A QUESTION FOR THEISTS

mrOriginal
atheist
mrOriginal's picture
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-02-26
User is offlineOffline
A QUESTION FOR THEISTS

 I have a question for Theists.

 

You believe that God created you, and everything else. Yet, you cannot prove it, and still decide to believe.

Being such experts on the orgins of life in the Universe answer this.

If you believe in "Creation"

 

Then what created "God"?

 

It is a contradiction to preach Creationism and then keep your "creator" exempt from that belief. 

 

I don't want to hear any of that 'God just IS crap, or there always was GOD", or "because the bible says so"  Give me come concrete God evidence and I will become a believer on the spot. Have God stop by my house, or send me and email or something...or better yet, ask him to respond to this post, when in doubt, go to the source right?

Believing in creation implies that something had to come before something, that came before something, that came before something else..and so on.

So please educate me on the mysteries of the entire Universe without ever getting off our planet.

 

Thanks,

 

Mr. O

"Whoever feels predestined to see and not to believe will find all believers too noisy and pushy: he guards against them."

Friedrich Nietzsche


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
JV wrote: First we have to

JV wrote:

 First we have to define our terms. What do you mean by God? Do you mean invisible sky-daddy who grants wishes? If so, then I agree. There is no God. 

On the other hand. If we were to say that creation is not separate or distinct from God, but is an extension of God, then God exists by definition; we defined him that way. But that doesn't really explain anything.

So what is God? God is the mysterious origin of all, the infinitesimal point at the very beginning and center of creation. He is also the infinite circumference of all; he is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end of all and everything. He exists prior to creation and simultaneously encompasses the whole. 

Such lofty concepts. Clearly beyond human comprehension and practically devoid of meaning. 

Is that even rational?

Sure, if you're a pragmatist. The whole point to this (in part at least) is to begin to see the connectedness, the interdependence, the unity of creation; to feel a reverence for the Universe and its workings. To wonder with a sense of astonishment and awe.

In other words, the concept of God is useful for meditation, as food for thought. It's fun to ponder such lofty concepts. And it works. You may begin to feel more connected to things, more a part of something bigger than yourself. (Of course this doesn't excuse typical religious beliefs.)

Besides, it takes a mind to distinguish one thing from another. Things have no REAL independent existence. That is where true rational thought begins: at the beginning. 

That is all very fine, but that is not the Abrahamic God, why use the word which has so much baggage attached?

'God' is really a childish concept, not a lofty one.

'Creation' is not all that unified - distant galaxies can have little or no meaningful connection with us, given the distances involved. It would take many billions of years to reach the further galaxies, at the speed of light, so it is meaningless to say we have any real connection with them. We are certainly in no way interdependent.

Even on our earthly scale, it takes an even more truly rational mind to see those ideas of 'the interdependence of everything' as simplistic hippie/mystic warm fuzziness.

A more discerning view sees that there are assemblages of substance, bundles of ideas, memeplexes, which have sufficient independence from their surrounds to be more usefully treated as independent entities than as just part of 'everything'. We see that the degree of interconnectness of things varies over a very wide spectrum.

A better insight is to grasp the complexity of reality, how complex things can arise from the most simple, how randomness and unpredictability can arise from the 'deterministic', and vice versa. How far beyond our direct comprehension the ultimate nature of reality is, yet how much we have managed to model and manipulate. How even what we perceive as basics, namely time and space, are malleable and relative, rather than absolutes, as our naive intuition would tell us.

And that points to our most consistent failing in trying to grasp reality, our excessive trust in our intuition.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


War_Pig
War_Pig's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2011-10-31
User is offlineOffline
I'm not sure how (or even

I'm not sure how (or even if) this is supposed to be a compelling argument. Something has always existed (or so my better judgement tells me), so why should God be exempt?

 

God is being, and existence itself.

Asking the question "who created God?" is similar to asking who decided that 1 and 1 make 2.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
War_Pig wrote:I'm not sure

War_Pig wrote:

I'm not sure how (or even if) this is supposed to be a compelling argument. Something has always existed (or so my better judgement tells me), so why should God be exempt?

God is being, and existence itself.

Asking the question "who created God?" is similar to asking who decided that 1 and 1 make 2.

No, God is proposed as 'a' being with will and intent and many other attributes, which make no sense as applied to 'existence' itself.

Personifying existence is a poetic metaphor, not an argument for anything, You have actually reduced God to merely a 'cool' thought.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
War_Pig wrote: God is being,

War_Pig wrote:
God is being, and existence itself.

Is English a second language for you?

Learn what a homonym is.  Like right/left and right/wrong. When we say 'Elvis left the building', we don't mean he didn't go 'right'.

And learn not to conflate a state of existence with a physical being.

'Human existence' and 'a human's existence' are not the same thing, either.

Trying to have a conversation with someone who doesn't even speak with proper grammar is like trying to talk with a drunk...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


War_Pig
War_Pig's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2011-10-31
User is offlineOffline
Ahh, anthropomorphism.

Ahh, anthropomorphism. Refreshing. Sorry to bust your bubble, but not all theists subscribe to the view that a personal being is responsible for the creation of other personal beings. (That's even a bit paradoxical, no?)

Equating God with all that exists is by no means a new or crackpot idea. (e.g. forms of pantheism and panentheism)


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
War_Pig wrote:Ahh,

War_Pig wrote:

Ahh, anthropomorphism. Refreshing. Sorry to bust your bubble, but not all theists subscribe to the view that a personal being is responsible for the creation of other personal beings. (That's even a bit paradoxical, no?)

Equating God with being is by no means a new or crackpot idea. (e.g. forms of pantheism and panentheism)

NOT anthropomorphism, although some version of that would be justified from the scriptural phrase that we are 'made in the Image of God'.

By far the commonest idea of God is definitely a 'perfect' super being with will and intent, often including the capabilities of anger, wrath, and of course, Love. An entity without those properties is not a God in any meaningful sense.

It would be merely a 'higher power', which ultimately amounts to a metaphor for physical reality. As Dawkins has observed.

Of course not all Theists subscribe to the same God. D'uh. That is part of the problem of taking Theism seriously. Since the idea of God is purely subjective, they can't agree on what he is. Every new person not happy with the version he is taught at church can start yet another creed.

In any case, by far the dominant version IS significantly anthropomorphic, inevitably.

You are the one in a bubble.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


War_Pig
War_Pig's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2011-10-31
User is offlineOffline
Physical reality as deemed

Physical reality as deemed by the atheist is unguided, so no, I don't think that higher power suffices as an accurate metaphor.

 

As for atheism itself, is relies too much on convenience. Stars didn't have to form, but so they did. Planets didn't have to form, but so they did. The moon didn't have to appear the same size in the sky as the sun, but so it does (aesthetic, but still worth consideration), an observer for which to observe the observation didn't have to arise, but so it did. The laws of nature didn't have to be tuned to a degree to allow any of this to happen, but so they are.

 

It seems the only way to reconcile all of these highly improbable conveniences is the multiple worlds theory, but where's the 'evidence' there?

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
War_Pig wrote:Physical

War_Pig wrote:

Physical reality as deemed by the atheist is unguided, so no, I don't think that higher power suffices as an accurate metaphor.

As for atheism itself, is relies too much on convenience. Stars didn't have to form, but so they did. Planets didn't have to form, but so they did. The moon didn't have to appear the same size in the sky as the sun, but so it does (aesthetic, but still worth consideration), an observer for which to observe the observation didn't have to arise, but so it did. The laws of nature didn't have to be tuned to a degree to allow any of this to happen, but so they are.

It seems the only way to reconcile all of these highly improbable conveniences is the multiple worlds theory, but where's the 'evidence' there?

"Higher power" is nothing to do with atheisms, that is the sort of thing people who don't buy into conventional Theism say. Somewhere in the region of Pantheism or Panentheism. Take it up with them.

For the rest, you are making an old silly argument - which worked  a bit better before we discovered just how common planets are.

Planets are pretty much inevitable, it now seems. Gives us a few trillion, perhaps. Lots of 'throws of the dice', only need one, and were here.

There are parts of the Universe that stars don't form in. There are are many possible variations of structure and organization that would allow life to form. 

The Fine Tuning argument doesn't take account of all the possible combinations of values which might allow the formation of a universe compatible with some form of intelligent life some where among the typically wide range of environments that would exist in a randomly evolving structure, so that ain't gonna fly.

There are many aspects of the 'design' of living creatures which are far from ideal, arguing against the involvement of any intelligence.

The Moon is only approximately the same size as the Sun in the sky. It varies from an angle of 0.5548° to 0.4923°. The Sun varies from 0.5267 to 0.5450, so yes they are approximately the same, and occasionally they will match. In much earlier eras, the Moon was larger, since it is continuing to move away from the earth.

Are you serious??

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Are you

BobSpence wrote:

Are you serious??

I think most of them are serious. I don't think most of them would understand that no matter how much you twist and turn a Rubik's cube, that it's not a 'random' pattern, but a 'constrained' pattern, unless you went to great lengths to 'prove' it.

If they could even understand the explanation...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Of course, why is any of

Of course, why is any of that more 'convenient', than whatever aspect of reality would produce, require, necessitate, whatever, that a God critter just happened to exist, who just happened to feel like creating a Universe with a slight possibility of supporting life?

IOW, God requires explanation even more that our existence. 

There are no arguments for God that don't beg the question, and they don't provide any ultimate explanation for anything, they just insert something less explicable to 'explain' something else. And may all kinds of primitive assumptions about what such a thing must be like, such as infinite, perfect, etc.

'God' is a dumb idea.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


War_Pig
War_Pig's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2011-10-31
User is offlineOffline
You've both missed the point

You've both missed the point entirely. I am on board with you when you say that planets, stars, solar systems, life, and morals can and will arise naturally... but only given a highly specific universe that can bring about such things. Gravity did not have to exist, nor did it have to be "set" at a strength allowing for the formation of stars or planets with atmospheres. Nor did the strong force (which without, nothing of any complexity would be likely to exist.) That is a convenience.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
War_Pig wrote:You've both

War_Pig wrote:

You've both missed the point entirely. I am on board with you when you say that planets, stars, solar systems, life, and morals can and will arise naturally... but only given a highly specific universe that can bring about such things. Gravity did not have to exist, nor did it have to be "set" at a strength allowing for the formation of stars or planets with atmospheres. Nor did the strong force (which without, nothing of any complexity would be likely to exist.) That is a convenience.

