if God is so good why doesn't He...?" I'll tell you why.

1. If He were to eliminate all evil in the world He might just decide to start with the evil in your own life.

2. The scripture constantly teaches that man has been given responsibility for this planet. God never intervenes except
through the process of communication we call prayer.

3. He did do something! However most don't want to get involved with His solution because it entails abandoning
our inherently self-centred life styles and choosing to "love our neighbour as ourselves".

So let's not be too hasty about getting God to destroy all evils - you'll give Him no choice but to deal with your
crimes against Him and you'll suffer the consequences of moral crime - death eternal - unless you change your ways
and thinking style to follow His. If you do that then He has made perfectly adequate provision for the possibility
of mercy and forgiveness through the substitutionary death of Christ without mercy is not possible to law-breakers.


Let's not also forget that we are the ones who, in our siding with evil and selfishness, have brought about much
of the disastrous history of planet earth.

And I'll tell you something else. When you can stop your own habitual masturbation, cursing, cheating, arrogance,
jealousy, hatred, selfishness, lusting, lying and just plain old bitchin' then you can come and tell us how the
world can find peace.

No offence - just gimme a break about all this nonsense about illusions and/or God's being selfish and evil or I
just may pray that He throw a very nice brick your way to see the illusion become harsh reality.

I got work to do y'all. :p

[kedaman]

It seems Kedaman's reply is not talking about "scope" but about the ability to transmit information from one to the other.
[/code]
That's correct, if we structurize the topic it will look like this:
(
Maintopic
|_ Subtopic
...
)

Universe is not random, objective universe exists.
|_ What should we thrust to be true ?
|_ The ability to transmit information +
Our individual scope
|_ Humanity scope (which therefore is enlarged)

Now with Humanity scope i meant our cumulative scope, not our common scope. To be more specific, the ability to transmit information is much more restricting, but theres a lot other factors involved, but in general you'll have a larger scope if you live amongst people than living alone.

[quote]
Who was talking about the truth in something being in the number of people who believe it?!?!?! Is that his idea of "scope"?

Now here's the big question. You and most of humanity, but especially you, is backing up humanitys common scope, why not anyone else religious you may ask, but no i'm pointing at you because the others have a relatively weak faith in what they believe in, they say "i believe". You say "i know". Now this is about science, this is what you believe so hard in that it's hard to discuss with you openminded, especially when it comes like philosophical issues that are "fuzzy". My English isn't the barrier, i think Harry have understood me well but you haven't.

Now the big missunderstanding as Harry explained:

Individual And individual And individual ...

Individual Or Individual Or individual ...

Whereas And and Or are logical operators.


With the proposal that more people believing something doesn't make it more true I think kedaman is following on from the idea that the scope of humanity is the union of the scopes of all individuals, not the intersection of the scopes. The idea being that, as he said "the common parts are expected to be more true" (common parts = the intersections of the scopes of individuals) and although that information becomes more reliable in some ways, it doesn't change the truth or untruth of it.

And Harry interpreted this even better than i wrote it, now that proves it's not about langugae barriers.

[kedaman]

hitcgar, No i haven't read the book, but as usual i don't read books written by religious people about religious issues, but i have as usual my view of the point.

God created all Evil! And the point is the contrast between Evil and Good, our decisions that chooses Evil or Good in different situations, also called Free will. The whole idea about god's creation is that the majority will choose Good before Evil, if there's something i can agree on in the bible, then this would be the most logical statement.

[Gen-X]

Bring him on!!!

If God exists I will stand before him and ask why he created 3 billion people who never knew his existance and would then condemn them to hell simply because he PURPOSELY placed them on the WRONG side of the world.

I don't have a problem with the "evil" in me being judged... I am responsible for my actions and will gladly pay for them with just fashion.


But you expopsed yourself mate.... I can see now why you believe in religion... you are terrified of what will happen if you don't, you got suckered into the "Can I afford to be wrong?". It catches most of them ;)

Kedaman

Harry understood where you were coming from as did I... Why do you think he said BOTH of us were right???? because we both were.. just on different topics.

The language barrier exists because you keep thinking YOUR topics are the same as MY topics and to be honest and I hate to say this but every single time you post a reply I am left wondering if you were actually reading the same forum I am.

Now I will fully admit part of this is my fault, but you can't change the facts so why do we keep trying?

[HarryW]

I don't see it as a language barrier. Kedaman has brought up new topics, not necessarily in answer to your questions but related to what he's talking about. Whose topics are more important? Nobody's - this is a free discussion and Kedaman is not obliged to stick to topics that you define and neither are you obliged to stick to topics he brings up.

If you understood everything he said, why did you complain about it making very little sense? "Translated the words are used in contexts that are alien to the meaning of the words themselves." The words and the context made sense to me, were you deliberately misinterpreting the prose?

[Gen-X]

Let me explain it more simply.


Kedaman: Look at this lovely red apple
Gen-X: I disagree, the apple is actually green
Kedaman: No your wrong, the banana peel proves it
Gen-X: What? We were talking about apples
Kedaman: I know, so am I, why can't you see the banana peel?


Yeah sure its fine to change subjects and bring up new ones... but when you start a conversation about something, someone makes a comment ABOUT the conversation you brought up you don't change the subject in the middle of the answer and start bringing up NEW things saying they directly answer the OLD thing.

That is why you understood BOTH of our sides... because you were looking at it as individual and seperate entities... I however was trying to work out how what Kedaman said actually answered what I was saying "assuming" that we were still on the same issue... I had no idea he had jumped off onto another one.

I understand perfectly what he said... it just happens to be a totally different topic to the one we WERE discussing and so his answer is "completely alien" in the context of the topic at hand.

I hope that makes sense but I fear it wont because all you ever seem to want to do Harry is object for the sake of it and even when someone does explain something you will be DAMNED if you ever admit a misunderstanding on your part.

[Edneeis]

Gen-X you seem to be a very intelligent person who believes strongly in logic and science. Do you believe exerything can be proven or it is false? Do you believe everything has a scientific explanation? What about things like Love or Loyality can they be proven?

I am not trying to disagree with you as much as you have expressed much about how you feel and I am just curious about your fellings on these subjects.

[Iain17]

hitcgar

It seems we have another over zealous believer in the discussion now. First let me ask you a question, have you read all of the posts scattered through the many threads, and if you have, have you gained anything from them, or have you just blocked it all out?

Does it not strike you as funny that we are supposed to fear god. This all loving, all forgiving, all perfect God, is supposed to keep us in mortal terror. Would you seriously consider raising a child like that. Constantly terrorising him. Threatening him with physical abuse or with eternal damnation. I cant really see that happening, and if you were to raise a child like that, how would you expect him to turn out. I would propose there is one of two main ways. The child would either be completely brain washed, scared to do anything at all in case they got it wrong. Or they would rebel, and turn into the evil that you told them not to be.

This is what i feel religion has produced. We have mass brain washing going on, and the beautiful thing is, none of you can see it. For years the church repressed new ideas, and new ways of thinking, because it undermined their power. If they were so sure they were right in the first place, and that they had god on their side, then why were they so scared.

What really gets to me though, is that people who believe in God, have such a high opinion of themselves and their deeds. Just because you believe in God does not make you a good person, and just because i refuse to be brain washed doesn't mean i am the eternal evil that you have to frown upon. In fact, i consider myself to be a very good person. Yes i have my faults, i am not denying that. What i am saying is that i will admit my faults, i know they are there, where as you seem to beleive that just because you beleive in God, you are excused from everything.

So in the words of Winston Churchill

I am ready to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.



Kedaman

I am not really sure where we are going with this scope of humanity thing. However, while humanity has a very broad scope, it also has a very narrow scope. Humanities scope does not cover the scope of every individual, it coves what the norm wants.

Individual scope obviously resides with the person in question, this can be as narrow, or broad as the person chooses to make it. However, when people have a narrow scope, that is when they make the most progress. They are concentrating on one important thing, so they give it all they have, rather than spreading themselves out over many topics. Hence why the individual is just as important to furthering our understanding of things, as society as a whole.

[kedaman]

Iain

They are concentrating on one important thing, so they give it all they have, rather than spreading themselves out over many topics. Hence why the individual is just as important to furthering our understanding of things, as society as a whole.

