Did the Red Sea Part?
-
Edmundisme wrote:
Furthermore, when Columbus theorized that the world was round, was that absolutely true even though most others were "absolutely" certain it was flat?
Oh sure, use the fact as the basis of your argument. What if I said if atheists believe that the world is round even though you are claiming that they are wrong because you and or the majority say it is so? As for the absolutes exist clause, only in mathematics, everything else is a science. When it comes to God, there are those who claim one side and those who claim the other. That is a personal decision. You can't make someone believe in God without some sort of proof (that they have to accept which in this case alone is a near impossibility) since they cannot believe in something that is abstract. However, them not believing in God does not mean they have a faith-based belief. All of them may not believe for different reasons. Maybe they (think they) have proof that God doesn't exist, that would would negate the fact that it's a faith-based belief since they're going on "fact" even if you don't see it as "fact".
Edmundisme wrote:
I picked a dictionary.
Too many dictionaries are open to interpretation, Here's the one I use. Atheism: 1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Since both are valid, you cannot claim it is a faith-based belief since the latter is what I've seen. I'm not sure if the numbering is significant, but if one person claims to be of type two, then it is not a faith-based belief. Unless you can absolutely say no type two's exist, then you're basic your argument on your belief and interpretation.
Edmundisme wrote:
I don't think I claimed that atheism is a religion. I did claim that atheism is a faith-based belief. But again, it seems that we have different definitions of the word.
Fair enough, but the argument still holds. Again, since no definition is absolute, you cannot impose your definition on the supposedly 2 billion atheist population.
"There are II kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who understand Roman numerals." - Bassam Abdul-Baki Web -[](</x-turndown)
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Oh sure, use the fact as the basis of your argument. What if I said if atheists believe that the world is round even though you are claiming that they are wrong because you and or the majority say it is so?
I don't understand these two sentences. My point is that the world is absolutely round regardless of a particular person's belief on the matter. The fact that there are differing beliefs does not suggest that none of the beliefs can be the "correct" one.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Since both are valid, you cannot claim it is a faith-based belief since the latter is what I've seen
I'll admit that I was unaware of the second definition. The one that I come across most often seems to fit the first definition and I was assuming that all atheists held this position. I agree with you that the second definition does not indicate a faith-based belief.
Ian
-
Edmundisme wrote:
what is illogical about God? How does God short-circuit my logic? If I say that God exists, that He wasn't created, and that He created all things - and I take this as my axiom on which all other beliefs depend, where does the logic break down?
It is illogical that, at least, in the past thousand years God has not performed miracles, has not helped his chosen people, has not guided mankind, has not sent missives, has not shown his face, has not parted seas. It is illogical that God chose a period of pre 2007* years ago to impose his will and then chose to do nothing since. It is illogical that the Christian God chose one small area in what is now called the Middle East to spread his word. Why not the multitudes of Asia and North & South America and Africa? It is illogical that so much changed in his message from the Old to New Testament unless one considers the thoughts of politicians of the ages to be logical; ever changing to retain power. It is illogical that he allows so much wrong to be said in his name. Faith? I have faith. I have faith in the human spirit, in life itself and the splendor of the universe. In the scales, from the smallest to biggest from the most generic to the most varied from the strangest to the most logical to the simple fact that I am here and so are you. I have faith that should a god exist he is not your sea-parting, tribe-smiting, clause-demanding diety. That he is benevolent to the point of non-existance; a sea to live in, air to breathe in, atoms to live by. But really, there is no need for god. Life is god, atoms and everything that makes up the beautiful chaos that is our multiverse is god. As a plainly intelligent man, you, you should see that. You should feel that in everything you do, in the children you rear in the wife you love. Praise life, not some Bible bound, apostle abused figure-head for a church that has forsaken all that is good in the life that Jesus led. He, Jesus, did good, no denying it. Argh! Can't you see? Love, life, the universe; it is so much greater than this god we talk of. * rough to a few decades at best
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute,
Paul Watson wrote:
It is illogical that he allows so much wrong to be said in his name. Faith? I have faith. I have faith in the human spirit, in life itself and the splendor of the universe.