You missed the point that the properties necessary to allow for the emergence of some form of intelligent life do not have to be only the ones that gave rise to us.

As long as the properties of any Universe that happened to form were in on of the probably many 'sweet spots' in the multi-variable space of possibilities, there is no problem. 

There could be many Universes, as some theories suggest, with possible different sets of fundamental properties, arising sequentially and/or in parallel.

Wherever the dice fell, if life could arise, it did, looked around, and said to itself, isn't it a 'miracle' that the Universe is such that it allowed us to arise.

If it happened to be different, as long as it was possible on at lease one planet, or whatever served as a substrate for life in that particular kind of 'Universe', then a different kind of life would have arisen, and have made a similar observation.

It is a bigger version of the old fallacy that said that "if the Earth had been a bit closer to or further away from the sun, life like ours could not have arisen on it. If we didn't have a moon to stabilize our rotational orientation, we also would have had a problem".

But all that means is that life would not have arisen in this solar system, or possibly on another planet. But since we now know there are many planetary systems, the chances of there being at least one that was suitable are pretty high, especially if you consider all galaxies.

Once you allow for possible different basic life-forms, it only gets easier.

 

It is a failure of perspective.

Another example would be to marvel how miraculously well the environment of some creature seemed to be arranged to suit the needs of the creature, until you realized that the creature had adapted to match the environment via evolution.

 

Now if I have misunderstood your argument, please clarify.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
War_Pig wrote: I am on board

War_Pig wrote:
I am on board with you when you say that planets, stars, solar systems, life, and morals can and will arise naturally... but only given a highly specific universe that can bring about such things.

We are discovering that the physics of the universe are merely physical models of math and geometry, whether it's an atom, a pebble, a star, a galaxy, or you and I.

War_Pig wrote:
Gravity did not have to exist, nor did it have to be "set" at a strength allowing for the formation of stars or planets with atmospheres. Nor did the strong force (which without, nothing of any complexity would be likely to exist.) That is a convenience.

Convenience is a matter of perspective. There are theories that all the forces were part of 1 force prior to the Big Bang, but then separated after. That's what happens when crap blows up.

There's really no way of knowing much about the conditions of particles and forces prior to and immediately after the Big Bang due to the high temperatures that are on a scale practically beyond comprehension.

War_Pig wrote:
You've both missed the point entirely.

I doubt it.

All I'm hearing are arguments from improbability, based on arguments from ignorance and incredulity.

 

I get it. You want answers.

We've got some of our most capable minds working diligently on it...

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Here's a broader

Here's a broader perspective.

All we 'need' is a randomly seething 'sea' of fundamental whatevers, the sort of thing Quantum Theory deals with, with a non-zero probability of popping out a Big-Bang Universe, or a Metaverse allowing for BB's, then eventually we will arise.

Absolutely no point in positing the non-solution of a guiding intelligence, which would need to be explained itself.

Only needs a bit of randomness, which we know exists, indefinite Time, and 'voila!', Life.

Random action is the opposite of intelligence, and ultimately more creative, although less efficient, ie can take a lot longer, but can ultimately hit on the ideal 'design', if there is one, given enough time.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Unfortunately, Bob, it's the

Unfortunately, Bob, it's the actual 'vastness' of the broad perspective that causes them to recoil and seek 'comfort'...lol

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1505
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
mrOriginal wrote: I have

mrOriginal wrote:

 I have a question for Theists.

 So then what created "God"? It is a contradiction to preach Creationism and then keep your "creator" exempt from that belief. Thanks,   Mr. O

 

This is a common question   It plainly is not an original thought.  That may be why some people early on were giving you the business. . .  Granted this argument should be understood as more along the lines of 'existence'.  Nonetheless, There is nothing whatsoever as comic and farcical as to watch a Roman Catholic reason their way through this . .  Url ::oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Teleology

 

 


Trinity123
Posts: 15
Joined: 2011-12-02
User is offlineOffline
God created...

mrOriginal wrote:
If you believe in "Creation"Then what created "God"?It is a contradiction to preach Creationism and then keep your "creator" exempt from that belief. I don't want to hear any of that 'God just IS crap, or there always was GOD", or "because the bible says so" Give me come concrete God evidence and I will become a believer on the spot. Have God stop by my house, or send me and email or something...or better yet, ask him to respond to this post, when in doubt, go to the source right?Believing in creation implies that something had to come before something, that came before something, that came before something else..and so on.

Above I quoted a few of your comments that I would like to respond to.

First, I would like to respond to the last line of your words above. Belief in creation implies that something created. It does not imply that something CAME before what was created. I hope you can easily see the hole in your argument. Furthermore, I want to respond to your claim that Creationism and an eternal being that created is not contradictory. You are touching on the cosmological argument's criticism.

Cosmological argument (roughly stated):

1. Everything that exists must have a cause.

2. The universe exists and so must have a cause.

3. Therefore, the universe is caused by a first cause (a.k.a. God).

So, if (1) is true, God must have a cause as well.

HOWEVER, we also have Kalam argument. This argument is actually developed primarily by Muslim theologians in the Middle Ages, although the Christian St. Bonaventure endorsed it as well.

Formulated by William Lane Craig:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This is a deductive argument. From this Craig argues that

4. The cause of the universe is God (Perfect Being, "Maximally greatest being&quotEye-wink

Yes, there is much to be explained about this formulation of the Kalam argument.

Here is my attempt to explain Craig's reasoning:

Craig brings to the table the concept of "out of nothing, nothing comes." I would think that this is something atheists deem to make sense and be true, or at least highly likely. Craig then explains that the alternative, which is "things pop into existence without a cause," is denied by David Hume, the archskeptic of his time. Craig then continues to entertain the possibility of "something from nothing", even though the linguistics of "nothing" is the lack of properties and/or energy to cause anything, and explains that the "something from nothing" statement must fit the following four options entertaining the possibility of it:

"1. Impossible (that is, necessarily false).

2. Possible, but highly unlikely.

3. Possible, but somewhat less likely than the first premise of the kalam argument (that whatever begins must have a cause).

4. Inscrutable and therefore irrelevant as a criticism of premise (1) of the kalam. This is because the notion of things beginning to exist by way of a cause is entirely understandable (That is, not inscrutable) and is relied on in EVERYDAY observation."

("Christian Apologetics" by Douglas Groothius, p. 216)

Thanks for reading.

-jn


Trinity123
Posts: 15
Joined: 2011-12-02
User is offlineOffline
God created...

Mod edit: Double post.

 


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
What is God?

Science is the study of the physical natural world using observation and experiments.
What is God? God is spirit, therefore he is more than natural. He is supernatural. There are different bodies in the world. There is the natural human body, animal bodies, fish bodies, and then there is the spiritual body. Example:Air, you cannot see it, but you can see it's efects when the wind blows the leaves of a tree.
The human being is limited to the physical world. We can only study the things that we see, hear, smell and feel. We only know the things that God has revealed.God has revealed that he is eternal, no beginning and no end.The universe itself has a bigining and therefore one day an end.
God revealed himself to humanity in the form of a man called Jesus. God revealed his words in the book called the word of God or bible.That is the reason why we study Jesus and the bible.To discover God in any other way would require the person to be a genious, with the example of Isac newton or Albert Einstein discovery of God using mathematics and the laws of physics.
The human being lives in a Three dimensional world or a physical world (check out (Einstein or Carl Sagan 3 dimension )on you tube).God exist in another dimension, but he has the capability to enter our 3 dimension world. We the humans are limited to this 3D world and cannot cross over to another dimension.To compare God world and dimension to our world is like comparing apples and oranges .The use of science to reveal God is not the proper way. But it is the proper way to study Jesus, the bible and Israel.

Albert Einstein said; "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
God Bless.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2372
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Help

                Can we get a moderator to clean up the width band on this post, I'm getting a head ache trying to read.                               Jimenezj,  what are you smoking and did you bring any for the rest of us?   "The child dimly suspects a mysterious order..."  were you looking in a mirror when you wrote that?   I have heard someone speak the way you write, he was in a psychiatric ward staring in a mirror; schizophrenics do that,  he got there by smoking crack. Weather he was schizophrenic with or without the crack is debatable   but you sound like him.

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is onlineOnline
Fixed.Trinity, watch your

Fixed.

Trinity, watch your formatting please. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:Science is

Jimenezj wrote:
Science is the study of the physical natural world using observation and experiments. What is God? God is spirit, therefore he is more than natural. He is supernatural. There are different bodies in the world. There is the natural human body, animal bodies, fish bodies, and then there is the spiritual body. Example:Air, you cannot see it, but you can see it's efects when the wind blows the leaves of a tree. The human being is limited to the physical world. We can only study the things that we see, hear, smell and feel. We only know the things that God has revealed.God has revealed that he is eternal, no beginning and no end.The universe itself has a bigining and therefore one day an end. God revealed himself to humanity in the form of a man called Jesus. God revealed his words in the book called the word of God or bible.That is the reason why we study Jesus and the bible.To discover God in any other way would require the person to be a genious, with the example of Isac newton or Albert Einstein discovery of God using mathematics and the laws of physics. The human being lives in a Three dimensional world or a physical world (check out (Einstein or Carl Sagan 3 dimension )on you tube).God exist in another dimension, but he has the capability to enter our 3 dimension world. We the humans are limited to this 3D world and cannot cross over to another dimension.To compare God world and dimension to our world is like comparing apples and oranges .The use of science to reveal God is not the proper way. But it is the proper way to study Jesus, the bible and Israel. Albert Einstein said; "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God." God Bless.

1. Define "spirit" positively, i.e. tell me what it is instead of what it's not.

2. Air can be measured. Can God or is he beyond that and "special" (as in the pleading you're doing)?

3. It is so good that we are not limited to knowing the things God has revealed because so much God has revealed has turned out to be wrong. What we've learned (by the efforts of scientists) is in spite of God not because of him.

4. Love the Einstein quote mine - did you forget Einstein saying "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one"?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Yes, God is 'spirit', IOW,

Yes, God is 'spirit', IOW, part of the world of our imagination.