Correct, if you look at my example with the spotlights, then you notice i said if the spotlight all were on the same spot, you would see it a lot more detailed than if they were spread out. That's the point with people verifying each others information by comparing them. Now you bent this by looking at one individual, but it works for me and my example too.

The other point, the one that Gen-x and I am arguing about, is that the rest of the room is in complete darkness, if the spotlights were spread out then you could get a picture of the whole room but now when were stuck on earth with 99% identical DNA how could we ever imagine what universe looks like?

Now this is just an idea as i said, and it's only related to the main topic on that qwestion "What should be taken for truth?"

Gen-x
Did I say anything about banana peels? Did I say anything about prooving?

No but i did use the logic that Harry accepted. If it's the connection between the topics then look at my topic tree.

[hitcgar]

Well here we go again.

1. Religious books written by religious people.

Pure (and very typical) assumption. Lewis can hardly be
called religious. The abolition of man is even less
religious. This short treatise and the "Problem of pain"
are masterpieces of logic. Besides, there 2 ways of
defining religious. - church, do this & don't do that or
else, bondage to a wrong fear of God, merit based on deeds,
etc. Or as the bible defines true religion:


Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress
and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.


I've read enough non-religious so-called "logical" crap to make your head spin.

And yes I have read many of the postings in this thread.
Much of which I would simply define as I did in my first
post - the same age-old arguments - rehashed by this
generation's "thinkers" who have neither the courage nor
the honesty to read the thousands of refutations printed
over the last 1500 years. I haven't read them all because
I actually work for a living. As a supposedly "brain-
washed" systems architect.

2. God does not terrify me. He is my Father. But, as I
stated and you obviously didn't accept or perhaps even
understand, He is also a righteous Father who keeps me
through His immense love and grace - grace is unmerited
favor. He is also the ruler of all. And, as clearly
stated in the bible, He will judge the world in justice.
And that is why you self-righteous rebels against Him
should be in fact terrified. If I were a criminal I would
be afraid of the police and of finding myself in jail.

"fear god" the fear of God in the bible means "respect,
reverance" the kind of "fear" you excercise towards your
Dad when your young and if you've done wrong the kind you
have to cops.

It doesn't mean terror. That's the kind of fear demons have of God - and with good reason.

God's sanctions to moral law are not threats anymore than the promise of traffic tickets are threats to road infractions or life emprisonment is a threat to murderers.

(Who brain washed you with that very negative and erroneous view?)

Hell is the prison of the universe where those who have willfully choosen to follow satan will end up as the sentence to their crimes against Deity. It's a scarey place.

But I don't follow God's way for fear of hell but because He's right.

And at one point in my life I discovered that I was wrong
and had offended Him and needed to "apologise" and change
my ways.

Most of you who refuse to believe have one clear reason,
often hidden beneath all the excuses and rhetoric, fear of
having to give up some (or many) cherished sin(s).

Those who are genuinely honest will eventually find Him.
If you do you will be, as Lewis descibed in his experience
after spending many years as a sworn atheist philosopher
(professor - Cambridge) and then "finding God", "surprised
by joy".

3. Brain washing! Ha! That one is really ironic. Who is
the more brain washed? The vast majority of society today
utterly rejects God, His ways & Word for belief in an
impossible system of false-science which "believes" very
religiously in the doctrine of evolution no matter how
ridiculous it gets.

Birds from dinosaurs, man from monkeys, life from chance
occurrences of unknown biochemical processes that do not
exist today and so have never been and indeed cannot be
proven.

Well I'll tell you by what process the theory of evolution
functions. It's called magic.

Frogs into princes is just as viable. And still with all of
nature and all of the universe surrounding you with
unimaginable and infinite evidence for design. Yet you
still refuse to believe and then have the nerve to call
people who have discovered God in all His royal beauty -
brain washed. You are hopelessly brain washed yourselves
by an anti-god world and you can't see it.

Even David Hume, who's writings are still one of the major
influences in atheistic philosophical circles today,
discovered "the Deity" near the end of his life by studying
the human eye. (You might like to read the infamous quote
below)

4. Church repression etc. Yeah I totally agree if you're speaking of the roman catholic church where education itself was repressed for centuries.

So what's that got to do with God? Is He responsible for
the stupidity, crimes and atrocities committed in His name? Crimes that are clearly condemned in His won Word?

Some of the greatest scientists in history were christians.

As Ghandi once said, Jesus Christ I could accept,
were it not for His leperous bride

Fortunatley He is not responsable for all of the foolish actions His bride has done. You cannot escape God by
pointing the finger at those who have acted wrongly in His name.

5. "I'm a very good person". Really? According to who's
rule of measurement? Compare yourself to just one of the
10 commandments say number 10. "you shall not lust" Bye
bye friends we're all guilty as hell! And you know it!

So much for our own goodness. This is why God made
provision for forgiveness through Christ's substitutionary
death. His death in our behalf provided full and adequate
satisfaction to public justice allowing the LawGiver to
accord pardon to repentant criminals without it looking
like He wasn't upholding the sanctions of His own law.

Admitting faults is one thing and of course a good thing
since we all have them. I'm no better than anyone else.
The Word tells me to consider others as better than myself
and to love not only my neighbours but also my enemies
(drives them nuts).

Belief not only does excuse anyone, believer or not, from
anything at all. On the contrary pretense to faith,
knowledge of God's moral law etc implies that you should
"know better" and therefore, as the bible also teaches,
believers are more accountable for their actions than
others. Knowledge of the law, moral light are the only
foundation for the measuring of guilt.

So where do guys get off accusing God of all kinds of evils
when we ourselves are the real guilty parties? Then you
don't stop there you go on and on accusing those who have
found joy and new life and purpose in having been found by
Him.

Free will is the beauty of creation. As Dylan once sang:
Everbody gotta serve somebody God and His ways or Satan and his ways.

If you follow the greatest criminal of all time you'll end
up goin' where he's goin' and if you follow God because
He's right you'll end where He is. You gotta choose - no way out.


Sorry. Lunch is over - gotta get back to work - continue this at next opportunity. ;)

[HarryW]

Gen-X: Err... I didn't realise I was causing a conflict here, I was trying to stop the existing conflict. How could I be misunderstanding when it seems that I have understood what both of you have said? You're not really explaining it, you're just making your usual analogy explaining how Kedaman has talked about something totally OT when we already discussed that it was related to the topic in question. I am objecting not for argument's sake but to stop this from turning into another pointless "Kedaman is an idiot" flame war on your part.

On the topic of the church's oppression of the masses over the years, I agree they have frequently been a pain in the arse. I make a distinction, though, between the kind of organised religious bodies you are referring to and the personal belief an individual might have. You could say Microsoft oppresses the PC-user by monopolising the OS industry, but would you say that operating systems were a bad idea from that? It's not a very directly related analogy, but it'll do. In the past, many children have been brought up with 'the fear of God' instilled in them, and some still do, but I don't think that's the only reason people find that they agree with the fundamental principles of religious life.

[Iain17]

hitcgar

Ok, while that post was an insight into the way you think, and you are not quite as far gone as I was first lead to believe, you still show some of the classic symptoms of denial that a lot of religious people show.

God as the father. This is clearly part of Christianity’s view on God. Now I am sorry we have to go over the same old arguments again, and again, but at the end of the day, we only have certain pieces of “evidence”, and personal experience to work with.

It always has, and probably always will, baffled me as to why people think of God as a loving caring father. Time and time again, God has proven that he has no remorse, and that he cares little for his children. Unless of course, they are his favourites.

I am not happy with this view of God, yet you all seem to forgive / gloss over the facts. If you would snap out of it and finally see that God is not a nice chap when it push comes to shove, you would realise all of this.

And at the end of the day, it does all boil down to fear. Fear God’s wrath, fear Satan, fear eternal damnation, fear, fear, fear. When will you realise that it is all designed to keep you in a state of terror should you try to change your beliefs and undermine the power of the church.

As I have stated before, I will state yet again. If God shows himself to me, or you show me some immutable evidence that proves his existence, then I will change my beliefs.