"Illogical" implies a contradiction, or at least, a flawed reasoning of some sort. Which implies that the action/inaction conflicts with a known motivation. But there is no known motivation. I don't know why i'm here. You don't know why you're there. You might know, at least to some degree, how you got there, but that isn't a reason. Strictly speaking, in the absence of some sort of intelligent Creator / Controller it isn't even logical to assume there is a reason. Either way, it's hardly a given that you would ever be able to discover or prove the validity of a reason for your own existence in any fundamental way. Not that it should stop you from looking... just don't be disappointed if the search isn't terribly easy. I have little faith in the human spirit. If anything, it has proved to be as elusive as any spirit, as difficult to grasp as the faintest will-o'-the-wisp. We are what we are, for good or for bad, and i see nothing great or noble about attributing greatness or nobility to ourselves. Life, that precious yet all-to-often snubbed gift, requires no faith either. It is, after all, our dearest and most fragile possession, no matter how weak our grasp on it becomes. The day faith becomes applicable is the day it finally slips away from us, and we can do nothing but trust in the ability of another to restore it. The Universe, full of splendor indeed. But if that was not plain to you, would you really still hold out hope that, beyond the range of your own perception, beauty still exists? You have tasted Life, been awed by our Universe, and accepted your own Spirit for the crazy powerful foolish dangerous thing that it is. The only real difference between you and i is that i have faith in a Creator behind these terrible, wonderful Creations. A Creator who, for reasons of His own, constantly shapes and tweaks his Creation. Who, so completely unlike myself, actually has reason to be proud of His works, and yet still allows and encourages that creative spark in each of us, temporal and flawed though our little creations are. And you don't see it that way. You see my beliefs as foolish and as damaging as i see yours naive. You're probably wondering why i even bothered to type out such an absurd little post here, when i've made it plain that i
-
You are absoltely correct. Otherwise, on what basis would they be able to differentiate right from wrong. That has to be based upon some kind of moral authority, and that moral authority can only come from the state. Thereby turning the state into an institution promoting one particular interpretation of morality - that of atheism.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
You are absoltely correct. Otherwise, on what basis would they be able to differentiate right from wrong. That has to be based upon some kind of moral authority, and that moral authority can only come from the state.
Total rubbish. The basis of the morality of atheists is the moral judgement of individual atheists.
John Carson
-
Edmundisme wrote:
what is illogical about God? How does God short-circuit my logic? If I say that God exists, that He wasn't created, and that He created all things - and I take this as my axiom on which all other beliefs depend, where does the logic break down?
It is illogical that, at least, in the past thousand years God has not performed miracles, has not helped his chosen people, has not guided mankind, has not sent missives, has not shown his face, has not parted seas. It is illogical that God chose a period of pre 2007* years ago to impose his will and then chose to do nothing since. It is illogical that the Christian God chose one small area in what is now called the Middle East to spread his word. Why not the multitudes of Asia and North & South America and Africa? It is illogical that so much changed in his message from the Old to New Testament unless one considers the thoughts of politicians of the ages to be logical; ever changing to retain power. It is illogical that he allows so much wrong to be said in his name. Faith? I have faith. I have faith in the human spirit, in life itself and the splendor of the universe. In the scales, from the smallest to biggest from the most generic to the most varied from the strangest to the most logical to the simple fact that I am here and so are you. I have faith that should a god exist he is not your sea-parting, tribe-smiting, clause-demanding diety. That he is benevolent to the point of non-existance; a sea to live in, air to breathe in, atoms to live by. But really, there is no need for god. Life is god, atoms and everything that makes up the beautiful chaos that is our multiverse is god. As a plainly intelligent man, you, you should see that. You should feel that in everything you do, in the children you rear in the wife you love. Praise life, not some Bible bound, apostle abused figure-head for a church that has forsaken all that is good in the life that Jesus led. He, Jesus, did good, no denying it. Argh! Can't you see? Love, life, the universe; it is so much greater than this god we talk of. * rough to a few decades at best
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute,
Paul Watson wrote:
in the past thousand years God has not performed miracles
That's quite a claim. Even if it's true how is it a contradiction of logic? I think you are surmising that this is not how God would behave if he existed and I'm not sure what qualifies you to make such a claim. If God does exist, do you think that he would be subject to your judgement? What kind of a God would that make Him? The idea that God is subject to man is a logical fallacy whether you believe in God or not. The rest of your claims are equally flawed and are borne of a mind that conceives of God to be like it imagines him. Again, what kind of God is subject to your imagination? How can what you conceive of be God at all? The mere fact that you are conceiving him out of your own mind nullifies the possibility that what you conceive of is God. You are conceiving of a God that you imagine and then claiming that he does not exist. To this you are correct: the God you conceive of does not exist.