And is also part of what Science studies, through psychology, neuroscience, and social sciences.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Hungry Wolf
Hungry Wolf's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2008-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Dear Mr. Original

Dear Mr. Original ^_^ :

 

 

Quote:
I have a question for Theists

I'm listening ^_^

 

 

Quote:
 You believe that God created you, and everything else

Yes ^_^

 

 

Quote:
Yet, you cannot prove it

Prove what ^_^ ?

 

Prove the existence of God ?

 

Or prove that God has created us ^_^ ?

 

Or both Sticking out tongue ?

 

 

Quote:
and still decide to believe

Belief concerns many things ..

 

I don't need to prove every single word that God has mentioned ONCE I believe in God ..

 

I might not have evidence about the God works since I did not witness the original creations, but if I prove the existence of God (by any other mean) then he will be the creator (by default) ^_~

 

 

Quote:
Being such experts on the orgins of life in the Universe answer this

..........................

 

 

Quote:
If you believe in "Creation"

 

Then what created "God"?

The answer is easy Sticking out tongue

 

Nothing  created God ^_^

 

God is not a creation ..

 

He is not a being as well ..

 

 

Most of you misunderstand the origin use of the words/language ..

 

The word "being" came from the order of the God to anything (be) ..

 

'Be' a human .. 'Be' an animal .. 'Be' a dust .. 'Be' wealthy .. etc

 

And a quote form the dictionary :

 

* being:

to start to exist *

 

Starting to exist means you was not existing previously ... and you came to the 'world' lately ..

 

You are assuming that 'God' is a 'being' .. and you are asking your question accordingly .. What/Who created God ?

(By the way, this word 'being' is a universal word ^^)

 

Therefore, your question is invalid because of your wrong assumption ^_^

( And any theist who think that God is a 'being' needs to learn more about the root of the words +  his/her God !!)

 

 

For me, I can't tell about what you think of it as a 'question that can't be answered', cause we have been order not to think about it ^_^

 

Our prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, said :

 

* People would not stop asking questions : If Allah has created everything, who created Allah ? *

 

And he said in another place:

 

* The devil / demon comes to a believer to play with his thoughts .. Who created skies and earths ? Allah .. Who created humans ? Allah .. and keep asking until  he says : Who created Allah .. Once the believer reach this question he should say: I believe in Allah, he should spit three times on his left side, and he should seek refuge toward Allah away from the demon *

 

Of course these actions concerns believers only since the demon has no business to do with atheists hehehehehehhehehe

 

 

From the prophet says, we can conclude three things :

 

1 - Prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him,  is smarter than you dear Mr. Original since he predicted your question long time ago Sticking out tongue

 

2 - We have been ordered not to think nor to concern ourselves with this question ..

 

3 - Although we don't know the answer, this didn't bother us from believing in Allah .. Thus, it is foolish attempt to try to refute believers from this point .. Try something else ^_~

 

 

In away, your question is exactly as someone asks about what was before the Big Bang rubbish ..

 

Nothing ? Multi-universes ? Big Bounce ? Emptiness ?

 

You atheists don't know .. and even if you know, you can prove nothing ..

 

For both sides ( theists and atheists ), this kind of questions will lead to nothing ~_~

 

 

Quote:
 It is a contradiction to preach Creationism and then keep your "creator" exempt from that belief

Nope it is not ^_^

 

Again, you have assumed something about God that we don't believe in it .. There is no contradiction ^_^

 

Suppose your computer becomes able to think by its own (just an assumption) .. Imagine (he) want to think about its creator ( us / humans ) .. (He) only have his self as an example + what we told him about us (stored in his memory) ..

 

The computer works with electricity .. He doesn't know anything about 'blood' unless we till him about 'blood' ..

 

For the computer, the only way for existence is to be manufactured .. (He) can't imagine a birth by an 'intercourse' ..

 

We are totally different beings from this computer .. Almost nothing in the way (he) works is applicable for us ..

Hence, it is not logic for the computer to compare himself ( if the computer can think of course ) to us ..

Nor it is logic for you to compare your self with the 'God' ..

 

Note that, in the example, both of us (humans and computer ) are beings .. whereas the 'God' is not a being ^_^

 

When you see religions say that their God is a creation or is a being, then you have the right to call a contradiction in the preaching of Creationism .. Otherwise, you have no rights for calling any contradiction .. Besides, you are being illogical for you comparison between the creator and his creations >_<

 

 

Quote:
 I don't want to hear any of that 'God just IS crap, or there always was GOD", or "because the bible says so"

Neither do I want to give such an answer ^_^

 

However, we know nothing about God except what he tells us .. Just as the computer (in the previous example) doesn't know about humans except what we tell him ^_~

 

But again, if I ask about what was before the Big Bang, I don't want to hear an assumption or a stupid theory .. I want a fact ^_~

 

 

Quote:
  Give me come concrete God evidence

Now now ..

 

This claim has nothing to do with the creationism .. People, who did have the knowledge that God has created them, did not believe in God because he said that he created them .. They believed in God for many other reasons ..

 

Some just answered the call of encroachment within themselves .. Some witnessed an evidence from a prophet .. Some witnessed the punishment of the others ..

 

Jews witnessed many many evidences during Pharaoh period and even afterwards ..

 

Christians witnessed the birth of Jesus, peace be upon him, without a father, witnessed the speak of the infant Jesus, witnessed the reviving of the dead, the curing, and more ..

 

Muslims read the Qura'an, witnessed couple of miracles, and witnessed the news that prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, told to happen ..

 

 

Quote:
and I will become a believer on the spot

naaaaaaaaaah ~_~

 

You are just saying that cause you are confident that no one can answer your question ^_^

 

And even your question has been answered, you wouldn't become a believer on the spot ~_~

 

The non believers before you (during prophets period) witnessed countless of evidences and miracles .. But only very few believed the prophets upon seeing what they asked for ..

 

The reason is: People ask for these kind of things because they are so ignorant and think prophets can't live up to their challenge .. Hence, even if they are answered to whatever they asked for, they wouldn't become believers since the reason for the challenge not to know the truth but to prove the false of the God / prophets ~_~

 

 

Quote:
Have God stop by my house, or send me and email or something

Nope ^_^

 

 

But he did other things that 'nature' didn't do for you ^_~

 

 

Quote:
or better yet, ask him to respond to this post, when in doubt, go to the source right?

He is in no need to respond to this post since  he already respond to similar claims in the three sacred books ( Torah, Bible, and Qura'an ) ..

 

It's your problem that you didn't read carefully his books .. not the God's problem ^_~

 

 

Quote:
Believing in creation implies that something had to come before something

Which is also applicable to the stupid idea of Big Bang ^_~

 

 

Quote:
  that came before something, that came before something else..and so on

Yet there is a start time for these creations ..

 

In Abrahamic religions, the start point for this secular life is when Allah created the skies and the earths .. Before that there was no sky and no earth ..

Allah is out of the formula ^_^

 

 

However, in scientific point of view, the start of the universe is explained by the Big Bang .. But what before the Big Bang ?

Applying your statement to the scientific answer about the universe:

 

There was a universe before our universe .. and universe even before .. and universe even before .. and so on ..

 

Until what ?!

 

 

Quote:
So please educate me on the mysteries of the entire Universe without ever getting off our planet

huh !

 

Didn't get that ^_^'

 

 

 

 

 

^_^

 

 

 

 

Ja ne ~

 


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
 Hungry Wolf wrote:< snip

 

Hungry Wolf wrote:

< snip fatuous, self congratulatory 'I'm so clever' commentary >

I don't need to prove every single word that God has mentioned ONCE I believe in God ..

And your 'belief' exempts you from having to prove anything....how?

Quote:
I might not have evidence about the God works since I did not witness the original creations, but if I prove the existence of God (by any other mean) then he will be the creator (by default) ^_~

Not true, if you could prove the existence of an invisible, intangible being with magical powers, it would still not show that other such beings didn't exist, and that one of them was not the 'creator'... nor would it prove that it or 'them' were necessary to the existence of the universe.

 

 

Quote:
Quote:
Being such experts on the orgins of life in the Universe answer this... If you believe in "Creation",

Then what created "God"?

The answer is easy Sticking out tongue

Nothing  created God ^_^ God is not a creation ..

Your answer is a Tautology.

Quote:
He is not a being as well ..

Wait for it....

Quote:
Most of you misunderstand the origin use of the words/language ..

Wait for it...

Quote:
The word "being" came from the order of the God to anything (be) ..

BINGO! No, it simply didn't. and your statement shows that you profoundly "misunderstand the origin use of the words/language"

 

Quote:
'Be' a human .. 'Be' an animal .. 'Be' a dust .. 'Be' wealthy .. etc And a quote form the dictionary :

That should have read "And a cherry picked quote form from the dictionary".

Quote:
* being:

to start to exist *

Here's a real and more accepted definition;

being, noun

1.the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence). 2.conscious, mortal existence; life: 3.substance or nature: of such a being as to arouse fear. 4.something that exists: inanimate beings.

5.a living thing: strange, exotic beings that live in the depths of the sea.

 

Quote:
Starting to exist means you was not existing previously ... and you came to the 'world' lately ..

You are assuming that 'God' is a 'being' .. and you are asking your question accordingly .. What/Who created God ?

And, it's still a valid question.

Quote:
(By the way, this word 'being' is a universal word ^^)

No it isn't.

Quote:
Therefore, your question is invalid because of your wrong assumption ^_^

( And any theist who think that God is a 'being' needs to learn more about the root of the words +  his/her God !!)

Therefore your response is invalid because of your equivocation of the word 'being'.

Quote:
For me, I can't tell about what you think of it as a 'question that can't be answered', cause we have been order not to think about it ^_^

Our prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, said :

Yes, piss be upon his face.

Quote:
* People would not stop asking questions : If Allah has created everything, who created Allah ? *

So... "Don't ask questions." is a valid philosophical point with you?

 

Quote:
And he said in another place:

Nah, he didn't...

Quote:
* The devil / demon comes to a believer to play with his thoughts .. Who created skies and earths ? Allah .. Who created humans ? Allah .. and keep asking until  he says : Who created Allah .. Once the believer reach this question he should say: I believe in Allah, he should spit three times on his left side, and he should seek refuge toward Allah away from the demon *

Sooooo... it's 2011, almost 2012 and you believe in 'demons'.... and that spitting on your left side not once, not twice but three times will drive them away...???