Point taken about evolution, I have read that quote before about the human eye. Evolution might be unlikely, but not impossible. It is just a theory yes, and if we find a better one, we will adopt that. Though I have just been reading a book on the patterns in nature and the universe, and the number of patterns between nature and how the universe is put together, suggests that life would always turn out this way, and it is not such a chance occurrence after all.

But let’s turn things around now. God is just a theory, but if we find a better one, you will not adopt that. Now how likely is it that God actually exists, and that he created the universe (from every single atom upwards), that he created life on earth, that he created one man and one women and that all life sprang from them, and that he then exists in some mystical place called heaven, and that an eternal evil dwells in hell, and that he decided to nearly wipe out his most loved creation, and that he does not even let some of us know him. Now I ask you, which is the less likely option of these two theories.



I am not escaping God by blaming other peoples actions on him. God has done more that enough horrific things himself for me to reject the idea of a so called Perfect and Loving God.



Yeah, I am a very good person. In my opinion at least ;) But if you want it that way, we can play it that way. You shall not Lust is not one of the ten commandments, and to be perfectly honest, if it was it would be the stupidest one I have ever heard of. It states that “you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife”. This is a very different commandment to what you stated it as. (by the way I am still guilty of it :) ) If we take your commandment, then God does not want the human race to exist, for how are you supposed to sleep with your wife without lust. Is it supposed to be all clinical? I doubt that very much.

Besides which, in societies eyes, and many others I probably am a good person, in your however I am probably considered to be the spawn of Satan. Still never mind hey, ill get over it. By the way, don’t even start on the forgiveness thing. Until God can practice what he preaches, he is the biggest hypocrite of them all.

[Gen-X]

Edneeis

I take it you have not been following anything I have said for the past several months ;)


Do you believe exerything can be proven or it is false?


I believe in the absolute EXACT opposite and if you understood science at all you would realise Science ALSO believes in the opposite.

You can't prove ANYTHING true... you can only prove something FALSE. That is how science works. It puts forward a theory and people try to shoot it down... if it stands the test of time and nobody can provide evidence that invalides it then it is held as a "truth".

They thought the earth was flat... that was the "truth" until someone proved it was a sphere. They thought we were the centre of the universe and again it held TRUE until someone showed we were heliocentric. They think there is a God and one day that too will be proved false.

Does that give you an insight into something I have said perhaps a dozen times already ;)

Iain17

Kudos! Hats off to you for trying with hitcgar.... it takes a certain amount of sheer willpower to keep down your lunch with yet another zealot mouthing off like he is a "chosen one".

Kedaman

Lets just drop that one hey? You ain't getting it... I'm not getting it and Harry is getting everything. :)

Hitcgar

Talk about rehashing the old arguments... your rhetoric is like listening to a tape recording of the other couple of hundred thousand God-washed. Do you have any original comments or statements of your own or can you only repeat those that have been drilled into you?

I look at you in amazement... and wonder in awe at how a person is capable of constructing such an incredible fabrication around himself.. yet there you stand, like someone who is hallucinating and wondering why the rest of the world cannot see your pink flying elephants.


Most of you who refuse to believe have one clear reason,
often hidden beneath all the excuses and rhetoric, fear of
having to give up some (or many) cherished sin(s).


And most of YOU have a clear reason as well... a complete and total innability to function as a human being without the CRUTCH of placing all the responsibility on someone elses shoulders. Your brain CRACKED and the only way you could mend it was to create a God and keep spouting... "He works in mysterious ways" when your wife gets raped and murdered, your children are gay and you find a funny wart on the end of your manhood one morning.


Brain washing! Ha! That one is really ironic. Who is
the more brain washed? The vast majority of society today
utterly rejects God


So its the MAJORITY that are brainwashed and the MINORITY that see clearly?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! :D

My dear fellow... do you understand the concept of learning at all? Go look up the discussion on hypnosis and come back here and tell us how ridiculous it is, thus proving your complete and total brain-washing.


Birds from dinosaurs, man from monkeys, life from chance
occurrences of unknown biochemical processes that do not
exist today and so have never been and indeed cannot be
proven.


Actually, Birds from dinosaurs HAS been proven, Man from Monkeys also though not by darwinian evolution, the process of life is well documented and KNOWN and DO exist today but because you don't live for 2 million years you cannot see it... ALL have withstood many a religous freak such as yourself trying to deny it yet have withstood ALL slings and arrows.

Did you know that every single living creature on the face of this earth share genetics that are 30% similar (was that the figure we ended up with guys?)... even PLANTS?


Is He responsible for
the stupidity, crimes and atrocities committed in His name?


He is when they do it believing as YOU do that they are doing the right thing. You think believing in God is right and just and that anything you do in his name is also as right... other people do it and you suddenly turn coward and say "Thats not God".

How wonderful... Its God when ANYTHING good happens and Man when ANYTHING bad happens... how paranoically convenient for you... Does this malase of yours extend to justify all of your sins?


"I'm a very good person". Really? According to who's
rule of measurement?


Not by your pathetic and 2000 year outdated idiology (I meant to say ideology but my finger slipped).

People like you would kill a doctor because he performs abortions, people like you massacred thousands of people during the inquision....

We tout "Thou shalt not murder" and you find justification in your actions by saying it is NOT murder when YOU do it.

What a f#*king hypocrit!!!!

Harry

I have changed my tune... Kedaman is NOT an idiot (appologies for my misdiagnosis), we just have an innability to communicate on the same topic or even know when we are both on the same topic.

All

I just love it how people dispute every shred of science ever put forward but then believe with absolute surity about a book that was written 2000 years ago by a collection of people as the absolute BE-ALL-and-END-ALL of what is true...

Doesn't that just SMACK of bias to you???

[PS : New thread for people to be blind about coming soon]

[HarryW]

When was it proven that birds came from dinosaurs? I thought this was an ongoing argument that the experts in the field were deeply divided on.

[Gen-X]

Harry

Unless there are some events that occured recently I was not aware of I thought this was now a foregone conclusion.

What are your sources that say its still contentious?

BTW, would appreciate your comment in the other post "If you are Religious... read this"

Die, Thread, Die

[hitcgar]

Last entry - agree with "die, thread, die".

"You shall not Lust is not one of the ten commandments, and to be perfectly honest, if it was it would be the stupidest one I have ever heard of. It states that “you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife”. This is a very different commandment to what you stated it as."

You got it wrong there. lust and covet mean the same thing - desiring that which you have no right to. Now read the rest "...wife...nor anything ..." Besides lust applies to anything - not just sexual stuff.

The greek word translated as lust just means a strong willful desire for what is not right.

The real meaning of this law is that you shall not lust
after anything which is not yours. Lust and sexual desire
are by no means the same thing. I'm married had 4 kids.
The youngest died of a cerebal tumour after 5.5 months of excrutiating and grueling struggle for her life.

I know the difference between normal healthy desire for my wife and lusting after someone else's wife or anything else. This is why the bible refers to idolatry as lust. Anything that overules what God has given in preference to what He has not given - making me overrule His rule is lust - willful desire of a forbidden thing - like me desiring your wife.

I don't consider you to be the "spawn of Satan". In Eastwood's words "we all got it comin'" -(the unforgiven)

fear, fear, fear

There is no fear in love. Perfect love casts out fear. 1 John.
And there is only one perfect love - God's.

"immutable evidence that proves his existence"
What you all need is immutable evidence that proves He doesn't exist!

And where are you going to find that?

"The spherical world"?

The bible (Isa. 40 etc.)said the world was round centuries before scientists ever thought of it.

"Your brain CRACKED and the only way you could mend it was to create a God and keep spouting... "

Same old technique of insults and intimidation when you can't stand the truth huh?

"ridiculous it is, thus proving your complete and total brain-washing."

Don't need to. It's too foolish to even try. Who hypnotised you?

"Actually, Birds from dinosaurs HAS been proven, Man from Monkeys also though not by darwinian evolution, the process of life is well documented and KNOWN and DO exist today but because you don't live for 2 million years you cannot see it... "

On the contrary it is called a theory because it never has
even come close to being proven. And the process by which
one species changes into another has never even come close
to being explained except in sci-fi trash mags and evolutionary faery-tale mags of course.