Paul Watson wrote:
It is illogical that so much changed in his message from the Old to New Testament unless one considers the thoughts of politicians of the ages to be logical; ever changing to retain power.
God does not change. To change implies becoming more or less like something. God is not like anything, and sinse he is perfect (this being the only rational idea of God) he cannot become more or less perfect. The message of the bible has not changed. The entire Old Testament points to the fullfillment of the New Testament.
Paul Watson wrote:
It is illogical that he allows so much wrong to be said in his name.
This has nothing whatever to do with logic. If you want to claim otherwise, you'll need to point out the logical components of your assertion.
Paul Watson wrote:
Faith? I have faith. I have faith in the human spirit, in life itself and the splendor of the universe. In the scales, from the smallest to biggest from the most generic to the most varied from the strangest to the most logical to the simple fact that I am here and so are you.
This is gibberish. What is faith to you? And what does this faith of yours accomplish? What does it mean to have faith in the human spirit? Or in life? What is the difference between having faith in the universe and not having faith in the universe? Yo
-
Proof and evidence are not the same thing. I believe there is considerable evidence of God but I cannot prove his existence. I consider nature and life, and the laws of morality and things that to me are unimaginable as being the result of mere chance. I consider personal experience. The evidence, in my opinion, greatly favors God. A belief in God is not the same as a belief in unicorns. What, in the nature of existence, suggests that there must be unicorns? However, the very nature of existence suggests to me that God exists. I am not trying to prove His existence. I'm merely pointing to the things that I consider evidence to His existence. If you feel that this isn't evidence, then I understand your unwillingness to believe in God. However, not believing in God, and believing that He does not exist are different. What is your evidence that he does not exist?
Edmundisme wrote:
I believe there is considerable evidence of God but I cannot prove his existence. I consider nature and life, and the laws of morality and things that to me are unimaginable as being the result of mere chance.
1. Evolution involved chance and natural selection. The latter is non-random. 2. Your argument from personal incredulity is of no value. The power of your imaginings is beside the point. What matters is the evidence and it overwhelmingly points to evolution.
Edmundisme wrote:
A belief in God is not the same as a belief in unicorns. What, in the nature of existence, suggests that there must be unicorns? However, the very nature of existence suggests to me that God exists.
It may suggest that to you, but it doesn't suggest it to me or to others like me. The point is that, to the scientifically minded, one should (provisonally) believe things for which there is compelling evidence and (provisionally) not believe anything for which evidence is lacking. Atheists don't believe in God because of a lack of evidence in favour of God's existence and because of evidence contradicting the existence of some versions of God --- the same reason they (and most people) don't believe in unicorns or teapots orbiting Mars. Scientifically minded atheists don't have any special rules regarding belief in God. They assess the merits of belief in God the same way they assess the merits of belief in anything else. If the evidence is lacking, they don't believe in it.
Edmundisme wrote:
However, not believing in God, and believing that He does not exist are different.
Not fundamentally. It is just a matter of the level of confidence. If you think that the evidence in favour is sufficiently weak, then you will be willing to (provisionally) declare that God doesn't exist, just as you will declare that unicorns don't exist. If you are less sure of the evidence, you will merely declare that you are not convinced of God's existence.
Edmundisme wrote:
What is your evidence that he does not exist?
In order for evidence for or against God's existence to be possible, God's existence must have empirical implications. For evidence in favour of God's existence to be persuasive, those empircal implications need to be more than ex post rationalisation of observed fact
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Oh sure, use the fact as the basis of your argument. What if I said if atheists believe that the world is round even though you are claiming that they are wrong because you and or the majority say it is so?
I don't understand these two sentences. My point is that the world is absolutely round regardless of a particular person's belief on the matter. The fact that there are differing beliefs does not suggest that none of the beliefs can be the "correct" one.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Since both are valid, you cannot claim it is a faith-based belief since the latter is what I've seen
I'll admit that I was unaware of the second definition. The one that I come across most often seems to fit the first definition and I was assuming that all atheists held this position. I agree with you that the second definition does not indicate a faith-based belief.
Ian
ibowler wrote:
My point is that the world is absolutely round regardless of a particular person's belief on the matter. The fact that there are differing beliefs does not suggest that none of the beliefs can be the "correct" one.