Quote:
Of course these actions concerns believers only since the demon has no business to do with atheists hehehehehehhehehe

I must have missed something, were you being clever again???

Quote:
From the prophet says, we can conclude three things :

That you are as innocent of logic as you are of semantics?

Quote:
1 - Prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him,  is smarter than you dear Mr. Original since he predicted your question long time ago :P

Or that Mohammad (piss be on him) was too stupid to come up with a real answer, so he babbled about 'demons?

Quote:
2 - We have been ordered not to think nor to concern ourselves with this question ..

That explains Islam... you guys stopped to think and never started back up...

Quote:
3 - Although we don't know the answer, this didn't bother us from believing in Allah .. Thus, it is foolish attempt to try to refute believers from this point .. Try something else ^_~

In other words, you believe it because you believe it and you will believe it because Mohammad (piss be upon him) said so?

In away, your question is exactly as someone asks about what was before the Big Bang rubbish ..

Quote:
< snip irrelevant babble about science, and a pointless recap of his already ridiculous claims >

Quote:
This claim has nothing to do with the creationism .. People, who did have the knowledge that God has created them, did not believe in God because he said that he created them .. They believed in God for many other reasons ..

And many people believe in fairies too... for many reasons.

Quote:
Some just answered the call of encroachment within themselves ..

Warm fuzzy feelings aren't proof of anything.

Quote:
Some witnessed an evidence from a prophet ..

Prophets always exhibit the same traits as mad men... only difference being some fool believes the prophets...

Quote:
Some witnessed the punishment of the others ..

Odd how 'punishment' always resembles 'bad luck'...

Quote:
Jews witnessed many many evidences during Pharaoh period and even afterwards ..

No, they didn't. Even Jewish archeologists have to admit there is absolutely no evidence that the Jews as a people were ever in captivity in Egypt. No captivity, no Exodus. But, thank you for playing.

Quote:
Christians witnessed the birth of Jesus, peace be upon him,

Not possible, Christianity didn't exist until 30 or so years after jesus was supposedly lynched. And he pissed himself enough as a baby.

Quote:
without a father,

No, he had a father, Mary just lied about his identity.

Quote:
witnessed the speak of the infant Jesus,

Uhhhh, no. Nothing in the bible says this, perhaps you are thinking of another fairy tale?

Quote:
witnessed the reviving of the dead, the curing, and more ..

Nope, sorry, none of the writers of the gospels (the writers as opposed to the names that were added to the pamphlets) ever saw or met jesus, never saw any raising of corpses, cures or anything else.

Quote:
Muslims read the Qura'an,

A given... funny that Mohammad couldn't... he was illiterate.

Quote:
witnessed couple of miracles, and witnessed the news that prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, told to happen ..

No, they didn't.

 

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Hungry Wolf
Hungry Wolf's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2008-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Dear Louis  ^_^ :  Quote:

Dear Louis  ^_^ :

 

 

Quote:
And your 'belief' exempts you from having to prove anything

Nope .. I did not say that ^_^

 

 

In fact, my belief proves me couple of things, which is required before I become a 'believer' ^_^

 

The methods, which are being used,  are cause and effect .. challenge method .. demonstration .. and telling the unknown ^^

 

 

Quote:
how?

Since my belief did not exempt me from proving anything, there is no 'how' ^_~

 

It is same as your science .. Your 'scientific methods' proved itself right in hundred of places .. You don't need to reprove the validity of your 'scientific methods' each time .. Nor each new student / person has to prove the validity of 'scientific methods' at the beginning of his 'learning journey' ..

 

Teachers tell students that scientific methods were right in every single case .. Therefore, you (students) has to accept this 'scientific methods' without questions ..

 

The same principle is being applied for the religions .. Countless evidences 'in the past' prove the existence of God .. Hence, there is no need for me as a 'new believer' to prove anything ..

 

I assume you don't disagree with me in the principle itself .. Your disagreement is about the truth of the 'countless evidences' that being told for generations ^_^

 

Am I wrong ?

 

 

Quote:
  Not true

Yes it is ^_^

 

 

Quote:
if you could prove the existence of an invisible, intangible being with magical powers

Wrong ..

 

I didn't say I would prove the existence of an invisible, intangible being with magical powers .. The demon is invisible and intangible being with magical powers !

Yet I didn't say he would be the creator by default ^_~

 

I said : if I proved the God existence ..

 

The word 'god' doesn't apply to any invisible being with magical power ..

 

the word 'god' doesn't apply to a 'being' since this being has a start point ..

the word 'god' doesn't apply to 'magical power' only .. A god means someone who create things out of nothing .. If the one lacks the ability of creation, then he is no 'god' ^_^

 

So, my phase was accurate when I said : if I proved the existence of GOD ^_~

 

The problem is with your understanding of the word GOD .. Not with my phase ^^

 

 

Quote:
  it would still not show that other such beings didn't exist

That is true if you applied your 'invisible intangible being with magical powers' to demons race or to angels ..

 

But the word God means the superior that has no ones alike ^_^

 

Again, the problem is with your understanding of the word GOD not with whatever I said ^_^

 

 

Quote:
and that one of them was not the 'creator'

Assuming there are more kinds of this being, what you have said is true ^_^

 

But this is not what I said ^_~

 

 

Quote:
  nor would it prove that it or 'them' were necessary to the existence of the universe

Same as above ^_^

 

Don't assume something from your imagination ^_^

 

If you want to argue about God, you have to stick with the definition that religions approve ^_~

 

 

Quote:
Your answer is a Tautology

hehehehehehehehehe ^_^

 

 

Quote:
Quote:
He is not a being as well ..
Wait for it....
 

k ^_^

 

 

Quote:
Quote:
Most of you misunderstand the origin use of the words/language ..
Wait for it...

k ^_^

 

 

 

Quote:
Quote:
The word "being" came from the order of the God to anything (be) ..
BINGO!

huh !

 

 

Quote:
No, it simply didn't

Yes it did ^_^

 

 

Quote:
and your statement shows that you profoundly "misunderstand the origin use of the words/language"

No, it doesn't ^_^

 

 

Quote:
That should have read "And a cherry picked quote form from the dictionary"

...................

 

 

Quote:
Here's a real and more accepted definition

Let us see ^_^

 

 

Quote:
  being, noun

1.the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).

2.conscious, mortal existence; life:

3.substance or nature: of such a being as to arouse fear.

4.something that exists: inanimate beings.

5.a living thing: strange, exotic beings that live in the depths of the sea

I don't know how this definitions prove me wrong ^_^ ?

 

It proves you did not understand my saying, for the #1 shows that the word 'being' is originally about the existence ..

 

and that is why I said most of you don't know the ORIGIN of the words ..

 

People, who developed the Latin language / English language, believed in a sort of 'god' ( not necessarily the Abrahamic God ) .. They referred to everything as 'beings' since everything came to existence by the verb 'be' .. The one who used the verb 'be' is their god ( I don't know who they used to believe in ) .. Most of the nouns in any language come originally from the corresponding verb, if there is any ( or most of the nouns are derived from verbs ) .. Those verbs describe actions ..

 

So, when you see a word that has a 'verb' and 'noun' .. the 'verb' was developed to describe a sort of action .. and the 'noun' is derived from this verb to refer to the result or the situation of this action ..

 

This is almost universal in any language ..

 

Hence, the word 'being' is a noun .. and the verb is 'be' .. and (someone) performed an action using the verb 'be' and the result was the existence of the 'beings' .. That is how the noun 'being' have the first meaning to refer to existence ..

 

and why should I give a linguistic lesson ~_~ ?

 

 

Quote:
Quote:
Starting to exist means you was not existing previously ... and you came to the 'world' lately ..

You are assuming that 'God' is a 'being' .. and you are asking your question accordingly .. What/Who created Go

 

And, it's still a valid question

Nope it is not ^_^

 

and your respond is due to your poor knowledge about languages and their origin ~_~

 

 

Quote:
Quote:
(By the way, this word 'being' is a universal word ^^)

No it isn't.

Yes it is ^_^

 

 

Quote:
Therefore your response is invalid because of your equivocation of the word 'being'

Actually it is because of your poor reading and linguistic skills ( as I've mentioned above ^_^ )

 

 

Quote:
So... "Don't ask questions." is a valid philosophical point with you?

"Don't ask questions" is a valid logical point ..

 

Philosophy is one face of stupidity .. It is philosophy which took the humanity to its downfall ~_~

 

 

Quote:
Nah, he didn't...

Yes he did ^_^

 

 

Quote:
Sooooo... it's 2011, almost 2012 and you believe in 'demons'

Yes ^_^

 

Not only me .. I would say at least 2 billion believes in demons in 2012 .. It doesn't matter if it is 2012 or 10012 !

 

 

Quote:
  and that spitting on your left side not once, not twice but three times will drive them away...???

By the well of Allah, yes ^_^

 

 

Quote:
I must have missed something, were you being clever again???

Naaaah ..

 

I'm always clever 

 

 

Quote:
That you are as innocent of logic as you are of semantics?

Nope ^_^

 

 

Quote:
Or that Mohammad (piss be on him) was too stupid to come up with a real answer, so he babbled about 'demons?

Even if we assume he came up with the demon stuff, this doesn't called stupidity .. This is talent ^_~

 

The person who can predict your thought before u start to think of it is a smart clever guy, not a stupid yo silly

 

and ( we are still assuming ) if at least more than 10 million believed his ( excuse ) about these kinds of thoughts, it will make him one of most clever humans in the history ^_~

 

While you atheists couldn't even reach a million hehehehehhehehehe, Mohammad at least managed to come with a ( tactics ) to encounter a future move and gained a trust of more than 1 billion ( we are still assuming ) ^^

 

You say Mohammad is stupid hehehehehehheehhehehehehehe

 

 

Quote:
That explains Islam... you guys stopped to think and never started back up

who knows ^_~

 

 

Quote:
In other words, you believe it because you believe it and you will believe it because Mohammad (piss be upon him) said so?

No ^_^

 

We believe it because we accepted the believe in Allah and all his prophets, peace be upon them all ..

 

And we accepted the belief in Allah because of the things and events he provided  to prove himself ^_^

 

 

Quote:
 And many people believe in fairies too... for many reasons

So ?

 

Are those reasons the same as the one Allah showed ?

 

If yes, what are those reasons ?

If no, what is the relation between the two ^_^ ?

 

 

Quote:
Warm fuzzy feelings aren't proof of anything

huh !

 

Did I say that was a 'proof' O_o ?!

 

Where and when did I say that if your answer is YES ?!

What is relation between my sentence and your respond to it if the answer is NO ?!

 

 

I said clearly that the reason of believing in God was bla bla bla ..

 

I didn't say the encroachment within people is a proof of anything ..

 

 

Dear atheists, please please please

 

Learn to read carefully .. and learn to respond accurately to what I say ..

 

If you lack reading skills, it's not a shame to get back to school to learn these skills !

If you don't know how to respond to different claims, observe how experts respond and try to follow them ..

 

Just grow a little bit and spare me the time of repeating myself over and over because of your poor skills ~_~

 

 

Quote:
Prophets always exhibit the same traits as mad men

ya ya ya ~_~

 

Even the Qura'an predicted your sentence long time ago hehehehehehhe:

 

Similarly, there came not to those before them any messenger except that they said, "A magician or a madman." (51:52)

 Did they suggest it to them? Rather, they [themselves] are a transgressing people. (51:53)

 

What a pity, you are so predicted ^_^

 

hehehhehehehehehehe

 

 

Quote:
only difference being some fool believes the prophets

^_^

 

 

Quote:
Odd how 'punishment' always resembles 'bad luck'

Odd how 'bad luck' aim only for non believers while it doesn't harm the believers of the same tribe or city ^_~

 

 

Quote:
No, they didn't

Yes they did ^_^

 

They are the most nation who witnessed miracles and punishments ^_^

 

 

Quote:
Even Jewish archeologists have to admit there is absolutely no evidence that the Jews as a people were ever in captivity in Egypt

If they didn't found the evidence, that means the 'archeology' just a poor science that have either stupids or clowns ^_^

 

 

Quote:
  No captivity, no Exodus. But, thank you for playing

I talked about evidences not captivity nor Exodus ^_^

 

Do you even know what I'm talking about ~_~ ?

 

 

Quote:
Quote:
Christians witnessed the birth of Jesus, peace be upon him,

Not possible

huh !

 

 

Quote:
Christianity didn't exist until 30 or so years after jesus was supposedly lynched

huh !

 

Nope !

 

He had Apostles who were his faithful students .. He also had followers during his life ( Jews who converted to Christianity ) ..

 

Apostles are Christians dummy !

 

 

Quote:
And he pissed himself enough as a baby

Nope ..

 

He was a miracle before his birth, during his life, and even after his death .. peace be upon him ^_^

 

 

Quote:
No, he had a father, Mary just lied about his identity

Nope ..

 

He doesn't have ^_^

 

He is similar to Adam .. Both Adam and Jesus, peace be upon them, were created with no fathers ^_^

 

 

Quote:
Uhhhh, no. Nothing in the bible says this, perhaps you are thinking of another fairy tale?

hehehehehehe

 

First, I didn't say anything, in the previous post, according to the bible ^_^

I am giving you information according to the Qura'an ^_~

 

Second, I came to know that this was mentioned in one of Apocrypha ^^

 

 

Quote:
Nope, sorry, none of the writers of the gospels (the writers as opposed to the names that were added to the pamphlets) ever saw or met jesus, never saw any raising of corpses, cures or anything else

It is about the narrators not the writers ^_^

 

Mark, John, and Matthew were students ( Apostles ) of Jesus, peace be upon him .. They saw him ( or  some of them ) raising the dead and curing the ills ..

Each of the four bible tells the story according to its narrator ( the name attached with the bible ) ..

 

Hence, those Christians witnessed the ability that Allah gave to his prophet Jesus, peace be upon him ^_^

 

 

Quote:
A given... funny that Mohammad couldn't... he was illiterate

huh !

 

Sorry .. my mistake .. They heard the Qura'an ^_^

 

 

 

Quote:
No, they didn't

Yes they did ^_^

 

 

 

^_^

 

 

 

 

Ja ne ~

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10502
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
If I had a pc I'd probably

If I had a pc I'd probably tackle that whole thing.

Define god. Because until you do so, you'll be dancing around the definition instead of making a point.

As yet, all you've done is presuppose without evidence, which is a fallacy. You choose to accept the beliefs of others as evidence, which is another. And you assume the laws of physics can be broken at the whim of a physically impossible being, which is totally ridiculous.

You'll have to do better than that.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:If I had a pc

Vastet wrote:
If I had a pc I'd probably tackle that whole thing. Define god.

The Uncreated Creator.  That which caused the Universe to come into existence.

Done!

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10502
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Ok, I'll bite. But if

Ok, I'll bite. Sticking out tongue

But if anything can exist which need not be created, what prevents multiple such things? How can you be sure there aren't an infinite number of uncreated entities? And how can you suppose anything so vast and eternal could possibly perceive us?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Hungry Wolf
Hungry Wolf's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2008-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Dear Vastet ^_^

Dear Vastet ^_^ :

 

 

Quote:
If I had a pc I'd probably tackle that whole thing

.......................

 

 

Quote:
Define god

A god is a one who deserves to be worshiped because of certain qualities that he has ..

 

One of the most important qualities is the ability to create ^_^

 

Without this ability, this so-called 'god' is not qualified to be a god (as I mentioned before) ^_~

 

Notice that I'm speaking in general ^^

 

In most of the existed religions, there must be a single entity / multiple entities who created parts or the whole world .. This includes paganism belief ..

 

For example, Izanagi and Izanami are the creator in Shinto belief .. 

Brahman is the creator in Hindu Belief ..

Brahma (with a dash over the 'a') is the creator in Buddhism belief ..

Even the other deities / gods came from the original / main creator - either by creation or by intercourse between the main gods of the belief ..

 

Allah / YHWH / The God (not Jesus but the one in the sky) is the creator in the Abrahamic religions ^_^

 

And creation itself originally means the ability to bring something to existence in which it doesn't exist before ..

( again this word and its meaning is universal ! )

 

That includes bringing electrons / neutrons  to existence when there was not even a single Higgs Boson

 

To make the picture clear for you, consider an artist who draw comic books .. The artist (inside his comic) can do whatever he wants .. he wants a sea in his comic, then there will be a sea .. He want a fish that can swim in the space, he can draw a fish in a space .. He wants a mouse that move with a speed of light, he can do that easily .. This artist is a 'god' of his comic book ^_^

 

 

The next quality is the immortality ( a living one who is immortal ).. Nothing can harm him nothing can effects him .. He doesn't die by any means ..

 

Also, he doesn't need anything or anybody .. He is in no need to eat, to drink, or to have intercourse ..

 

In addition, he must have no ones alike ( I will mention the reason later when I address your last question ^_^ )

 

Those are some of the qualities that define a god .. Any god should at least have those qualities, some paganism believes gave their gods some of these qualities and some gave them just the names without qualities Sticking out tongue

 

 

Quote:
Because until you do so, you'll be dancing around the definition instead of making a point

This should be obvious ^_^

 

If you did a little effort by checking the meaning of 'god' in a dictionary, you would know at least one or two qualities about the god ^_~

 

 

Quote:
As yet, all you've done is presuppose without evidence

As yet, you just assumed that we presupposed without evidence ~_~

 

And if you read my previous posts carefully, you will notice that I said something about proof and evidence ~_~

 

 

Quote:
which is a fallacy

* Sigh *

 

 

Quote:
  You choose to accept the beliefs of others as evidence, which is another

So, I assume this is also applicable to your 'science' in which you've chosen to accept the belief of the others (who did the experiments) as evidence, which is (according to you) is a fallacy ..

 

Am I wrong ^_^ ?

 

 

Quote:
And you assume the laws of physics can be broken at the whim of a physically impossible being, which is totally ridiculous

*Sigh*

 

 

Quote:
You'll have to do better than that

Who knows ^_~

 

 

Quote:
Ok, I'll bite :P

^_^

 

 

Quote:
But if anything can exist which need not be created, what prevents multiple such things? How can you be sure there aren't an infinite number of uncreated entities?

Very easy ^^

 

and the Qura'an ( yet again ) has answered your question before you thought about it ^_~ :

 

Allah has not taken any son, nor has there ever been with Him any deity. [If there had been], then each deity would have taken what it created, and some of them would have sought to overcome others. Exalted is Allah above what they describe [concerning Him]. (23:91)

 

And what concerns your question is the part of the cause, which starts with (If there had been ......) .. Also, Allah said in the Qura'an:

 

Had there been within the heavens and earth gods besides Allah , they both would have been ruined. So exalted is Allah , Lord of the Throne, above what they describe (21:22)

 

The reason for destroying the sky and earth is the fights among these deities ^_^

 

Hence, we, Abrahamic religions, know that there aren't numbers of uncreated entities because the secular life is steady ^_^

 

You just need to read about the paganism religions which assigned multiple deities for themselves ( Greeks deities for example ) to see how big the mess was in their belief  ~_~

 

Zeus fought the Titans .. Hades wanted to take over the heaven .. Poseidon had his own plots .. Titans wanted to avenge their defeat .. and so on ~_~

 

People, heaven,  and earth suffered from this fights between deities (in Greeks mythology) !

 

Note that, I've answered (the Qura'an has answered) your question assuming that there is (one) who is not created ..

 

For you atheists, it doesn't matter if there is one or there are multiple .. Paganism and Abrahamic religions are the same in your eyes ~_~

 

You simply fail to notice the differences + you simply fail to understand the origins of the words you are using in your language Sticking out tongue

 

 

^_^

 

 

 

 

Ja ne ~ 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10502
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Hungry Wolf wrote:Dear

Hungry Wolf wrote:

Dear Vastet ^_^ :

I'll catch you monday, when I have a keyboard and no text limit.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


TheFallenAngel
TheFallenAngel's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2012-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Christians aren't touching

Christians aren't touching this one with a 367 foot pole.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2591
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
mrOriginal wrote: I have a

mrOriginal wrote:

 I have a question for Theists.

Ok.  I'll bite.

I'll respond to this under the assumption that you're seriously asking this and not just trying to find an unanswerable question as an excuse to claim that God doesn't exist.

I'll avoid answering to the subjectiveness and assumptions you've made progressing to the question at hand for now.

mrOriginal wrote:

...then what created God?

I don't want to hear any of that 'God just IS crap, or there always was GOD", or "because the bible says so"  Give me come concrete God evidence and I will become a believer on the spot. Have God stop by my house, or send me and email or something...or better yet, ask him to respond to this post, when in doubt, go to the source right?

Believing in creation implies that something had to come before something, that came before something, that came before something else..and so on.

So please educate me on the mysteries of the entire Universe without ever getting off our planet.

 

Thanks,

 

Mr. O

Ok... so... is your question honestly what created God or is it what evidence is there of God?  Both right?  

Let's tackle one at a time.  

Let's get to the hard one first, the creation of God... First of all, why must God be made?  You get the "God just IS" answer because automatically your question of what created God is loaded... Let's assume for a moment that God does exist just for the sake of argument.  You're asking a theist... most of whom have if you're lucky a minimal understanding of science let alone the universe to go beyond what science has discovered and beyond what we can comprehend due to the fact that it's only Theory as far as exactly how the universe started and only right out guessing on what happened before the alleged Big Bang.  I wonder what kind of answer you're expecting?  It would be ignorant to assume that a theist would pop on here and actually attempt to answer your question as if they actually know the answer to this question and I don't mean that in a derogatory way.  If science can't even go there, then why would you expect a theist to?  The Bible is focused on downward causation with the source being God... therefore, there is no autobiography of God and none should expect such.

I digress... getting back to why must God be made?

I'm going to quote a paragraph from the book "The Concept of God" by Nash, then go from there;

"If the God of theism exists, He exists eternally.  About this, there can be no disagreement.  The major question that arises in connection with the eternity of God concerns how the attribute should be interpreted.  According to most of the classical Christian theologians like Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas, God's eternal existence is to be understood as timelessness.  The doctrine of timelessness entails more than that God's existence is without beginning or end.  It implies that God exists totally outside of time.  God has neither temporal duration nor temporal location; God's existence does not occur during any period of time and He does not exist at any particular moment of time.  God is "outside" of time.  For a timeless God, all of time exists in one eternal present."

Now I'm not one for doctrine, but this one seems to reach closer to the existence of God than any other reasoning I've heard.  

This is congruent with the scientific understanding of time and time/space, gravitational time flux etc...  Point and case, you say that creation implies that something had to come before something, which had to come before something and so on...  This is considering strictly all things created, not that which exists already.  This is also assuming everything existing is subject to time.  Einstein predicted that time was not a constant.  Science has further confirmed his prediction through atomic clocks.  

I'm sure you've heard of the Twin Paradox... it stems off this theory.  Just in case, it's about how one twin goes on a trip at the speed of light and the other stays on Earth... when the one who took a trip came back, they'd be the same as when they left, but the Earth twin aged many many years.  

Now, we don't know exactly how time works... we do grasp the idea that we are moving through time and not the other way around... therefore, we can safely theorize that there could be a state of existence possible that is not moving through time.    Let's assume that time exists in a circle.  This circle has a center point.  At the center point, time does not move... (an eternal present) if you will... Say there was an observer in that central point able to view the whole circle of time.  That observer would be able to see all past, present and future events as they happen all at once.  They would all happen in the observers present, but to those who live within the time circle, the past is what has already happened, the present is happening now and the future is unknown.  

Now, that observer, not subject to time, having no past or future time... would that observer age?  Would that observer ever have an end?  Age is theoretically subject to time and to say something will end is to imply there is going to be a future event (the end) in this case.  Would this observer had to have been created in some way?  "Created" using a past tense term also automatically implies being subject to time, this being that this observer would have had to have a past, which could only be determined by a period of time, that of which in the theoretical circle of time mentioned does not exist in the central point.  

It's beyond our comprehension to consider an eternal existence, therefore it throws up "irrationality flags" in our head when the concept is brought up, but it is irrational and ignorant to assume that reality consists only of what we understand or can comprehend.   It has taken me years to wrap my head around that question you've asked.  By this explanation above, it makes a lot more sense to me.  I still can't comprehend an eternal existence... but I do understand how it's possible by the theories described in this explanation.  


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2925
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Ok, I'll bite.

Vastet wrote:
Ok, I'll bite. Sticking out tongue But if anything can exist which need not be created, what prevents multiple such things? How can you be sure there aren't an infinite number of uncreated entities? And how can you suppose anything so vast and eternal could possibly perceive us?

Nice!

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2925
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
mrOriginal wrote:I have a

mrOriginal wrote:

I have a question for Theists.

It is impossible to discuss or debate religion with those of faith.

People who have "faith" in their religion believe in it with out evidence; that is why they call it "faith".

Now, today, you have people who will say, "I have faith" but then start presenting evidence to prove there faith.

If they need to prove it to others or feel the need to defend their faith, then they really don't have any faith.

 

On the other hand, you have people who aren't of the "faith" and they still attempt to present evidence of their belief.

What do they have?

A book? or a series of books?

That's it? Books?

OK. So books have information in them, but not all books are factual. Do they have any supporting evidence or sources? No.

OK. So what else do they have? Well in these books they talk about how the Universe was created. They have prophets and they have miracles too!

Well, other religions that have existed thousands of years before Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Who's to say their god wasn't first or mightier than the other? They too have stories about the "creation of the Universe", even the American Indians have a story about that subject. They also have prophets and miracles too.

Hmm. We aren't getting anywhere are we? Seems they have only one thing which holds their entire belief system together?

Faith.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2372
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Howdy Caposkia

                    Tim Tebow is  A THEIST  just like you.   Did you see what happened to that poor sausage tonight at the hands of the non religious St.Thomas of Brady and the saintly Bishop Belle of Chek?   Theist  10   Rational professional   45.

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2591
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

                    Tim Tebow is  A THEIST  just like you.   Did you see what happened to that poor sausage tonight at the hands of the non religious St.Thomas of Brady and the saintly Bishop Belle of Chek?   Theist  10   Rational professional   45.

 

I did see what happened.  All theists pray... and uh... I'm a Pats fan. Eye-wink


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2591
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:It is

digitalbeachbum wrote:

It is impossible to discuss or debate religion with those of faith.

People who have "faith" in their religion believe in it with out evidence; that is why they call it "faith".

well sure, faith is important in a following... however, how can one have faith in something without any evidence of that something they have faith in what-so-ever?

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Now, today, you have people who will say, "I have faith" but then start presenting evidence to prove there faith.

If they need to prove it to others or feel the need to defend their faith, then they really don't have any faith.

Ok, is this because they were asked to prove their faith?  I always ask what the person might be looking for.  Usually I don't end up presenting much because the answers I get are either irrational expectations or an excuse that I'm trying to avoid the question.  that must mean I do have faith right?

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 

On the other hand, you have people who aren't of the "faith" and they still attempt to present evidence of their belief.

Must not be how much faith... but rather human nature to feel that we must have a reasoning for why we believe what we do, theist or atheist.

digitalbeachbum wrote:

What do they have?

A book? or a series of books?

That's it? Books?

No, but most information about anything is written in books, so books are a great start in the research... unless you plan on breaking new ground yourself.  

digitalbeachbum wrote:

OK. So books have information in them, but not all books are factual. Do they have any supporting evidence or sources? No.

What books are you reading?  I have one book called the Next Christiandom... it references over 20 different sources and its evidences are historical and archaelogical... among others.

digitalbeachbum wrote:

OK. So what else do they have? Well in these books they talk about how the Universe was created. They have prophets and they have miracles too!

Well, other religions that have existed thousands of years before Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Who's to say their god wasn't first or mightier than the other? They too have stories about the "creation of the Universe", even the American Indians have a story about that subject. They also have prophets and miracles too.

Interesting... and when exactly did Judaism start?  I haven't been able to figure that one out yet.

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Hmm. We aren't getting anywhere are we? Seems they have only one thing which holds their entire belief system together?

Faith.

We're not getting anywhere because of your circular reasoning.  Your claim to evidence is books.  You make no reference to any particular book, but automatically assume all books read by theists have no evidences and only talk about creation and supernatural stuff.  Nice try.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Hmm. We aren't getting anywhere are we? Seems they have only one thing which holds their entire belief system together?

Faith.

We're not getting anywhere because of your circular reasoning.  Your claim to evidence is books.  You make no reference to any particular book, but automatically assume all books read by theists have no evidences and only talk about creation and supernatural stuff.  Nice try.

I believe in G-d, but I have the good sense to know that religions don't provide evidence of their truth or falsehood in a way that is independently and scientifically verifiable.

Let's suppose for a moment that the proof of Christianity is limited to a small set of texts -- one Gospel, Acts of the Apostles and maybe a couple of Pauline Epistles, and finally, Revelations to round that all out.

To be "Scientific Evidence" there would have to be physical, testable proof that Jesus was, in fact, dead and not in a comatose state.  There would have to be physical, testable proof that after having been dead for some period of time, roughly from the afternoon of "Good Friday" until some point after the end of the Sabbath (call it Saturday night or Sunday morning -- the text is clear that it was Saturday night, by the way), he was returned to life by some means or another, doesn't really matter what.  And this requirement of physical, testable proof would extend all the way through the various reported events, including the events of Pentecost, Paul's encounter on the road to Damascus, and so on.

Without physical, testable proof what you have is =historical= evidence, and that type of evidence is subject to an entirely different set of standards.  Most of which those texts don't meet.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2591
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:I

FurryCatHerder wrote:

I believe in G-d, but I have the good sense to know that religions don't provide evidence of their truth or falsehood in a way that is independently and scientifically verifiable.

Let's suppose for a moment that the proof of Christianity is limited to a small set of texts -- one Gospel, Acts of the Apostles and maybe a couple of Pauline Epistles, and finally, Revelations to round that all out.

To be "Scientific Evidence" there would have to be physical, testable proof that Jesus was, in fact, dead and not in a comatose state.  There would have to be physical, testable proof that after having been dead for some period of time, roughly from the afternoon of "Good Friday" until some point after the end of the Sabbath (call it Saturday night or Sunday morning -- the text is clear that it was Saturday night, by the way), he was returned to life by some means or another, doesn't really matter what.  And this requirement of physical, testable proof would extend all the way through the various reported events, including the events of Pentecost, Paul's encounter on the road to Damascus, and so on.

Without physical, testable proof what you have is =historical= evidence, and that type of evidence is subject to an entirely different set of standards.  Most of which those texts don't meet.

My basic point is that there's got to be some sort of evidence to have faith on, otherwise, what are you putting faith in?  But evidence is subjective to the eye of the beholder.  One's evidence is not anothers.  You cannot hear the truth unless you're willing to hear it.  Per the example above, of course we would need scientific proof to prove for sure that Jesus had gone through what he did, however, eye witness accounts are quite compelling to the events.  Most people today who hear an eye witness account on the news see that as evidence that the events really happened without question.  Most of those same people will read the eye witness accounts of scripture and call it storytelling and fake.  How compelling any piece of evidence is depends on how much you want it to be true.  This in no way suggests that anything can be true, but that true events are only believable to those who want to believe it... and many will seek to find contradicting evidences because they are so determined to deny a true event actually taking place.  


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:My basic

caposkia wrote:
My basic point is that there's got to be some sort of evidence to have faith on, otherwise, what are you putting faith in?  But evidence is subjective to the eye of the beholder.  One's evidence is not anothers.  You cannot hear the truth unless you're willing to hear it.  Per the example above, of course we would need scientific proof to prove for sure that Jesus had gone through what he did, however, eye witness accounts are quite compelling to the events.  Most people today who hear an eye witness account on the news see that as evidence that the events really happened without question.  Most of those same people will read the eye witness accounts of scripture and call it storytelling and fake.  How compelling any piece of evidence is depends on how much you want it to be true.  This in no way suggests that anything can be true, but that true events are only believable to those who want to believe it... and many will seek to find contradicting evidences because they are so determined to deny a true event actually taking place.

The eyewitness accounts are pretty bad and extremely contradictory, both in terms of the events and the related prophecy.

From a religious standpoint -- conformance with established prophecy -- Jesus didn't do what claimed to have been done.  I've laid out the time table, but I can do that again.

The events of the arrest, appearance before various bodies (Sanhedrin, Herod, Pilate), flogging, and finally crucifixion lead to a "time of crucifixion" sometime around 2 or 3 pm.  Because Passover happens at the vernal equinox, we can put the time of sunset (and thus the start of the Jewish Sabbath) at about 6pm that same day.

What we know from history is that crucifixion was a very =slow= means of death, which resulted from the victim becoming unable to support their own weight, leading to suffocation.  The time allotted isn't sufficient for that to have happened.

According to the text, Jesus was removed from the cross sufficiently before 6pm (Jews don't bury =anyone= on the Sabbath) for his body to have been taken to some location, washed and wrapped in a burial cloth.  That puts the time of that event sometime around 5 to 5:30, depending on how much preparation was involved.

What this leads to is the inescapable conclusion that Jesus was =not= on the cross long enough to die.  He had sufficient strength, per the narrative, to have carried a heavy wooden cross-member (the vertical posts were left in the ground, just in case the Romans wanted to kill someone ...) for some distance, before someone else (according to the narrative) was forced to carry it the remaining distance.  Passed out?  Sure.  Dead from suffocation, no.

Then there is the account of various Marys at the tomb at various times.  These don't agree with each other, but they do agree on one point -- by the start of the first day of the week, Jesus had been resurrected.

The "First Day" of the week starts immediately after the Sabbath ends.  Which, inconveniently for Christians, is Saturday evening, after the sun has gone down.  As with Friday, we know that sunset is approximately 6pm because it happened near the vernal equinox when sunrise and sunset is at 6am and 6pm, local time, all around the entire planet.

This puts the longest =possible= time "in the earth" at one night (Friday night to Saturday morning) and one day (Saturday during daylight hours).  This is only one Jewish "day" -- see Genesis for a description of a "day".

Since the "prophecy" relates to Jonah, who spent =three= days and =three= nights in the belly of a whale, Jesus just plain doesn't meet the conditions which were laid out.  And there's just no way to make the events fit.  Period.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:My basic

caposkia wrote:

My basic point is that there's got to be some sort of evidence to have faith on, otherwise, what are you putting faith in?  But evidence is subjective to the eye of the beholder.  One's evidence is not anothers.  You cannot hear the truth unless you're willing to hear it.  Per the example above, of course we would need scientific proof to prove for sure that Jesus had gone through what he did, however, eye witness accounts are quite compelling to the events.  Most people today who hear an eye witness account on the news see that as evidence that the events really happened without question.  Most of those same people will read the eye witness accounts of scripture and call it storytelling and fake.  How compelling any piece of evidence is depends on how much you want it to be true.  This in no way suggests that anything can be true, but that true events are only believable to those who want to believe it... and many will seek to find contradicting evidences because they are so determined to deny a true event actually taking place.

The more unusual or extraordinary the event someone claims to have witnessed, the less likely people are to accept it. People believe eye witness accounts of car accidents and house fires because they have heard about these events before, and it is socially acceptable to believe they occur. However, people are much less likely to believe eye witness accounts of UFO sightings because these events are much less common, and, more importantly, it is NOT socially acceptable to believe they occur. Most people claiming to have seen UFO's and aliens are dismissed as crazy. Finally, eye witness accounts of the dead rising from their graves (or coming out of the morgue) are extremely rare (I've never heard of any) and are likely to be dismissed as both absurd and impossible: I would find the claim that Jesus was an alien with an impressive cellular regeneration system to be far more plausible than the claim that he was the son of an all-powerful being.

 

caposkia wrote:

Now, we don't know exactly how time works... we do grasp the idea that we are moving through time and not the other way around... therefore, we can safely theorize that there could be a state of existence possible that is not moving through time.    Let's assume that time exists in a circle.  This circle has a center point.  At the center point, time does not move... (an eternal present) if you will... Say there was an observer in that central point able to view the whole circle of time.  That observer would be able to see all past, present and future events as they happen all at once.  They would all happen in the observers present, but to those who live within the time circle, the past is what has already happened, the present is happening now and the future is unknown.  

Now, that observer, not subject to time, having no past or future time... would that observer age?  Would that observer ever have an end?  Age is theoretically subject to time and to say something will end is to imply there is going to be a future event (the end) in this case.  Would this observer had to have been created in some way?  "Created" using a past tense term also automatically implies being subject to time, this being that this observer would have had to have a past, which could only be determined by a period of time, that of which in the theoretical circle of time mentioned does not exist in the central point.  

It's beyond our comprehension to consider an eternal existence, therefore it throws up "irrationality flags" in our head when the concept is brought up, but it is irrational and ignorant to assume that reality consists only of what we understand or can comprehend.   It has taken me years to wrap my head around that question you've asked.  By this explanation above, it makes a lot more sense to me.  I still can't comprehend an eternal existence... but I do understand how it's possible by the theories described in this explanation.

I find these thoughts and ideas incredibly fascinating, but I wouldn't want to take any of them as more than speculation. That said, there is nothing wrong with speculation--it is where all great ideas come from. However, it follows from your statement that "it is irrational and ignorant to assume that reality consists only of what we understand or can comprehend," that it is also foolish to jump to conclusions about that for which only speculation is possible.

Aliens and the supernatural might exist. It is fascinating, and maybe even productive, to think about what they could be like. It would be silly, however, to say that we know what they're like.

 

I don't claim that the existence of god(s) is impossible. I may not think any exist, but, ultimately, I just don't know.

 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Finally,

blacklight915 wrote:
Finally, eye witness accounts of the dead rising from their graves (or coming out of the morgue) are extremely rare (I've never heard of any) and are likely to be dismissed as both absurd and impossible: I would find the claim that Jesus was an alien with an impressive cellular regeneration system to be far more plausible than the claim that he was the son of an all-powerful being.

It wasn't always clear when dead people were, in fact, actually dead -- http://www.snopes.com/horrors/gruesome/buried.asp

The ability to determine that someone really and truly dead is fairly modern.

When I first sat down and went through the best guess of a timeline for Jesus' crucifixion, death and resurrection, the only conclusion I had was that he hadn't actually died.  It satisfies all of the conditions for all of the events, including the very short duration on the cross.  It also explains some of the legends, including the one that he and Mary Magdelane ran off and had kids.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:It

FurryCatHerder wrote:

It wasn't always clear when dead people were, in fact, actually dead -- http://www.snopes.com/horrors/gruesome/buried.asp

The ability to determine that someone really and truly dead is fairly modern.

When I first sat down and went through the best guess of a timeline for Jesus' crucifixion, death and resurrection, the only conclusion I had was that he hadn't actually died.  It satisfies all of the conditions for all of the events, including the very short duration on the cross.  It also explains some of the legends, including the one that he and Mary Magdelane ran off and had kids.

Now that...is pretty weird. Also, where could I find this timeline? 

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2925
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:well sure,

caposkia wrote:

well sure, faith is important in a following... however, how can one have faith in something without any evidence of that something they have faith in what-so-ever?

Ok, is this because they were asked to prove their faith?  I always ask what the person might be looking for.  Usually I don't end up presenting much because the answers I get are either irrational expectations or an excuse that I'm trying to avoid the question.  that must mean I do have faith right?

What books are you reading?  I have one book called the Next Christiandom... it references over 20 different sources and its evidences are historical and archaelogical... among others.

Interesting... and when exactly did Judaism start?  I haven't been able to figure that one out yet.

We're not getting anywhere because of your circular reasoning.  Your claim to evidence is books.  You make no reference to any particular book, but automatically assume all books read by theists have no evidences and only talk about creation and supernatural stuff.  Nice try.

Faith is to believe in that which has no evidence. Sure it is important, it is what makes all religions work.

If you have evidence of a subject matter, lets say the existence of god, then it is no longer faith. It's factual.

I don't ask any one to prove their faith. I find it pointless and a waste of both parties resources and time. I let those who have faith keep it and I do not try to convert them to being a person with out faith. What I do say is (I'm repeating), "Faith is a belief with out evidence".

The entire religion of christianity, islam and judaism are all based on writings from people who you must have faith in; you can't prove or disprove what they have to say because they are dead, they can't be interviewed or asked to debate their teachings.

What books do I read? Mostly technical manuals or art related books, but I try to read one book a week.

Christiandom? That isn't the founding document or evidence of the existence of god. That would be like me saying, "Hey this book called The God Delusion and it proves that god doesn't exist". I don't present what Dawkins has to say as evidence. What I do say is that christians have one book to go by, it's called the bible and that's it. You don't have the tablets of the ten commandments. You don't have the ark of the covenant. You don't have noah's ark. You don't have anything other than your faith and said founding document/book.

Judaism started roughly around the time of Abraham (3000+ years ago).

I make no claim to any book being evidence for god or against god. My post was all about how it is pointless to debate the faith of any individual. I also said that all religions have their founding documents (Torah, bible, Koran, etc) as their sole sources for said faith.

 

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2925
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:I

FurryCatHerder wrote:

I believe in G-d, but I have the good sense to know that religions don't provide evidence of their truth or falsehood in a way that is independently and scientifically verifiable.

Let's suppose for a moment that the proof of Christianity is limited to a small set of texts -- one Gospel, Acts of the Apostles and maybe a couple of Pauline Epistles, and finally, Revelations to round that all out.

To be "Scientific Evidence" there would have to be physical, testable proof that Jesus was, in fact, dead and not in a comatose state.  There would have to be physical, testable proof that after having been dead for some period of time, roughly from the afternoon of "Good Friday" until some point after the end of the Sabbath (call it Saturday night or Sunday morning -- the text is clear that it was Saturday night, by the way), he was returned to life by some means or another, doesn't really matter what.  And this requirement of physical, testable proof would extend all the way through the various reported events, including the events of Pentecost, Paul's encounter on the road to Damascus, and so on.

Without physical, testable proof what you have is =historical= evidence, and that type of evidence is subject to an entirely different set of standards.  Most of which those texts don't meet.

Nice post.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2925
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:The

FurryCatHerder wrote:

The eyewitness accounts are pretty bad and extremely contradictory, both in terms of the events and the related prophecy.

From a religious standpoint -- conformance with established prophecy -- Jesus didn't do what claimed to have been done.  I've laid out the time table, but I can do that again.

The events of the arrest, appearance before various bodies (Sanhedrin, Herod, Pilate), flogging, and finally crucifixion lead to a "time of crucifixion" sometime around 2 or 3 pm.  Because Passover happens at the vernal equinox, we can put the time of sunset (and thus the start of the Jewish Sabbath) at about 6pm that same day.

What we know from history is that crucifixion was a very =slow= means of death, which resulted from the victim becoming unable to support their own weight, leading to suffocation.  The time allotted isn't sufficient for that to have happened.

According to the text, Jesus was removed from the cross sufficiently before 6pm (Jews don't bury =anyone= on the Sabbath) for his body to have been taken to some location, washed and wrapped in a burial cloth.  That puts the time of that event sometime around 5 to 5:30, depending on how much preparation was involved.

What this leads to is the inescapable conclusion that Jesus was =not= on the cross long enough to die.  He had sufficient strength, per the narrative, to have carried a heavy wooden cross-member (the vertical posts were left in the ground, just in case the Romans wanted to kill someone ...) for some distance, before someone else (according to the narrative) was forced to carry it the remaining distance.  Passed out?  Sure.  Dead from suffocation, no.

Then there is the account of various Marys at the tomb at various times.  These don't agree with each other, but they do agree on one point -- by the start of the first day of the week, Jesus had been resurrected.

The "First Day" of the week starts immediately after the Sabbath ends.  Which, inconveniently for Christians, is Saturday evening, after the sun has gone down.  As with Friday, we know that sunset is approximately 6pm because it happened near the vernal equinox when sunrise and sunset is at 6am and 6pm, local time, all around the entire planet.

This puts the longest =possible= time "in the earth" at one night (Friday night to Saturday morning) and one day (Saturday during daylight hours).  This is only one Jewish "day" -- see Genesis for a description of a "day".

Since the "prophecy" relates to Jonah, who spent =three= days and =three= nights in the belly of a whale, Jesus just plain doesn't meet the conditions which were laid out.  And there's just no way to make the events fit.  Period.

Brilliant post.

BTW - I've been meaning to ask you, are you a fan of Star Wars?

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2925
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:The more

blacklight915 wrote:

The more unusual or extraordinary the event someone claims to have witnessed, the less likely people are to accept it. People believe eye witness accounts of car accidents and house fires because they have heard about these events before, and it is socially acceptable to believe they occur. However, people are much less likely to believe eye witness accounts of UFO sightings because these events are much less common, and, more importantly, it is NOT socially acceptable to believe they occur. Most people claiming to have seen UFO's and aliens are dismissed as crazy. Finally, eye witness accounts of the dead rising from their graves (or coming out of the morgue) are extremely rare (I've never heard of any) and are likely to be dismissed as both absurd and impossible: I would find the claim that Jesus was an alien with an impressive cellular regeneration system to be far more plausible than the claim that he was the son of an all-powerful being.

Let us not forget studies of the human memory and how our memories constantly fail us.

I believe it to be highly likely that people "back then" got stuff wrong almost all the time (and I mean 9 out of 10 times).


 

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Sins_of_Memory

http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/tp/explanations-for-forgetting.htm

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2925
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

It wasn't always clear when dead people were, in fact, actually dead -- http://www.snopes.com/horrors/gruesome/buried.asp

The ability to determine that someone really and truly dead is fairly modern.

When I first sat down and went through the best guess of a timeline for Jesus' crucifixion, death and resurrection, the only conclusion I had was that he hadn't actually died.  It satisfies all of the conditions for all of the events, including the very short duration on the cross.  It also explains some of the legends, including the one that he and Mary Magdelane ran off and had kids.

Now that...is pretty weird. Also, where could I find this timeline? 

 

There isn't a "timeline" which you can find in the bible, she reconstructed it based on written evidence given through practices of that time period. Jews had very specific procedures for handling the dead and how they led their daily lives.

Plus she extracted from the bible various items which were then used in conjunction with the later evidence to build (in my opinion) a pretty damn good timeline of the events that took place on that three day period.

Kudos to her for the research.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
When I first sat down and went through the best guess of a timeline for Jesus' crucifixion, death and resurrection, the only conclusion I had was that he hadn't actually died.  It satisfies all of the conditions for all of the events, including the very short duration on the cross.  It also explains some of the legends, including the one that he and Mary Magdelane ran off and had kids.

Now that...is pretty weird. Also, where could I find this timeline? 

You have to read all four Gospel accounts of the events between the Last Supper and the Resurrection, you have to know that Passover =always= happens right around the Vernal Equinox, what that means for sunrise and sunset times =and= you have to know that Jewish days start just after sundown.

You're not going to find all that information just by using Google.

According to the story --

The Last Supper was a traditional Passover meal, and would have started right about sundown on the eve of the 14th of Nisan.  Jesus and three of his apostles went for a stroll and wound up in the Garden of Gasthemane where a number of events transpired (the Transfiguration, etc.)  After all this happened, Roman guards approached Jesus, arrested him, and took him away.

He is then taken, at night, to the Temple, which is where the Sanhedrin met -- ignoring that the Sanhedrin NEVER met at night, and would never have met on Passover -- and he's interrogated and accused of Heresy for claiming to be the Son of G-d -- ignoring that this is NOT heresy, as "Son of G-d" (and "Daughter of G-d" for women) is normative belief -- Jews routinely say that G-d is our Father as well as our King, Redeemer, etc.).  Those of you who can at least respect that I'm a religious nutcase would have to admit I wouldn't say G-d is my Father (not that G-d is male, just saying ...) if it were some kind of sin like ... BLASPHEMY!  There are some conflicting stories about exactly what happens between then and morning, but the Denial of Peter fixes Jesus' place as at the Temple at daybreak.

From the Temple Jesus is either sent to see Pilate (only in Luke) or directly to Herod.  Herod then proceeds to interrogate him and generally abuse him.  Herod then sends him back to see Pilate who interrogates him so more, concludes he is innocent of any charges, but finally acquiesces to the Jewish crowd's demand that he be executed.

He leaves Pilate, who was most likely in Anatolia Fortress, and is than taken to be severely beaten, prior to being crucified.

All this happens between 6am (sunrise) and whatever Jesus is crucified, and is pretty well supported by the Gospels.

The narratives all put Jesus' time on the cross at about 3 hours -- from the "6th hour" until the "9th" hour.  In Mark, which is considered to be the oldest of the Gospels, when Pilate is asked if his body can be given to Joseph of Aramathea, Pilate "marvels" that Jesus is already dead.  There is, according to Mark a Roman centurion watching all this and feeling bad about it, and that Centurion confirms to Pilate that Jesus is dead.  Which sounds a bit like the fix is in.

Jesus is taken down, rapped in linen, and taken to the burial site.

At this point the chronology gets confused, because the texts start to disagree on what happened.

Mark says that the various Mary's all went to the tomb when the Sabbath was past, but then it is followed by a verse which says "when the sun rose".  Which isn't "when the sabbath was past", it's half a day later.

Mathew also puts it at the end of the Sabbath (Saturday evening) and the Greek uses a word which appears exactly twice -- once to say that the Sabbath was approaching (which is why they wanted Jesus' body, so the could bury it before the Sabbath when burial is prohibited) and the second times is in Mathew 28:1 to say that the first day was approaching.  This gets translated in the KJV as "dawn", but the Greek is the same work used the day before to mean "evening".  You gotta love translation errors.

Luke repeats the "first day of the week" language as well.

John, which is considered to be the last of the Gospels to be written, repeats the "first day of the week", and says that it was dark (keep in mind, days start at sundown ...) and the tomb was empty.

That's two gospels that put it in the evening, at the start of the first day, and two that are muddled.  Since days always start with "evening", it has to have been Saturday evening, at the start of the first day of the week.  Mind you -- I'm only using "Friday" and "Saturday" because getting used to days that start at sundown can be a bit much if you don't already think that way.  "Yom Rishon" (literally 'first day' -- Jewish days don't have names, other than Shabbat) is the day after Shabbat (the sabbath) and starts when three stars become visible after the upper limb of the sun is below the horizon.  After the sun is 5 or 10 degrees below the horizon, the sky is getting pretty dark, and 5 degrees is 20 minutes and 10 degrees is 40 minutes (15 degrees of rotation for the earth per hour -- 360 degrees / 24 hours = 15 degrees per hour ...).

That fixes the time Jesus was alive again at some time before 6:30pm or so Saturday.  Which is NOT three days and three nights.  If Roman days are used, it is two nights and a day, which is also not three days and three nights.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."