Mutations are always coupled with many negative effects that corrupt the gene pool - they don't help it. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a proven "law" and is in very nature contrary to evolutionary theories.

Everything deteriorates if left to itself over time - it certain doesn't improve on it's own.

The birds from dinosaurs theory is still magic and carries a blatant illustration the logical fallacies.

The fallacy of 'before this therefore because of this'
which is similar to the religion of evolution that says
'like this therefore related to this' which is a reasoning
error that wouldn't stand 5 seconds if applied to informatics. (check your discreet mathematics books from
university)

"...many a religous freak such as yourself trying to deny it yet have withstood ALL slings and arrows. "

You should really see a psy. it might do you good to get rid of your hatred and bitterness.

"Not by your pathetic and 2000 year outdated idiology (I meant to say ideology but my finger slipped)."

It actually goes back to the begining. And in fact Truth has no begining and can never be outdated.

"People like you would kill a doctor because he performs abortions, people like you massacred thousands of people during the inquision...."

The inquisition was an on-going atrocity engaged by the prostitue, power-mad, demonic roman catholic "church" of
the time - nothing to do with 'people like me' or real xtianity. And a very very far cry from "turn the other cheek, bless them that curse you, do unto others you would have them do to you etc."

165 million xtians were slaughtered from 1900 to 2000 because they believed.

What do you call that! But I will not say that "people like
you" did this. And you are very wrong to say anything of
the kind on my behalf - you know nothing about me except
what your poor atheist thinking has angered you into
imagining however wrong and sick.

"We tout "Thou shalt not murder" and you find justification in your actions by saying it is NOT murder when YOU do it. "

I don't believe in murder. And I don't think anyone who
has killed abortionists, however much I belive them to be
comitting infanticide, is a real "xtian" anyway. Hardly in
line with "love your enemies".

I do understand the desperation of these people though. If abortion is
actually the premeditated and willful taking of human life
(murder) - who can prove it is not? Then it is normal for
people to feel enraged over it and want to do something
radical to stop it - however wrong - when government has
condonned it as legal - however wrong.

50 years ago or so, before a few people decided that a
woman could take the life of her unborn child for the sake
of pure convenience and inspite of it being her own
responsibility, nearly all nations would have been enraged
over the practice as it stands today - more babies killed -
cut to pieces, poisoned by saline injections etc - in their
mother's womb than all the victims of WWII combined.

"What a f#*king hypocrit!!!! " Totally unmerited "friend".

But in spite of the low, bitter, hatefull and childish insults. I am not a hypocrite.
//--------------------
Now Read this you who spout all of that verbal diarrhea about the psy. reasons for belief in God take a good long look at your own heart:

"Professor Paul C. Vitz
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The title of this paper, "The Psychology of Atheism," may seem strange.
Certainly, my psychological colleagues have found it odd and even, I might
add, a little disturbing. After all, psychology, since its founding roughly
a century ago, has often focused on the opposite topic - namely the
psychology of religious belief. Indeed, in many respects the origins of
modern psychology are intimately bound up with the psychologists who
explicitly proposed interpretations of belief in God.

William James and Sigmund Freud, for example, were both personally and
professionally deeply involved in the topic. Recall The Will to Believe by
James, as well as his still famous Varieties of Religious Experience. These
two works are devoted to an attempt at understanding belief as the result of
psychological, that is natural, causes. James might have been sympathetic to
religion, but his own position was one of doubt and skepticism and his
writings were part of psychology's general undermining of religious faith.
As for Sigmund Freud, his critiques of religion, in particular Christianity,
are well known and will be discussed in some detail later. For now, it is
enough to remember how deeply involved Freud and his thought have been with
the question of God and religion.

Given the close involvement between the founding of much of psychology and a
critical interpretation of religion, it should not be surprising that most
psychologists view with some alarm any attempt to propose a psychology of
atheism. At the very least such a project puts many psychologists on the
defensive and gives them some taste of their own medicine. Psychologists are
always observing and interpreting others and it is high time that some of
them learn from their own personal experience what it is like to be put
under the microscope of psychological theory and experiment. Regardless, I
hope to show that the psychological concepts used quite effectively to
interpret religion are two - edged swords that can also be used to interpret
atheism. Sauce for the believer is equally sauce for the unbeliever.

Before beginning, however, I wish to make two points bearing on the
underlying assumption of my remarks. First, I assume that the major barriers
to belief in God are not rational but - in a general sense - can be called
psychological. I do not wish to offend the many distinguished philosophers -
both believers and nonbelievers - in this audience, but I am quite convinced
that for every person strongly swayed by rational argument there are many,
many more affected by nonrational psychological factors.

The human heart - no one can truly fathom it or know all its deceits, but at
least it is the proper task of the psychologist to try. Thus, to begin, I
propose that neurotic psychological barriers to belief in God are of great
importance. What some of these might be I will mention shortly. For
believers, therefore, it is important to keep in mind that psychological
motives and pressures that one is often unaware of, often lie behind
unbelief.

One of the earliest theorists of the unconscious, St. Paul, wrote, "I can
will what is right, but I cannot do it. I see in my members another law at
war with the law of my mind." (Rom. 7:18, 23). Thus, it seems to me sound
theology as well as sound psychology that psychological factors can be
impediments to belief as well as behavior, and that these may often be
unconscious factors as well. Further, as a corollary it is reasonable to
propose that people vary greatly in the extent to which these factors are
present in their lives. Some of us have been blessed with an upbringing, a
temperament, social environment, and other gifts that have made belief in
God a much easier thing than many who have suffered more or have been raised
in a spiritually impoverished environment or had other difficulties with
which to cope. Scripture makes it clear that many children - even into the
third or fourth generation - suffer from the sins of their fathers,
including the sins of fathers who may have been believers. In short, my
first point is that some people have much more serious psychological
barriers to belief than others, a point consistent with the scriptures'
clear statement that we are not to judge others, however much we are called
to correct evil.

My second point as qualification is that in spite of serious difficulties to
belief, all of us still have a free choice to accept God or reject Him. This
qualification is not in contradiction to the first. Perhaps a little
elaboration will make this clearer. One person, as a consequence of his
particular past, present environment, etc., may find it much harder than
most people to believe in God. But presumably, at any moment, certainly at
many times, he can choose to move toward God or to move away. One man may
start with so many barriers that even after years of slowly choosing to move
toward God he may still not be there. Some may die before they reach belief.
We assume they will be judged - like all of us - on how far they traveled
toward God and how well they loved others - on how well they did with what
they had. Likewise, another man without psychological difficulties at all is
still free to reject God, and no doubt many do. Thus, although the ultimate
issue is one of the will and our sinful nature, it is still possible to
investigate those psychological factors that predispose one to unbelief,
that make the road to belief in God especially long and hard.

The Psychology of Atheism: Social and Personal Motives

There seems to be a widespread assumption throughout much of the Western
intellectual community that belief in God is based on all kinds of
irrational immature needs and wishes, but atheism or skepticism is derived
from a rational, no - nonsense appraisal of the way things really are. To
begin a critique of this assumption, I start with my own case history.

As some of you know, after a rather weak, wishy - washy Christian
upbringing, I became an atheist in college in the 1950s and remained so
throughout graduate school and my first years as a young experimental
psychologist on the faculty at New York University. That is, I am an adult
convert or, more technically, a reconvert to Christianity who came back to
the faith, much to his surprise, in my late thirties in the very secular
environment of academic psychology in New York City.

I am not going into this to bore you with parts of my life story, but to
note that through reflection on my own experience it is now clear to me that
my reasons for becoming and for remaining an atheist - skeptic from about
age 18 to 38 were superficial, irrational, and largely without intellectual
or moral integrity. Furthermore, I am convinced that my motives were, and
still are, commonplace today among intellectuals, especially social
scientists.

The major factors involved in my becoming an atheist - although I wasn't
really aware of them at the time - were as follows.