But absolute fact has to be proven. Let's say you claimed it was a cube and I claimed it was a tetrahedral. We'd both be wrong, but both arguing that we're right. When it comes to God, it is faith that makes us believe, but not doubt that makes us disbelieve. Doubt is not lack of faith, doubt is lack of proof.
ibowler wrote:
I'll admit that I was unaware of the second definition. The one that I come across most often seems to fit the first definition and I was assuming that all atheists held this position. I agree with you that the second definition does not indicate a faith-based belief.
That's what we've been trying to say. Therefore, it cannot be absolutely faith-based atheism. QED.
"If only one person knows the truth, it is still the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
-
Likewise, the good doctor certainly isn't Jewish or Christian; most likely Islamic. Of course such a person isn't going to find evidence for something patently Jewish. :) *edit* oh, he's the chief archaeologist of Egypt? Come on, Bassam - you really think that's an unbiased opinion? :rolleyes:
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Passover: Do this in remembrance of Me The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
Likewise, the good doctor certainly isn't Jewish or Christian; most likely Islamic. Of course such a person isn't going to find evidence for something patently Jewish. *edit* oh, he's the chief archaeologist of Egypt? Come on, Bassam - you really think that's an unbiased opinion?
The proposition that there is no good evidence for the Jewish captivity and exodus is pretty standard among archaelogists, notwithstanding the mythology that lives on in Christian circles. It is interesting but unsurprising that you appear to be unaware of this. Perhaps Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman will have more credibility with you than Zahi Hawass. http://www.theosophical.org.uk/Biblunsbd.htm[^]
John Carson
-
Judah Himango wrote:
Maybe they're looking in the wrong place - Yam Suf in Hebrew is not the "Red Sea", it's the Reed Sea.
There was a show about biblical battles on the History Channel that claimed it was the Reed Sea[^] and not the Red sea. They suggested that the Reed sea was a shallow swamp and Moses nipped across during the night while the tide was out. By the time the Egyptians realized they'd gone the tide was coming back in hence blocking their pursuit.
Wjousts wrote:
There was a show about biblical battles on the History Channel that claimed it was the Reed Sea[^] and not the Red sea. They suggested that the Reed sea was a shallow swamp and Moses nipped across during the night while the tide was out. By the time the Egyptians realized they'd gone the tide was coming back in hence blocking their pursuit.
There is no good evidence that the Jews were ever captive in Egypt nor for the exodus. Moses never existed.
John Carson
-
Edmundisme wrote:
I believe there is considerable evidence of God but I cannot prove his existence. I consider nature and life, and the laws of morality and things that to me are unimaginable as being the result of mere chance.
1. Evolution involved chance and natural selection. The latter is non-random. 2. Your argument from personal incredulity is of no value. The power of your imaginings is beside the point. What matters is the evidence and it overwhelmingly points to evolution.
Edmundisme wrote:
A belief in God is not the same as a belief in unicorns. What, in the nature of existence, suggests that there must be unicorns? However, the very nature of existence suggests to me that God exists.
It may suggest that to you, but it doesn't suggest it to me or to others like me. The point is that, to the scientifically minded, one should (provisonally) believe things for which there is compelling evidence and (provisionally) not believe anything for which evidence is lacking. Atheists don't believe in God because of a lack of evidence in favour of God's existence and because of evidence contradicting the existence of some versions of God --- the same reason they (and most people) don't believe in unicorns or teapots orbiting Mars. Scientifically minded atheists don't have any special rules regarding belief in God. They assess the merits of belief in God the same way they assess the merits of belief in anything else. If the evidence is lacking, they don't believe in it.
Edmundisme wrote:
However, not believing in God, and believing that He does not exist are different.
Not fundamentally. It is just a matter of the level of confidence. If you think that the evidence in favour is sufficiently weak, then you will be willing to (provisionally) declare that God doesn't exist, just as you will declare that unicorns don't exist. If you are less sure of the evidence, you will merely declare that you are not convinced of God's existence.
Edmundisme wrote:
What is your evidence that he does not exist?
In order for evidence for or against God's existence to be possible, God's existence must have empirical implications. For evidence in favour of God's existence to be persuasive, those empircal implications need to be more than ex post rationalisation of observed fact
John Carson wrote:
1. Evolution involved chance and natural selection. The latter is non-random.
And it all came from what? What is the origin of life? It can't be non-life. Life can't just spring into being and over the course of time become man (I don't care how many millions or trillions of years you want to give it). And where are the transitional species in the fossil record? This is neither here nor there. Whether or not evolution is in some way involved in our history does not shed any light whatsoever on whether or not God exists.
John Carson wrote:
2. Your argument from personal incredulity is of no value. The power of your imaginings is beside the point. What matters is the evidence and it overwhelmingly points to evolution.
Science in all its pomposity has failed to explain how life can simply "become" without there being an intelligent power behind it. Where did the big bang come from? Certainly not nothing. Does absolute origin of life and universe not puzzle you?
John Carson wrote:
and because of evidence contradicting the existence of some versions of God
Such as?
John Carson wrote:
Fundamentalist Christianity tells us that the universe was created ex nihilo less than 10,000 years ago. Mountains of scientific evidence show that to be nonsense. If you want to discuss the evidence for your version of God, tell us what that version is and what empirical predictions follow from that version.
If I believe God exists, why would the apparent age of the earth bother or confound me? Nobody knows whether the six day creation in Genesis is literal or not. But the bible teaches (and I believe) that God created time and is not himself subject to it. It also states that to God, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. The purported age of the earth doesn't concern me or challenge my faith.
John Carson wrote:
In order for evidence for or against God's existence to be possible, God's existence must have empirical implications. For evidence in favour of God's existence to be persuasive, those empircal implications need to be more than ex post rationalisation of observed facts. They need to be ex ante predictions that could turn out to be wrong but in fact turn out to be right. Fundamentalis
-
ibowler wrote:
My point is that the world is absolutely round regardless of a particular person's belief on the matter. The fact that there are differing beliefs does not suggest that none of the beliefs can be the "correct" one.
But absolute fact has to be proven. Let's say you claimed it was a cube and I claimed it was a tetrahedral. We'd both be wrong, but both arguing that we're right. When it comes to God, it is faith that makes us believe, but not doubt that makes us disbelieve. Doubt is not lack of faith, doubt is lack of proof.
ibowler wrote:
I'll admit that I was unaware of the second definition. The one that I come across most often seems to fit the first definition and I was assuming that all atheists held this position. I agree with you that the second definition does not indicate a faith-based belief.
That's what we've been trying to say. Therefore, it cannot be absolutely faith-based atheism. QED.
"If only one person knows the truth, it is still the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
But absolute fact has to be proven
So the roundness of the earth was not an absolute truth until it was proven to be so? Absolute truth is (by definition) true regardless of whether or not it has been proven. Now deteriming what truths are absolute is a different matter altogether
Ian
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You are absoltely correct. Otherwise, on what basis would they be able to differentiate right from wrong. That has to be based upon some kind of moral authority, and that moral authority can only come from the state.
Total rubbish. The basis of the morality of atheists is the moral judgement of individual atheists.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The basis of the morality of atheists is the moral judgement of individual atheists.
Talk about rubbish. No civilization predicated upon individual moral authority has any hope of survival. That is a scientific fact which you could easily observe if you ever managed to get your head out of your ass. The only possible source of moral authority in an ahteistic society is the state. And the only way that can be achieved is by the eradication of religion altogether. And that is the mission the ahteists are trying to use the state to achieve.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
John Carson wrote:
The basis of the morality of atheists is the moral judgement of individual atheists.
Talk about rubbish. No civilization predicated upon individual moral authority has any hope of survival. That is a scientific fact which you could easily observe if you ever managed to get your head out of your ass. The only possible source of moral authority in an ahteistic society is the state. And the only way that can be achieved is by the eradication of religion altogether. And that is the mission the ahteists are trying to use the state to achieve.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
No civilization predicated upon individual moral authority has any hope of survival.
If you are saying that some shared morality is necessary for a civilisation, then I agree. However, that doesn't mean the morality orginates with the state. It more likely means that the state reflects and enforces the shared morality of its citizenry.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only possible source of moral authority in an ahteistic society is the state.
Bollocks. The state gets is morality from its citizens. -- modified at 23:47 Tuesday 3rd April, 2007
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
1. Evolution involved chance and natural selection. The latter is non-random.
And it all came from what? What is the origin of life? It can't be non-life. Life can't just spring into being and over the course of time become man (I don't care how many millions or trillions of years you want to give it). And where are the transitional species in the fossil record? This is neither here nor there. Whether or not evolution is in some way involved in our history does not shed any light whatsoever on whether or not God exists.
John Carson wrote:
2. Your argument from personal incredulity is of no value. The power of your imaginings is beside the point. What matters is the evidence and it overwhelmingly points to evolution.