General socialization. An important influence on me in my youth was a
significant social unease. I was somewhat embarrassed to be from the
Midwest, for it seemed terribly dull, narrow, and provincial. There was
certainly nothing romantic or impressive about being from Cincinnati, Ohio
and from a vague mixed German - English - Swiss background. Terribly middle
class. Further, besides escape from a dull, and according to me unworthy,
socially embarrassing past, I wanted to take part in, in fact to be
comfortable in, the new, exciting, even glamorous, secular world into which
I was moving. I am sure that similar motives have strongly influenced the
lives of countless upwardly mobile young people in the last two centuries.
Consider Voltaire, who moved into the glittery, aristocratic, sophisticated
world of Paris, and who always felt embarrassed about his provincial and
nonaristocratic origin; or the Jewish ghettos that so many assimilating Jews
have fled, or the latest young arrival in New York, embarrassed about his
fundamentalist parents. This kind of socialization pressure has pushed many
away from belief in God and all that this belief is associated with for
them.

I remember a small seminar in graduate school where almost every member
there at some time expressed this kind of embarrassment and response to the
pressures of socialization into "modern life." One student was trying to
escape his Southern Baptist background, another a small town Mormon
environment, a third was trying to get out of a very Jewish Brooklyn ghetto,
and the fourth was me.

Specific socialization. Another major reason for my wanting to become an
atheist was that I desired to be accepted by the powerful and influential
scientists in the field of psychology. In particular, I wanted to be
accepted by my professors in graduate school. As a graduate student I was
thoroughly socialized by the specific "culture" of academic research
psychology. My professors at Stanford, however much they might disagree on
psychological theory, were, as far as I could tell, united in only two
things - their intense personal career ambition and their rejection of
religion. As the psalmist says, ". . . The man greedy for gain curses and
renounces the Lord. In the pride of his countenance the wicked does not seek
him; all his thoughts are, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 10:3 - 4).

In this environment, just as I had learned how to dress like a college
student by putting on the right clothes, I also learned to "think" like a
proper psychologist by putting on the right - that is, atheistic - ideas and
attitudes.

Personal convenience. Finally, in this list of superficial, but
nevertheless, strong irrational pressures to become an atheist, I must list
simple personal convenience. The fact is that it is quite inconvenient to be
a serious believer in today's powerful secular and neo - pagan world. I
would have had to give up many pleasures and a good deal of time.

Without going into details it is not hard to imagine the sexual pleasures
that would have to be rejected if I became a serious believer. And then I
also knew it would cost me time and some money. There would be church
services, church groups, time for prayer and scripture reading, time spent
helping others. I was already too busy. Obviously, becoming religious would
be a real inconvenience.

Now perhaps you think that such reasons are restricted to especially callow
young men - like me in my twenties. However, such reasoning is not so
restricted. Here I will take up the case of Mortimer Adler, a well known
American philosopher, writer, and intellectual who has spent much of his
life thinking about God and religious topics. One of his most recent books
is titled How to Think About God: A Guide for the 20th Century Pagan (1980).
In this work, Adler presses the argument for the existence of God very
strongly and by the latter chapters he is very close to accepting the living
God. Yet he pulls back and remains among "the vast company of the
religiously uncommitted" (Graddy, 1982). But Adler leaves the impression
that this decision is more one of will than of intellect. As one of his
reviewers notes (Graddy, 1982), Adler confirms this impression in his
autobiography, Philosopher at Large (1976). There, while investigating his
reasons for twice stopping short of a full religious commitment, he writes
that the answer "lies in the state of one's will, not in the state of one's
mind." Adler goes on to comment that to become seriously religious "would
require a radical change in my way of life . . ." and "The simple truth of
the matter is that I did not wish to live up to being a genuinely religious
person" (Graddy, p. 24).

There you have it! A remarkably honest and conscious admission that being "a
genuinely religious person" would be too much trouble, too inconvenient. I
can't but assume that such are the shallow reasons behind many an
unbeliever's position.

In summary, because of my social needs to assimilate, because of my
professional needs to be accepted as part of academic psychology, and
because of my personal needs for a convenient lifestyle - for all these
needs atheism was simply the best policy. Looking back on these motives, I
can honestly say that a return to atheism has all the appeal of a return to
adolescence.[2]

The Psychology of Atheism: Psychoanalytic Motives

As is generally known, the central Freudian criticism of belief in God is
that such a belief is untrustworthy because of its psychological origin.
That is, God is a projection of our own intense, unconscious desires; He is
a wish fulfillment derived from childish needs for protection and security.
Since these wishes are largely unconscious, any denial of such an
interpretation is to be given little credence. It should be noted that in
developing this kind of critique, Freud has raised the ad hominem argument
to one of wide influence. It is in The Future of an Illusion (1927, 1961)
that Freud makes his position clearest:

[R]eligious ideas have arisen from the same needs as have all the other
achievements of civilization: from the necessity of defending oneself
against the crushing superior force of nature. (p. 21)

Therefore, religious beliefs are:

illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of
mankind. As we already know, the terrifying impression of helplessness in
childhood aroused the need for protection - for protection through love -
which was provided by the father. Thus the benevolent rule of a divine
Providence allays our fear of the danger of life. (p. 30)

Let us look at this argument carefully, for in spite of the enthusiastic
acceptance of it by so many uncritical atheists and skeptics, it is really a
very weak position.

In the first paragraph Freud fails to note that his arguments against
religious belief are, in his own words, equally valid against all the
achievements of civilization, including psychoanalysis itself. That is, if
the psychic origin of an intellectual achievement invalidates its truth
value, then physics, biology, much less psychoanalysis itself, are
vulnerable to the same charge.

In the second paragraph Freud makes another strange claim, namely that the
oldest and most urgent wishes of mankind are for the loving protecting
guidance of a powerful loving Father, for divine Providence. However, if
these wishes were as strong and ancient as he claims, one would expect pre -
Christian religion to have strongly emphasized God as a benevolent father.
In general, this was far from the case for the pagan religion of the
Mediterranean world - and, for example, is still not the case for such
popular religions as Buddhism and for much of Hinduism. Indeed, Judaism and
most especially Christianity are in many respects distinctive in the
emphasis on God as a loving Father.

However, let us put these two intellectual gaffes aside and turn to another
understanding of his projection theory. It can be shown that this theory is
not really an integral part of psychoanalysis - and, thus cannot claim
fundamental support from psychoanalytic theory. It is essentially an
autonomous argument. Actually, Freud's critical attitude toward and
rejection of religion is rooted in his personal predilections and is a kind
of meta psychoanalysis - or background framework which is not well connected
to his more specifically clinical concepts. (This separation or autonomy
with respect to most psychoanalytic theory very likely accounts for its
influence outside of psychoanalysis.) There are two pieces of evidence for
this interpretation of the projection theory.

The first is that this theory had been clearly articulated many years
earlier by Ludwig Feuerbach in his book The Essence of Christianity (1841,
1957). Feuerbach's interpretation was well - known in European intellectual
circles, and Freud, as a youth, read Feuerbach avidly (see Gedo & Pollock,
1976, pp. 47, 350). Here are some representative quotes from Feuerbach which
make this clear:

What man misses - whether this be an articulate and therefore conscious,
or an unconscious, need - that is his God. (1841, 1957, p. 33)

Man projects his nature into the world outside himself before he finds it
in himself. (p. 11)

To live in projected dream - images is the essence of religion. Religion
sacrifices reality to the projected dream. (p. 49)

Many other quotes could be provided in which Feuerbach describes religion in
"Freudian" terms such as wish - fulfillment, etc. What Freud did with this
argument was to revive it in a more eloquent form, and publish it at a later
time when the audience desiring to hear such a theory was much larger. And,
of course, somehow the findings and theory of psychoanalysis were implied as
giving the theory strong support. The Feuerbachian character of Freud's
Illusion position is also demonstrated by such notions as "the crushing
superior force of nature" and the "terrifying impression of helplessness in
childhood," which are not psychoanalytic in terminology or in meaning.

The other piece of evidence for the nonpsychoanalytic basis of the
projection theory comes directly from Freud, who explicitly says so himself.
In a letter of 1927 to his friend Oskar Pfister (an early psychoanalyst, and
believing Protestant pastor), Freud wrote:

Let us be quite clear on the point that the views expressed in my book
(The Future of an Illusion) form no part of analytic theory. They are my
personal views. (Freud/Pfister, 1963, p. 117).