Science in all its pomposity has failed to explain how life can simply "become" without there being an intelligent power behind it. Where did the big bang come from? Certainly not nothing. Does absolute origin of life and universe not puzzle you?
John Carson wrote:
and because of evidence contradicting the existence of some versions of God
Such as?
John Carson wrote:
Fundamentalist Christianity tells us that the universe was created ex nihilo less than 10,000 years ago. Mountains of scientific evidence show that to be nonsense. If you want to discuss the evidence for your version of God, tell us what that version is and what empirical predictions follow from that version.
If I believe God exists, why would the apparent age of the earth bother or confound me? Nobody knows whether the six day creation in Genesis is literal or not. But the bible teaches (and I believe) that God created time and is not himself subject to it. It also states that to God, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. The purported age of the earth doesn't concern me or challenge my faith.
John Carson wrote:
In order for evidence for or against God's existence to be possible, God's existence must have empirical implications. For evidence in favour of God's existence to be persuasive, those empircal implications need to be more than ex post rationalisation of observed facts. They need to be ex ante predictions that could turn out to be wrong but in fact turn out to be right. Fundamentalis
ibowler wrote:
And it all came from what? What is the origin of life? It can't be non-life.
Why not? From a scientific point of view, life is just an ongoing chemical process and there are plenty of ongoing chemical processes in the "non-life world".
ibowler wrote:
And where are the transitional species in the fossil record?
The fact that you ask that shows you are getting your information from religious ignorami. There are plenty of transitional species in the fossil record linking fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, dinosaurs and birds, non-flowering and flowering plants, whales and land dwelling mammals, apes and humans...
ibowler wrote:
Whether or not evolution is in some way involved in our history does not shed any light whatsoever on whether or not God exists.
I would agree that, even if evolution is false, then that is not a good reason to believe in God. However, there are competing explanations of origins and the strength of the evolutionary explanation does have a bearing on the persuasiveness of the Divine one.
ibowler wrote:
Science in all its pomposity has failed to explain how life can simply "become" without there being an intelligent power behind it. Where did the big bang come from? Certainly not nothing. Does absolute origin of life and universe not puzzle you?
As is usual among Christians, you obviously haven't given this much thought. Scientific knowledge is always incomplete (though not as incomplete as you suppose), but it is nevertheless extremely impressive. The contribution of religious thought to our understanding of origins etc. is, by contrast, exactly zero. No Christian I have ever encountered has claimed to understand how God created the universe or any living being. They have no understanding of any mechanism or process whereby it could be done. They can point to no evidence of divine action. They can give no explanation of where God came from or how he acquired his powers. The explanations of scientists are incomplete, but at least they exist. Christians have no explanations whatsoever. If you see bread rolls in a shop and wonder where they came from, then you can "explain" it by saying the magic fairies made them. No grown up should find such an explanation satisfactory. The religious explan
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
But absolute fact has to be proven
So the roundness of the earth was not an absolute truth until it was proven to be so? Absolute truth is (by definition) true regardless of whether or not it has been proven. Now deteriming what truths are absolute is a different matter altogether
Ian
No it is. However, even with obvious truths it needs to be proven to most people, and the roundness of the earth at that time was in no way obvious to most. When dealing with God, things become infinitely more complex to prove and justly so.
"If only one person knows the truth, it is still the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
-
ibowler wrote:
And it all came from what? What is the origin of life? It can't be non-life.
Why not? From a scientific point of view, life is just an ongoing chemical process and there are plenty of ongoing chemical processes in the "non-life world".
ibowler wrote:
And where are the transitional species in the fossil record?
The fact that you ask that shows you are getting your information from religious ignorami. There are plenty of transitional species in the fossil record linking fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, dinosaurs and birds, non-flowering and flowering plants, whales and land dwelling mammals, apes and humans...
ibowler wrote:
Whether or not evolution is in some way involved in our history does not shed any light whatsoever on whether or not God exists.
I would agree that, even if evolution is false, then that is not a good reason to believe in God. However, there are competing explanations of origins and the strength of the evolutionary explanation does have a bearing on the persuasiveness of the Divine one.
ibowler wrote:
Science in all its pomposity has failed to explain how life can simply "become" without there being an intelligent power behind it. Where did the big bang come from? Certainly not nothing. Does absolute origin of life and universe not puzzle you?