There is one other somewhat different interpretation of belief in God which
Freud also developed, but although this has a very modest psychoanalytic
character, it is really an adaptation of Feuerbachian projection theory.
This is Freud's relatively neglected interpretation of the ego ideal. The
super - ego, including the ego ideal is the "heir of the Oedipus complex,"
representing a projection of an idealized father - and presumably of God the
Father (see Freud, 1923, 1962, pp. 26 - 28; p. 38).

The difficulty here is that the ego ideal did not really receive great
attention or development within Freud's writings. Furthermore, it is easily
interpreted as an adoption of Feuerbach's projection theory. Thus, we can
conclude that psychoanalysis does not in actuality provide significant
theoretical concepts for characterizing belief in God as neurotic. Freud
either used Feuerbach's much older projection or illusion theory or
incorporated Feuerbach in his notion of the ego ideal. Presumably, this is
the reason Freud acknowledged to Pfister that his Illusion book was not a
true part of psychoanalysis.

Atheism as Oedipal Wish Fulfillment

Nevertheless, Freud is quite right to worry that a belief can be an illusion
because it derives from powerful wishes - from unconscious, childish needs.
The irony is that he clearly did provide a very powerful, new way to
understand the neurotic basis of atheism. (For a detailed development of
this position see Vitz and Gartner, 1984a, b; Vitz, 1986, in press.)

The Oedipus Complex

The central concept in Freud's work, aside from the unconscious, is the now
well - known Oedipus Complex. In the case of male personality development,
the essential features of this complex are the following: Roughly in the age
period of three to six the boy develops a strong sexual desire for the
mother. At the same time the boy develops an intense hatred and fear of the
father, and a desire to supplant him, a "craving for power." This hatred is
based on the boy's knowledge that the father, with his greater size and
strength, stands in the way of his desire. The child's fear of the father
may explicitly be a fear of castration by the father, but more typically, it
has a less specific character. The son does not really kill the father, of
course, but patricide is assumed to be a common preoccupation of his
fantasies and dreams. The "resolution" of the complex is supposed to occur
through the boy's recognition that he cannot replace the father, and through
fear of castration, which eventually leads the boy to identify with the
father, to identify with the aggressor, and to repress the original
frightening components of the complex.

It is important to keep in mind that, according to Freud, the Oedipus
complex is never truly resolved, and is capable of activation at later
periods - almost always, for example, at puberty. Thus the powerful
ingredients of murderous hate and of incestuous sexual desire within a
family context are never in fact removed. Instead, they are covered over and
repressed. Freud expresses the neurotic potential of this situation:

The Oedipus - complex is the actual nucleus of neuroses . . . What remains
of the complex in the unconscious represents the disposition to the later
development of neuroses in the adult (Freud, 1919, Standard Edition, 17, p.
193; also 1905, S.E. 7, p. 226ff.; 1909, S.E., 11, p. 47).

In short, all human neuroses derive from this complex. Obviously, in most
cases, this potential is not expressed in any seriously neurotic manner.
Instead it shows up in attitudes toward authority, in dreams, slips of the
tongue, transient irrationalities, etc.

Now, in postulating a universal Oedipus complex as the origin of all our
neuroses, Freud inadvertently developed a straightforward rationale for
understanding the wish - fulfilling origin of rejecting God. After all, the
Oedipus complex is unconscious, it is established in childhood and, above
all, its dominant motive is hatred of the father and the desire for him not
to exist, especially as represented by the desire to overthrow or kill the
father. Freud regularly described God as a psychological equivalent to the
father, and so a natural expression of Oedipal motivation would be powerful,
unconscious desires for the nonexistence of God. Therefore, in the Freudian
framework, atheism is an illusion caused by the Oedipal desire to kill the
father and replace him with oneself. To act as if God does not exist is an
obvious, not so subtle disguise for a wish to kill Him, much the same way as
in a dream, the image of a parent going away or disappearing can represent
such a wish: "God is dead" is simply an undisguised Oedipal wish -
fulfillment.

It is certainly not hard to understand the Oedipal character of so much
contemporary atheism and skepticism. Hugh Heffner, even James Bond, with
their rejection of God plus their countless girls, are so obviously living
out Freud's Oedipal and primal rebellion (e.g., Totem and Taboo). So are
countless other skeptics who live out variations of the same scenario of
exploitative sexual permissiveness combined with narcissistic self -
worship.

And, of course, the Oedipal dream is not only to kill the father and possess
the mother or other women in the group but also to displace him. Modern
atheism has attempted to accomplish this. Now man, not God, is the
consciously specified ultimate source of goodness and power in the universe.
Humanistic philosophies glorify him and his "potential" much the same way
religion glorifies the Creator. We have devolved from one God to many gods
to everyone a god. In essence, man - through his narcissism and Oedipal
wishes - has tried to succeed where Satan failed, by seating himself on the
throne of God. Thanks to Freud it is now easier to understand the deeply
neurotic, thoroughly untrustworthy psychology of this unbelief.

One interesting example of the Oedipal motivation proposed here is that of
Voltaire, a leading skeptic about all things religious who denied the
Christian and Jewish notion of a personal God - of God as a Father. Voltaire
was a theist or deist who believed in a cosmic, depersonalized God of
unknown character.

The psychologically important thing about Voltaire is that he strongly
rejected his father - so much that he rejected his father's name and took
the name "Voltaire." It is not exactly certain where the new name came from
but one widely held interpretation is that it was constructed from the
letters of his mother's last name. When Voltaire was in his early twenties
(in 1718), he published a play entitled "Oedipus" (Edipe), the first one of
his plays to be publicly performed. The play itself recounts the classic
legend with heavy allusions to religious and political rebellion. Throughout
his life, Voltaire (like Freud) toyed with the idea that he was not his
father's son. He apparently felt the desire to be from a higher, more
aristocratic family than his actual middle - class background. (A major
expression of this concern with having a more worthy father is the play
Candide.) In short, Voltaire's hostility to his own father, his religious
rejection of God the Father, and his political rejection of the king - an
acknowledged father figure - are all reflections of the same basic needs.
Psychologically speaking, Voltaire's rebellion against his father and
against God are easily interpretable as Oedipal wish fulfillment, as
comforting illusions, and therefore, following Freud, as beliefs and
attitudes unworthy of a mature mind.

Diderot, the great Encyclopaedist and an avowed atheist - indeed he is one
of the founding brothers of modern atheism - also had both Oedipal
preoccupation and insight. Freud approvingly quotes Diderot's anticipatory
observation:

If the little savage were left to himself, preserving all his foolishness
and adding to the small sense of a child in the cradle the violent passions
of a man of thirty, he would strangle his father and lie with his mother
(from Le neveau de Rameau; quoted by Freud in Lecture XXI of his
Introductory Lectures (1916 - 1917), S.E., 16, pp. 331 - 338).

The Psychology of Atheism: The Theory of Defective Father

I am well aware of the fact that there is good reason to give only limited
acceptance to Freud's Oedipal theory. In any case, it is my view that
although the Oedipus complex is valid for some, the theory is far from being
a universal representation of unconscious motivation. Since there is need
for deeper understanding of atheism and since I don't know of any
theoretical framework - except the Oedipal one - I am forced to sketch out a
model of my own, or really to develop an undeveloped thesis of Freud. In his
essay on Leonardo da Vinci, Freud made the following remark:

Psychoanalysis, which has taught us the intimate connection between the
father complex and belief in God, has shown us that the personal God is
logically nothing but an exalted father, and daily demonstrates to us how
youthful persons lose their religious belief as soon as the authority of the
father breaks down (Leonardo da Vinci, 1910, 1947 p. 98).

This statement makes no assumptions about unconscious sexual desires for the
mother, or even about presumed universal competitive hatred focused on the
father. Instead he makes the simple easily understandable claim that once a
child or youth is disappointed in and loses his or her respect for their
earthly father, then belief in their heavenly Father becomes impossible.
There are, of course, many ways that a father can lose his authority and
seriously disappoint a child. Some of these ways - for which clinical
evidence is given below - are:

1. He can be present but obviously weak, cowardly, and unworthy of respect -
even if otherwise pleasant or "nice."
2. He can be present but physically, sexually, or psychologically abusive.
3. He can be absent through death or by abandoning or leaving the family.

Taken all together these proposed determinants of atheism will be called the
"defective father" hypothesis. To support the validity of this approach, I
will conclude by providing case history material from the lives of prominent
atheists, for it was in reading the biographies of atheists that this
hypothesis first struck me.

We begin with Sigmund Freud's relationship to his father. That Freud's
father, Jacob, was a deep disappointment - or worse - is generally agreed to
by his biographers. (For the supporting biographical material on Freud see,
for example, Krull, 1979, and Vitz, 1983, 1986.) Specifically, his father
was a weak man unable to financially provide for his family. Instead money
for support seems to have been provided by his wife's family and others.
Furthermore, Freud's father was passive in response to anti - Semitism.
Freud recounts an episode told to him by his father in which Jacob allowed
an anti - Semite to call him a dirty Jew and to knock his hat off. Young
Sigmund, on hearing the story, was mortified at his father's failure to
respond, at his weakness. Sigmund Freud was a complex and in many respects
ambiguous man, but all agree that he was a courageous fighter and that he
greatly admired courage in others. Sigmund, as a young man, several times
stood up physically against anti - Semitism - and, of course, he was one of
the greatest of intellectual fighters.

Jacob's actions as a defective father, however, probably go still deeper.
Specifically, in two of his letters as an adult, Freud writes that his
father was a sexual pervert and that Jacob's own children suffered from
this. There are also other possible moral disasters that I have not bothered
to note.

The connection of Jacob to God and religion was also present for his son.
Jacob was involved in a kind of reform Judaism when Freud was a child, the
two of them spent hours reading the Bible together, and later Jacob became
increasingly involved in reading the Talmud and in discussing Jewish
scripture. In short, this weak, rather passive "nice guy," this schlemiel,
was clearly connected to Judaism and God, and also to a serious lack of
courage and quite possibly to sexual perversion and other weaknesses very
painful to young Sigmund.

Very briefly, other famous atheists seem to have had a similar relationship
to their fathers. Karl Marx made it clear that he didn't respect his father.
An important part in this was that his father converted to Christianity -
not out of any religious conviction - but out of a desire to make life
easier. He assimilated for convenience. In doing this Marx's father broke an
old family tradition. He was the first in his family who did not become a
rabbi; indeed, Karl Marx came from a long line of rabbis on both sides of
his family.

Ludwig Feuerbach's father did something that very easily could have deeply
hurt his son. When Feuerbach was about 13, his father left his family and
openly took up living with another woman in a different town. This was in
Germany in the early 1800s and such a public rejection would have been a
scandal and deeply rejecting to young Ludwig - and, of course, to his mother
and the other children.

Let us jump 100 years or so and look at the life of one of America's best
known atheists - Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Here I will quote from her son's
recent book on what life was like in his family when he was a child.
(Murray, 1982) The book opens when he is 8 - years - old: "We rarely did
anything together as a family. Hatred between my grandfather and mother
barred such wholesome scenes." (p. 7) He writes that he really didn't know
why his mother hated her father so much - but hate him she did, for the
opening chapter records a very ugly fight in which she attempts to kill her
father with a 10 - inch butcher knife. Madalyn failed but screamed, "I'll
see you dead. I'll get you yet. I'll walk on your grave!" (p. 8)

Whatever the cause of O'Hair's intense hatred of her father, it is clear
from this book that it was deep and that it went back into her childhood -
and at least psychological (e.g. p. 11) and possibly physical abuse is a
plausible cause.

Besides abuse, rejection, or cowardice, one way in which a father can be
seriously defective is simply by not being there. Many children, of course,
interpret death of their father as a kind of betrayal or an act of
desertion. In this respect it is remarkable that the pattern of a dead
father is so common in the lives of many prominent atheists.

Baron d'Holbach (born Paul Henri Thiry), the French rationalist and probably
the first public atheist, is apparently an orphan by the age of 13 and
living with his uncle. (From whom he took the new name Holbach.) Bertrand
Russell's father died when young Bertrand was 4 - years - old; Nietzsche was
the same age as Russell when he lost his father; Sartre's father died before
Sartre was born and Camus was a year old when he lost his father. (The above
biographical information was taken from standard reference sources.)
Obviously, much more evidence needs to be obtained on the "defective father"
hypothesis. But the information already available is substantial; it is
unlikely to be an accident.

The psychology of how a dead or nonexistent father could lay an emotional
base for atheism might not seem clear at first glance. But, after all, if
one's own father is absent or so weak as to die, or so untrustworthy as to
desert, then it is not hard to place the same attribute on your heavenly
Father.

Finally, there is also the early personal experience of suffering, of death,
of evil, sometimes combined with anger at God for allowing it to happen. Any
early anger at God for the loss of a father and the subsequent suffering is
still another and different psychology of unbelief, but one closely related
to that of the defective father.

Some of this psychology is captured in Russell Baker's recent autobiography.
(Baker, 1982) Russell Baker is the well - known journalist and humorous
writer for the New York Times. His father was taken to the hospital and died
there suddenly when young Russell was five. Baker wept and sorrowed and
spoke to the family housekeeper, Bessie:

For the first time I thought seriously about God. Between sobs I told
Bessie that if God could do things like this to people, then God was hateful
and I had no more use for Him.
Bessie told me about the peace of Heaven and the joy of being among the
angels and the happiness of my father who was already there. The argument
failed to quiet my rage.
"God loves us all just like His own children," Bessie said.
"If God loves me, why did He make my father die?"
Bessie said that I would understand someday, but she was only partly
right. That afternoon, though I couldn't have phrased it this way then, I
decided that God was a lot less interested in people than anybody in
Morrisonville was willing to admit. That day I decided that God was not
entirely to be trusted.
After that I never cried again with any real conviction, nor expected much
of anyone's God except indifference, nor loved deeply without fear that it
would cost me dearly in pain. At the age of five I had become a skeptic
(Growing Up, p. 61).

Let me conclude by noting that however prevalent the superficial motives for
being an atheist, there still remain in many instances the deep and
disturbing psychological sources as well. However easy it may be to state
the hypothesis of the "defective father," we must not forget the difficulty,
the pain, and complexity that lie behind each individual case. And for those
whose atheism has been conditioned by a father who rejected, who denied, who
hated, who manipulated, or who physically or sexually abused them, there
must be understanding and compassion. Certainly for a child to be forced to
hate his own father - or even to despair because of his father's weaknesses
is a great tragedy. After all, the child only wants to love his father. For
any unbeliever whose atheism is grounded in such experience, the believer,
blessed by God's love, should pray most especially that ultimately they will
both meet in heaven. Meet and embrace and experience great joy. If so,
perhaps the former atheist will experience even more joy than the believer.
For, in addition to the happiness of the believer, the atheist will have
that extra increment that comes from his surprise at finding himself
surrounded by joy in, of all places, his Father's house.

REFERENCES

Adler, M. (1976). Philosopher at large. New York: Macmillan.

Adler, M. (1980). How to think about God: A guide to the twentieth century
pagan. New York: Macmillan.

Baker, R. (1982). Growing up. New York: Congdon & Weed.

Feuerbach, L. (1891/1957). The essence of Christianity. Ed. and abridged by
E. G. Waring & F. W. Strothman. New York: Ungar.

Freud, S. (1910/1947). Leonardo da Vinci, New York: Random.

Freud, S. (1927/1961). The future of an illusion. New York: Norton.

Freud S. (1923/1962). The ego and the id. New York: Norton.

Freud S. & Pfister, 0. (1963). Psychoanalysis and faith: The letters of
Sigmund Freud and Oskar Pfister. New York: Basic.

Gedo, J. E. & Pollock, G. H. (Eds.). (1967). Freud: The fusion of science
and humanism. New York: International University.

Graddy, W.E. (1982, June). The uncrossed bridge. New Oxford Review, 23-24.

Krull, M. (1979). Freud und sein Vater. Munich: Beck. Murray, W.J. (1982).
My life without God. Nashville, TN: Nelson.

Vitz, P.C. (1983). Sigmund Freud's attraction to Christianity: Biographical
evidence. Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought, 6, 73-183.

Vitz, P.C. (1986). Sigmund Freud's Christian unconscious. New York:
Guilford, in press.

Vitz, P.C. & Gartner, J. (1984a). Christianity and psychoanalysis, part 1:
Jesus as the anti-Oedipus. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 12, 4-14.

Vitz, P.C., & Gartner, J. (1984b). Christianity and psychoanalysis, part 2:
Jesus the transformer of the super-ego. Journal of Psychology and Theology,
12, 82-89.

FOOTNOTES

1. Address: New York University, Department of Psychology, 6 Washington
Place, New York 10003.
2. I understand there is a sequel to the story of Adler. I've recently been
told that about 2 years ago Adler became a Christian, and Anglican.

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

copyright (c) 1995-1997 Leadership U. All rights reserved.
//---------------------


A. Einstein
I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
God is subtle, but he is not malicious.
God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.

Blake
God forbid that Truth should be confined to Mathematical Demonstration!
Notes on Reynold's Discourses



God bless you all. Hope you all find Him in His magnificent Light.

I'm outta here. Don't need the insults and all of the
"pretzel logic - high in fibre makes great ****". Insults
are below you, gentlemen, and I will not waste my time
paticipating in insult forums with manipulation tactics or
base and mean comments intended to intimidate, anger and
manipulate. Good luck to the rest.

Hope to see you on VB coding forums :p

[Edited by hitcgar on 09-22-2000 at 08:40 PM]

[HarryW]

I think it may have been something in New Scientist a couple of months ago, or on TV perhaps. I think there were more people of the opinion that birds came from dinosaurs than those who thought otherwise, and the argument for it was quite convincing, but there were many experts in the field giving contrary opinions. Not that this necessarily means it's wrong of course - remember Einstein's thoughts on randomness? Oh yes, I forgot, you don't agree with that :D (Btw that was a small joke, I don't want to turn this into another randomness thread, it may never dies if that happens :))

[Das Mad]

If god exists then he got a very bad personality.

If a programmer Creates a Program and the program doesn't
do the things it was supposed to. A good programmer with a
bit of sense realize that it's his own fault.

Agree ?

God created Adam and Eve.
They didn't do what they where supposed to.
So the way I see it, if God exists then he is not
worth being it.

[HarryW]

If God messed up when he created you, who are you but an accidental cock up to say he did wrong?

[Iain17]

hitcgar

Well thanks for that, my garden is now blooming thanks to all that fertiliser you provided.

Seriously though, I take back my comments saying that you weren’t as far gone as I first thought. That post has just made me realise that you are probably the blindest of the blind. Do you have any ideas of your own, or are you just regurgitating what they spoon feed you?

Well I did manage to wade through it all, though only once, there is only so much contrived crap I can withstand in one lifetime. Ok, insults aside, I should be bigger than that, but I fell it is the only way to get you to pay attention, and to make you listen.


Now for crying out load, when you are wrong have the grace to admit it. YOU quite clearly stated the following.


Compare yourself to just one of the
10 commandments say number 10. "you shall not lust" Bye
bye friends we're all guilty as hell! And you know it!


Now this cannot be taken in any other way. You quite clearly state “you shall not lust”. I proposed that it was a damn stupid law, and you then go and work your way around it. Next time, get the commandment right in the first place, you’re the religious one, not me. I shouldn’t be teaching you things that you should have learnt in Sunday school.



As for that rather extensive quote, I don’t have the time or the patience to sift through it all and argue with specific points, so let us take a more general view.

Take me as an example. My father is not missing, has never deserted me, in fact he has always been there, he is in fact as close as damn it to being a perfect father as anyone could wish for. I also have a great deal of respect for him. In fact, my father is the man I most respect in the whole world.

As for the other idea on believing in God being to much trouble, that is the biggest pile of bull-**** I have ever heard. It would be just as easy for me to be a believer as it is for me not to believe. And if you think you have to go to church services / church groups and set aside time for reading the bible every night if you are going to believe in god, then you are, to be blunt, a complete idiot.

[Gen-X]

hitcgar

I liken Christians to people with mental disorders and people chew me out.... Yet I have proof standing right in front of me :)

Interesting postulations.... pity they are the constructed works of someone with just enough knowledge to be dangerous and an almost pathological insecurity in NEEDING to believe in what he says.

Its harder NOT believing in a God than doing so... When you don't you must face death, oblivion and the consequences of your own actions... When you believe in a God you will end up in Heaven, are always looked after, there is a reason for everything and just fling out a few "Hail Mary's" or "Forgive me Fathers" and you are no longer responsible for the attrocities you commit.

Iain

Where DO they come from???

Have you noticed that so soon after I postuated Mikeycorn was in fact someone else on this forum he promptly disappeared? And that now we are "suddenly" seeing someone with few posts once more and the same psychologically imbalanced views of the importance of their own religion and the same silver tongue con-artists use to fleece their "prey"?

Mmmmmm... There is something in that methinks.

:D

I dont' want to get into the debate on the bible but wanted to clear up some issues I read in the first few posts on evolution. if this has been done, sorry. i haven't got time to read 229 posts on this.

Man did not evolve from apes. Man an ape have the closest lineal relative. What that means is man and ape evolved from the same ancestor.

That is why man and ape coexist in special time. Another important point is that survival of the fittest does not mean ability to out live another species, it means the ability for a species to adapt to their environment and persist. Sometimes the environment changes to that a species dies off, sometimes it means a new species occupies a different environment and flourishes there.

Evolution does NOT disprove the existence of a primary mover or God. It simply describes a process. You have to accept the fact that species evolve. Just like you have to accept the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun. If you remember, Gallileo was excommunicated from the Church for his belief in that theory. We accept it today. Btw, the Earth isn't round either. Faith and science can coexist.

[Gen-X]

I guess it depends on what your definition of "faith" and "science" are ;)

Personally I would say they cannot coexist but then again people disagree with my definition of "faith" despite every dictionary in the world saying so.

Faith is all about "I shall believe what you tell me without question, without support, without evidence".

Science is all about "Ok, so now you have told me. Why? How? When? Where? How often? What quantity? But it contradicts this, that can't happen if this happens, etc, etc"


If you then give "Faith" a status of being a "virtue" then it makes it a SIN to even question something.... hence the most "holy" of people are those who do not question but merely follow what they are told.



As for apes, I think you are right there... hence the reason they have never been able to find the "missing link"... because there is no link.

I do however dispute the concept of evolution as told by Darwin, I dispute the entire concept of evolution via mutation as it doesn't explain the spontaneous multiple mutation of a global population of one species. But I have said this before...

[kedaman]

Science is the belief in that truth is what is prooved by logic and evidence, no matter if you see or don't see the flaws.

[kedaman]

"If pushed too hard, if you find you are running out of excuses then get out of there before your faith is lost"

Wasn't this something you posted Gen-X`?

[Gen-X]

Wasn't this something you posted Gen-X`?


Yes it was something I posted... and its the indicator that seperates the men from the boys ;)

Actually it tells whether you are looking at something for truth or just to establish your faith.

I don't think faith is what you said it is... though I understand where you are coming from.

"Faith" is going "Ok, I accept what you say is true"

"Science" is going "Your last 10 proposals came back true, you have validated yourself as a source of credibility, I have also done some preliminary research into what you say and find it consistent and have analysed it both logically and can confirm that for all intention purposes it sounds very feasible and I cannot find flaw in it"


Now if you want to claim the second still has "faith" in it then we have totally different ideas of what the word faith means... So unless you are going to start using mine or I am going to start using yours... it would be a fools errand to try and discuss it with such different terminology.

[flying_pigglet]

This thread is extremely long and interesting.
I read the first page and then jumped to the last.
The debate continues.

We all live in this world. We all think differently.
Why? Because we have different genes and we are
taught differently.

We are all temporary.

Life is function-driven. The ultimate function is to
pass on the messages to the next object. Life is a
VB program took millions of years to write; then it
came to a stage where the program starts to decode
itself, and the environment -- our operating system,
the universe.

Bible is a function. Science is another function.
What's wrong with a function? If it works, it is
a good function. Up to now, both functions are
working, in different people's brains.

I bet there must be other life forms out there in
the universe, but not many intelligent ones.

flying_pigglet@yahoo.com