As is usual among Christians, you obviously haven't given this much thought. Scientific knowledge is always incomplete (though not as incomplete as you suppose), but it is nevertheless extremely impressive. The contribution of religious thought to our understanding of origins etc. is, by contrast, exactly zero. No Christian I have ever encountered has claimed to understand how God created the universe or any living being. They have no understanding of any mechanism or process whereby it could be done. They can point to no evidence of divine action. They can give no explanation of where God came from or how he acquired his powers. The explanations of scientists are incomplete, but at least they exist. Christians have no explanations whatsoever. If you see bread rolls in a shop and wonder where they came from, then you can "explain" it by saying the magic fairies made them. No grown up should find such an explanation satisfactory. The religious explan
John Carson wrote:
Why not? From a scientific point of view, life is just an ongoing chemical process and there are plenty of ongoing chemical processes in the "non-life world".
There must be an absolute origin, no? Where did it all begin?
John Carson wrote:
The fact that you ask that shows you are getting your information from religious ignorami. There are plenty of transitional species in the fossil record linking fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, dinosaurs and birds, non-flowering and flowering plants, whales and land dwelling mammals, apes and humans...
Even if there are these specimens as you suggest, doesn't the fossil record seem awefully sparse considering the stages of man's evolution that must have taken place?
John Carson wrote:
As is usual among Christians, you obviously haven't given this much thought.
Because I disagree with you?
John Carson wrote:
No Christian I have ever encountered has claimed to understand how God created the universe or any living being
And how should we know how God did it? Our beliefs begin and end with God.
John Carson wrote:
They can give no explanation of where God came from or how he acquired his powers
Where He came from? How could God come from anything? We believe God is self-existent, has always been and will always be. For us, it is a matter of faith. Science has never proven that God does not exist nor can it do so. We seek to understand because we believe, not the other way around. It is a different mode of operation and no doubt fodder for your mockery.
John Carson wrote:
Even if you happily accept that a "day" is not meant literally, there are still huge problems with the Genesis account. For example, the sequence is wrong. The earth and night and day are created on day 1, yet the sun and stars aren't created until day 4. Where was daylight coming from and how did the plants survive without the sun? Birds appear too early, before the land dwelling creatures. Further, the account in chapter 1 contradicts the account in chapter 2, and the discussion of the sky (an expanse between two bodies of water) is nonsensical.
So in order for God to have created the
-
John Carson wrote:
Why not? From a scientific point of view, life is just an ongoing chemical process and there are plenty of ongoing chemical processes in the "non-life world".
There must be an absolute origin, no? Where did it all begin?
John Carson wrote:
The fact that you ask that shows you are getting your information from religious ignorami. There are plenty of transitional species in the fossil record linking fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, dinosaurs and birds, non-flowering and flowering plants, whales and land dwelling mammals, apes and humans...
Even if there are these specimens as you suggest, doesn't the fossil record seem awefully sparse considering the stages of man's evolution that must have taken place?
John Carson wrote:
As is usual among Christians, you obviously haven't given this much thought.
Because I disagree with you?
John Carson wrote:
No Christian I have ever encountered has claimed to understand how God created the universe or any living being
And how should we know how God did it? Our beliefs begin and end with God.
John Carson wrote:
They can give no explanation of where God came from or how he acquired his powers
Where He came from? How could God come from anything? We believe God is self-existent, has always been and will always be. For us, it is a matter of faith. Science has never proven that God does not exist nor can it do so. We seek to understand because we believe, not the other way around. It is a different mode of operation and no doubt fodder for your mockery.
John Carson wrote:
Even if you happily accept that a "day" is not meant literally, there are still huge problems with the Genesis account. For example, the sequence is wrong. The earth and night and day are created on day 1, yet the sun and stars aren't created until day 4. Where was daylight coming from and how did the plants survive without the sun? Birds appear too early, before the land dwelling creatures. Further, the account in chapter 1 contradicts the account in chapter 2, and the discussion of the sky (an expanse between two bodies of water) is nonsensical.
So in order for God to have created the
ibowler wrote:
There must be an absolute origin, no? Where did it all begin?
Doesn't that apply to the 'God theory' as well? If God created all life etc. as, (by your statement), it cannot have come from nothing then who/what created God as by the same logic it/he/she also cannot have come from nothing, (as per your thinking - 'There must be an absolute origin...')
Rhys "The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it" They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance." Terry Pratchett
-
John Carson wrote:
Why not? From a scientific point of view, life is just an ongoing chemical process and there are plenty of ongoing chemical processes in the "non-life world".
There must be an absolute origin, no? Where did it all begin?
John Carson wrote:
The fact that you ask that shows you are getting your information from religious ignorami. There are plenty of transitional species in the fossil record linking fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, dinosaurs and birds, non-flowering and flowering plants, whales and land dwelling mammals, apes and humans...
Even if there are these specimens as you suggest, doesn't the fossil record seem awefully sparse considering the stages of man's evolution that must have taken place?
John Carson wrote:
As is usual among Christians, you obviously haven't given this much thought.
Because I disagree with you?
John Carson wrote:
No Christian I have ever encountered has claimed to understand how God created the universe or any living being
And how should we know how God did it? Our beliefs begin and end with God.
John Carson wrote:
They can give no explanation of where God came from or how he acquired his powers
Where He came from? How could God come from anything? We believe God is self-existent, has always been and will always be. For us, it is a matter of faith. Science has never proven that God does not exist nor can it do so. We seek to understand because we believe, not the other way around. It is a different mode of operation and no doubt fodder for your mockery.
John Carson wrote:
Even if you happily accept that a "day" is not meant literally, there are still huge problems with the Genesis account. For example, the sequence is wrong. The earth and night and day are created on day 1, yet the sun and stars aren't created until day 4. Where was daylight coming from and how did the plants survive without the sun? Birds appear too early, before the land dwelling creatures. Further, the account in chapter 1 contradicts the account in chapter 2, and the discussion of the sky (an expanse between two bodies of water) is nonsensical.
So in order for God to have created the
ibowler wrote:
There must be an absolute origin, no? Where did it all begin?
Believing in God doesn't resolve that issue. Where did God come from? You may say God always existed. Likewise, some scientists argue that the universe has always existed either as matter or energy and that all that has happened is that its form has changed.
ibowler wrote:
Even if there are these specimens as you suggest, doesn't the fossil record seem awefully sparse considering the stages of man's evolution that must have taken place?
Fossilisation is a flukey process and we are talking about beings that lived many years ago. The fossil record should be sparse. In any event, if the fossil record shows evidence of evolution taking place, then that establishes that evolution "works" and it is natural to extrapolate from those cases where we can see it in operation to those where we can't.
ibowler wrote:
Because I disagree with you?
No, for the reason I proceeded to elaborate. You think that you have explained something when you posit an "explanation" that you have no understanding of (you can't describe the mechanism etc.) and for which there is no evidence. If you had thought it through, you would see that this is not an explanation in the scientific sense and hence cannot be offered in competition to scientific explanations.
ibowler wrote:
Where He came from? How could God come from anything? We believe God is self-existent, has always been and will always be.
1. Believing it doesn't make it so. 2. You can't have it both ways. You can't insist others explain where something came from if you won't play by the same rules yourself. If you want to claim God always existed, then you must accept as having the same logical status the claim of others that the universe (in some form) always existed.
ibowler wrote:
For us, it is a matter of faith.
Which is just a polite way of saying you believe something without having grounds for doing so.
ibowler wrote:
Science has never proven that God does not exist nor can it do so.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, science cannot pass judgement on matters unless those matters have empirical implications. Science has never p
-
ibowler wrote:
There must be an absolute origin, no? Where did it all begin?
Doesn't that apply to the 'God theory' as well? If God created all life etc. as, (by your statement), it cannot have come from nothing then who/what created God as by the same logic it/he/she also cannot have come from nothing, (as per your thinking - 'There must be an absolute origin...')
Rhys "The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it" They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance." Terry Pratchett
I believe God has no beginning. If God was created, then there would be something greater than God, and what would that be? This is the only rational way to think about God. Anything less would imply that something is greater than God, which doesn't make sense. So, that explains my views on that matter.
Ian
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No civilization predicated upon individual moral authority has any hope of survival.
If you are saying that some shared morality is necessary for a civilisation, then I agree. However, that doesn't mean the morality orginates with the state. It more likely means that the state reflects and enforces the shared morality of its citizenry.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only possible source of moral authority in an ahteistic society is the state.
Bollocks. The state gets is morality from its citizens. -- modified at 23:47 Tuesday 3rd April, 2007
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The state gets is morality from its citizens
As long as they are atheists.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
John Carson wrote:
The state gets is morality from its citizens
As long as they are atheists.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
As long as they are atheists.
If the state is a secular democracy - everyone gets a vote on morality. If the state is a non-secular democracy - only the "chosen" religion gets a vote. How do you imagine that is fair?
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin