CG: deliver proof of god existence please?
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Again, you are mixing up when they were written down with when they either happened or were created. You have no proof of when it happened, only the latest date it could have, anything else is no more than a matter of faith to you.
I am not. Regardless of what date the bible has in mind for the creation (it doesn't actually set a data, but whatever), fact (the bible isn't over 400k years old, humans are) is that it was written much later than when there were first humans walking the earth. For thousands of years people were roaming the earth, praying to other gods, and then one day the christian god decides to make his presence known. Ok, fine (we can't understand his actions and all that*), but that's also what other gods did (or such is claimed by their believers). How is this one any different? Is he any more believable than the other gods, just because he's the newest? That, is what I meant. Or let me put it this way, why do you not believe in any other gods? * which is clearly a way to wiggle out from underneath "god didn't do X so he doesn't exist" arguments, even if does turn out to be true. (who knows, right?) But that argument was never a strong one anyway.
Datum is singular, data is plural - not hassling you about it, correcting you. But what you are saying is sort of the same as saying General Relativity wasn't an apt description of space-time until after Einstein wrote it. It was, and would continue to be, even if no one ever figured it out. And you are still showing that you are mistaking: ..the date of the writing with ..the date when the stuff written about happened. The Bible implies that it was written well after what happened in most of the Pentitude, which was most likely written by Moses. It talks about revelation prior to it's writing. It talks about revelation to Adam and Eve, Noah and others, well before Moses. It contains oral history, I understand you take that with a pound of salt. But if it does go back to Adam and Eve, then it goes back to the origins of humanity. Which I believe was a mutation that allowed some form of spirituality, and which explains how there were others out there for Adam and Eve's children to marry. The gene may have been dominant, once mutated, and spread rapidly through the hominid population. So, He clearly is not the newest, even by your measure, as Allah was not written about until the 7th century, IIRC. Why do I think He is different from other Gods? He was not created, He is creator. That is a big one for me, as it has to do with how the universe got here, because why I'm here has to be contained in that. Zeus, for instance, had a creator, and was created within the confines of space time. This also washes out most purported gods and minor spirits. Consistency over time (though I bet you don't believe that :) ) something 'larger' than space-time, who is able to view all of space-time at once, can not change during space time. Though I do see some contradictions (election and choice, which I don't understand, but can sort of rationalize), I have not found inconsistencies that happen over time that are unresolvable with some analysis. I also know I don't know the whole thing, and may have missed parts. High standards - requires perfection, which is something that happens to resonate with my personality, even though I know I can not be. Not positive why I think the creator should demand perfection, but I do. Could be cultural, could be my Dad's influence, could be a faulty gene. A willingness to take the hard road, to be willing to met out correction in this world to guide us to the right answer for the long haul. All the bad stuff that can happen to us here on earth is squat c
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Written down. Made up is judgement on something you can not prove.
You can not prove that it wasn't made up, either. It was definitely written down, of course. But someone wrote it down and there is no guarantee that he did so correctly, in fact even the claim that it was inspired by god in the first place is in the text itself, making it a circular argument. This post was inspired by god as well. And that's the truth - because I was inspired by god. Point made. I'm glad that you don't take the bible completely literally though, for such people there isn't much hope.
harold aptroot wrote:
You can not prove that it wasn't made up, either. It was definitely written down, of course.
Claiming it was made up requires just as much proof as saying it is truth. The neutral argument, the one that doesn't require proof, is 'I don't know if it is true or not'.
harold aptroot wrote:
This post was inspired by god as well. And that's the truth - because I was inspired by god. Point made.
If you are able to collect a set of literature that is internally consistent, and consistent with reality, and written by many authors over the space of 2000 years, I may start to believe it was inspired, whether you knew it or not. :laugh: No, point not made.
harold aptroot wrote:
I'm glad that you don't take the bible completely literally though, for such people there isn't much hope.
I've known people who claim to take it entirely literally, but it usually does not take a long time for them get to the point where 'a week means seven years', or something else. :laugh: I find this is usually not taken well. I know argument does not convince people, and proving someone wrong just ticks them off. But it is so much fun!
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Datum is singular, data is plural - not hassling you about it, correcting you. But what you are saying is sort of the same as saying General Relativity wasn't an apt description of space-time until after Einstein wrote it. It was, and would continue to be, even if no one ever figured it out. And you are still showing that you are mistaking: ..the date of the writing with ..the date when the stuff written about happened. The Bible implies that it was written well after what happened in most of the Pentitude, which was most likely written by Moses. It talks about revelation prior to it's writing. It talks about revelation to Adam and Eve, Noah and others, well before Moses. It contains oral history, I understand you take that with a pound of salt. But if it does go back to Adam and Eve, then it goes back to the origins of humanity. Which I believe was a mutation that allowed some form of spirituality, and which explains how there were others out there for Adam and Eve's children to marry. The gene may have been dominant, once mutated, and spread rapidly through the hominid population. So, He clearly is not the newest, even by your measure, as Allah was not written about until the 7th century, IIRC. Why do I think He is different from other Gods? He was not created, He is creator. That is a big one for me, as it has to do with how the universe got here, because why I'm here has to be contained in that. Zeus, for instance, had a creator, and was created within the confines of space time. This also washes out most purported gods and minor spirits. Consistency over time (though I bet you don't believe that :) ) something 'larger' than space-time, who is able to view all of space-time at once, can not change during space time. Though I do see some contradictions (election and choice, which I don't understand, but can sort of rationalize), I have not found inconsistencies that happen over time that are unresolvable with some analysis. I also know I don't know the whole thing, and may have missed parts. High standards - requires perfection, which is something that happens to resonate with my personality, even though I know I can not be. Not positive why I think the creator should demand perfection, but I do. Could be cultural, could be my Dad's influence, could be a faulty gene. A willingness to take the hard road, to be willing to met out correction in this world to guide us to the right answer for the long haul. All the bad stuff that can happen to us here on earth is squat c
IIRC the Greek gods were descendants of Gaia, who "just exists" (like god, I guess)
RichardM1 wrote:
But what you are saying is sort of the same as saying General Relativity wasn't an apt description of space-time until after Einstein wrote it. It was, and would continue to be, even if no one ever figured it out.
Yes, and I'm saying it to make it sound ridiculous. God was not known to man until, well, choose your year - before that we were simply wrong? It's not entirely impossible.. just weird. It's a god we're talking about, he could have made his presence known at any moment.
RichardM1 wrote:
So, He clearly is not the newest, even by your measure, as Allah was not written about until the 7th century, IIRC.
So be it. Why don't you believe in Allah then? He's the "newer insight", maybe he is the real god? (why wouldn't he be?)
RichardM1 wrote:
So, why are you so vehemently opposed to there being a God, when you do not, can not, know if it is true or not? Up until you die, and maybe not then. It is not a very skeptical way to approach it. Skepticism requires it be applied to both unprovable arguments.
I never claimed to be a skeptic.. I am especially opposed to the christian god, you know, the one who created man after his own image and is supposed to care about what people do down here. I think this is a highly arrogant notion, ascribing far too much importance to our species, probably out of a sense of self-importance. We're not all that special. And I'm opposed to a non-physical magical being cable of thought. How would that work? It can't have a brain. And magic, if it exists at all, can not violate the laws of physics, because nothing can - how did god what he did? I am not so much opposed to calling something else "god" just to give it a name, for example "the thing that makes the quantum choices" (if there is such a thing - it's just an example) or "time itself" I also believe that everything is irrelevant - everything. Suppose you destroy the entire universe, so what? It doesn't actually matter. That is a belief, of course (and therefore bullshit), but I got there through thought-experiments and not by taking the contents of a poorly translated book seriously.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
You can not prove that it wasn't made up, either. It was definitely written down, of course.
Claiming it was made up requires just as much proof as saying it is truth. The neutral argument, the one that doesn't require proof, is 'I don't know if it is true or not'.
harold aptroot wrote:
This post was inspired by god as well. And that's the truth - because I was inspired by god. Point made.
If you are able to collect a set of literature that is internally consistent, and consistent with reality, and written by many authors over the space of 2000 years, I may start to believe it was inspired, whether you knew it or not. :laugh: No, point not made.
harold aptroot wrote:
I'm glad that you don't take the bible completely literally though, for such people there isn't much hope.
I've known people who claim to take it entirely literally, but it usually does not take a long time for them get to the point where 'a week means seven years', or something else. :laugh: I find this is usually not taken well. I know argument does not convince people, and proving someone wrong just ticks them off. But it is so much fun!
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
If you are able to collect a set of literature that is internally consistent, and consistent with reality, and written by many authors over the space of 2000 years, I may start to believe it was inspired, whether you knew it or not.
It is not internally consistent, there are even whole sites[^] about that. Also, they could have made it so that it was consistent. Making something consistent with reality is easy enough, just mix history with some "impossible to prove" things.
RichardM1 wrote:
Claiming it was made up requires just as much proof as saying it is truth.
Actually no. This is why scientific experiments have to be repeatable - if something is not verifiable, it has no value. The existence of god is (so far, anyway) not verifiable. Try submitting a paper about a non-repeatable experiment for review, and tell them that they can not prove that you were wrong.. Anyway, by your logic you (and me) would have to be agnostic yourself, and apparently you aren't, so what's up with that?
-
IIRC the Greek gods were descendants of Gaia, who "just exists" (like god, I guess)
RichardM1 wrote:
But what you are saying is sort of the same as saying General Relativity wasn't an apt description of space-time until after Einstein wrote it. It was, and would continue to be, even if no one ever figured it out.
Yes, and I'm saying it to make it sound ridiculous. God was not known to man until, well, choose your year - before that we were simply wrong? It's not entirely impossible.. just weird. It's a god we're talking about, he could have made his presence known at any moment.
RichardM1 wrote:
So, He clearly is not the newest, even by your measure, as Allah was not written about until the 7th century, IIRC.
So be it. Why don't you believe in Allah then? He's the "newer insight", maybe he is the real god? (why wouldn't he be?)
RichardM1 wrote:
So, why are you so vehemently opposed to there being a God, when you do not, can not, know if it is true or not? Up until you die, and maybe not then. It is not a very skeptical way to approach it. Skepticism requires it be applied to both unprovable arguments.
I never claimed to be a skeptic.. I am especially opposed to the christian god, you know, the one who created man after his own image and is supposed to care about what people do down here. I think this is a highly arrogant notion, ascribing far too much importance to our species, probably out of a sense of self-importance. We're not all that special. And I'm opposed to a non-physical magical being cable of thought. How would that work? It can't have a brain. And magic, if it exists at all, can not violate the laws of physics, because nothing can - how did god what he did? I am not so much opposed to calling something else "god" just to give it a name, for example "the thing that makes the quantum choices" (if there is such a thing - it's just an example) or "time itself" I also believe that everything is irrelevant - everything. Suppose you destroy the entire universe, so what? It doesn't actually matter. That is a belief, of course (and therefore bullshit), but I got there through thought-experiments and not by taking the contents of a poorly translated book seriously.
harold aptroot wrote:
God was not known to man until, well, choose your year - before that we were simply wrong? It's not entirely impossible.. just weird. It's a god we're talking about, he could have made his presence known at any moment.
Going back to the story you are complaining about, it says that the very first humans know God, in a very personal way, as I stated in the last post. The story is the story of those who knew God from the beginning of human kind.
harold aptroot wrote:
Why don't you believe in Allah then? He's the "newer insight", maybe he is the real god? (why wouldn't he be?)
Maybe he is, but he is not consistent with himself, and that kills it for me. I will look at the site you posted about later, and discuss it with you, if you want.
harold aptroot wrote:
I am especially opposed to the christian god, you know, the one who created man after his own image and is supposed to care about what people do down here.
Then you are not an atheist, you are an antichristian. :laugh: I think if you look Islam has those same 'issues', given how much of it was taken from judeo-chritianity.
harold aptroot wrote:
We're not all that special.
Just from a statistical standpoint, intelligent, tool building races are unusual. But special? I'm not sure what you mean.
harold aptroot wrote:
And I'm opposed to a non-physical magical being cable of thought. How would that work? It can't have a brain. And magic, if it exists at all, can not violate the laws of physics, because nothing can - how did god what he did?
You call it magic, I think of it as the thing that created something changing it, from the outside. It may look 'magic' to you, but that is us not being aware of whatever the 'space' is that space-time was created in. String theory says there are more dimensions that we can't see. If changes occur in those dimensions that effect ours, how would they be reflected in those we see? Could look magic to us. Think about stretching a piece of rubber, folding it or cutting it. To a flatlander, those changes could look like magic, yet they are obvious in our dimensions. So, given how much you don't know, how can you say it could not have something analogous to a brain?
h
-
RichardM1 wrote:
If you are able to collect a set of literature that is internally consistent, and consistent with reality, and written by many authors over the space of 2000 years, I may start to believe it was inspired, whether you knew it or not.
It is not internally consistent, there are even whole sites[^] about that. Also, they could have made it so that it was consistent. Making something consistent with reality is easy enough, just mix history with some "impossible to prove" things.
RichardM1 wrote:
Claiming it was made up requires just as much proof as saying it is truth.
Actually no. This is why scientific experiments have to be repeatable - if something is not verifiable, it has no value. The existence of god is (so far, anyway) not verifiable. Try submitting a paper about a non-repeatable experiment for review, and tell them that they can not prove that you were wrong.. Anyway, by your logic you (and me) would have to be agnostic yourself, and apparently you aren't, so what's up with that?
harold aptroot wrote:
Anyway, by your logic you (and me) would have to be agnostic yourself, and apparently you aren't, so what's up with that?
We are on the lounge, and this is a philosophical discussion. I see I am wrong. How much sway is my personal evidence going to have with you, and what would you do other than ridicule it? Anyway, I much more enjoy arguing on your home turf, as it is where you should have the best ability to fight. :) But the quick story is that as an engineering student, the combo of physics, calc, engineering and personal experience caused me to believe there is a god, a designer. Study of different philosophies and religions, as well as personal experience, caused me to believe it was the Christian God. I catch a hard time for it from both Christians and atheists.
harold aptroot wrote:
It is not internally consistent, there are even whole sites[^] about that.
As I asked in the other post, is this your opinion, based on research, or is this you not liking Christianity and picking up available stones? I will address that site in an upcoming post. It might be long. :) I will arbitrarily only address the first 10. It might still be long. If you have any favorites, let me know. :laugh:
harold aptroot wrote:
Actually no. This is why scientific experiments have to be repeatable - if something is not verifiable, it has no value. The existence of god is (so far, anyway) not verifiable.
Nor is the absence of God verifiable. So you should be an agnostic as well, and it is apparent that you are an atheist.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
If you are able to collect a set of literature that is internally consistent, and consistent with reality, and written by many authors over the space of 2000 years, I may start to believe it was inspired, whether you knew it or not.
It is not internally consistent, there are even whole sites[^] about that. Also, they could have made it so that it was consistent. Making something consistent with reality is easy enough, just mix history with some "impossible to prove" things.
RichardM1 wrote:
Claiming it was made up requires just as much proof as saying it is truth.
Actually no. This is why scientific experiments have to be repeatable - if something is not verifiable, it has no value. The existence of god is (so far, anyway) not verifiable. Try submitting a paper about a non-repeatable experiment for review, and tell them that they can not prove that you were wrong.. Anyway, by your logic you (and me) would have to be agnostic yourself, and apparently you aren't, so what's up with that?
From the site, just working from the top. But first I have to say that Genesis accounts of creation do not have detail, and in the scheme of the Bible, the first 14 billion years are only allocated a few chapters. This would tend to show that it was not an important part of the story, which is man's spiritual fall and redemption, not a thesis on the how quantum gravity caused the formation of man. 1 The original separation of lightness and dark matches up with Big Bang theory, from the original creation of a plasma that is opaque, to the CBR, which was released when the plasma cooled enough to allow photons to move freely, to the 'dark ages' of non-ionized matter clouds letting no photons move, back to 'first light' when the clouds ionized enough to allow photon travel, again. It is not until later that local effects are discussed. So, to the best of our understanding, the light was separated from the darkness on a universal scale prior to any stars forming, and again after the formation of matter, our sun not required. 2 While 2:4 says they were not yet sprouted, because there was no water from rain, and from the man not being there to irrigate them, 2:5 says they got water, and, in context, could have started growing, prior to the creation of the man. 3 The issue here is 2:19, and the translation. I have not gone back to the Hebrew to check tense, but at least one translation indicated that they had previously been formed, as opposed to being formed at this time: 2:19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 4 Same as 3 5 Given that chapter one is dealing with billions of years, details of the time between the creation of man and woman are insignificant, and on that time scale they were created at the same time. 6 This is foolish. My doctor encourages exercise, and also suggests I shower afterward. 7 Being pleased with the whole and displeased with some of the parts does not reduce omniscience. While I am not omniscient (as far as I know :rolleyes: ), I am able to be proud of my children at the same time I disapprove of a particular act. I'm open to understanding how God can't do the same thing, but right now, I don't see it. 8 The Pentatude was written by Moses, after the Lord had revealed Himself to Moses. Moses therefore knew His name prior to writing Genesis. 9 It makes more sense if it is spi
-
*grin* that's not confronting at all. In the Bible, God acts in the lives of His people. The proof is not of the sort that one could make a TV documentary on, it's personal. Having said that, there have been people who have joined my church because they did what the Bible says to try to prove that God would not answer, and He did. What the Bible specifically offers the non believer is that if they repent ( which means they are willing to let God prove He is real and, if He is, that they are willing to do things His way ), and be baptised ( that is, be submersed in water, which indicates a willingness to bury the old way of life, when God proves Himself and proves the wherewithall to create a new and better way of life for the individual ), then when someone becomes a Christian, they will have a physical experience which will always include ( but is rarely limited to ) the ability to speak a language that God gives, which is commonly known as speaking in tongues. In my case, when this happened to me, I immediately felt different in many ways, I did literally become a new person. I had gone to many churches before hand, and had 'given my heart to Jesus', and I'd meant it, but I'd been unable to change the negative things in my life. So, if blind faith is all that we're talking about, why didn't my blind faith work before ? You know, there have been down times in my life, and times where I've been disconnected from my faith to a degree, but I can't imagine ever denying what happened to me. In fact, my atheist mother admits that something real enough happened to change me totally, she too would point to that moment as a time of change, and not my other religious experiences that came to nothing. So, yes, the proof God offers is not of a nature that is easy to observe as an outsider. It's not meant to be. God does offer proof to the individual, but He still wants us to have faith. I'm not saying it only works if people are already converted, but I would also say it would not 'work' if someone was not serious enough about it to be willing to consider that God might well exist, simply because I don't see how anyone could be seriously asking Him in those circumstances. That is, it's not a party trick or a joke. And, because it doesn't conform to what people would like God to do, they tend to simply reject it without looking into it at all. Which I would accept if it was done honestly, but 'I don't like the nature of the proof God offers so I will reject it and mock you' doesn't seem like a reasonable
Christian Graus wrote:
What the Bible specifically offers the non believer is that if they repent ( which means they are willing to let God prove He is real and, if He is, that they are willing to do things His way ), and be baptised ( that is, be submersed in water, which indicates a willingness to bury the old way of life, when God proves Himself and proves the wherewithall to create a new and better way of life for the individual ), then when someone becomes a Christian, they will have a physical experience which will always include ( but is rarely limited to ) the ability to speak a language that God gives, which is commonly known as speaking in tongues.
Where is this guaranteed in the Bible? I have not seen it.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
I think you might be misreading some of them. If someone says morals come from God, that is not the same as saying only Christians have morals. But I am only saying that some of them can't articulate the thought well. Others can't, or won't, understand it themselves, let alone express it. :rolleyes:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
I subscribe to PZ Myers' Pharyngula[^] blog. There have been plenty of instances there where he has reported exactly the views I mentioned.
-
I subscribe to PZ Myers' Pharyngula[^] blog. There have been plenty of instances there where he has reported exactly the views I mentioned.
viaducting wrote:
I subscribe to PZ Myers' Pharyngula[^] blog. There have been plenty of instances there where he has reported exactly the views I mentioned.
Reading his first three or four posts, I believe he does report the views you mentioned. Do you also believe that survivor was spitting in the faces of the families of the dead passengers? Or do you see how extreme his blogging is? If you do not, you are on the same level as you paint the 'you have no morals if you are not Christian' group.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
viaducting wrote:
I subscribe to PZ Myers' Pharyngula[^] blog. There have been plenty of instances there where he has reported exactly the views I mentioned.
Reading his first three or four posts, I believe he does report the views you mentioned. Do you also believe that survivor was spitting in the faces of the families of the dead passengers? Or do you see how extreme his blogging is? If you do not, you are on the same level as you paint the 'you have no morals if you are not Christian' group.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
I am well aware that he is an extremist the other way and read his blog with that in mind, but consider it a good blog on balance. I think that "spitting in the face of" is an extreme way of phrasing it, but if the survivor really thinks that way, I think he should explain what it was about each of the other passengers which so offended God that he didn't consider them worthy of saving.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Anyway, by your logic you (and me) would have to be agnostic yourself, and apparently you aren't, so what's up with that?
We are on the lounge, and this is a philosophical discussion. I see I am wrong. How much sway is my personal evidence going to have with you, and what would you do other than ridicule it? Anyway, I much more enjoy arguing on your home turf, as it is where you should have the best ability to fight. :) But the quick story is that as an engineering student, the combo of physics, calc, engineering and personal experience caused me to believe there is a god, a designer. Study of different philosophies and religions, as well as personal experience, caused me to believe it was the Christian God. I catch a hard time for it from both Christians and atheists.
harold aptroot wrote:
It is not internally consistent, there are even whole sites[^] about that.
As I asked in the other post, is this your opinion, based on research, or is this you not liking Christianity and picking up available stones? I will address that site in an upcoming post. It might be long. :) I will arbitrarily only address the first 10. It might still be long. If you have any favorites, let me know. :laugh:
harold aptroot wrote:
Actually no. This is why scientific experiments have to be repeatable - if something is not verifiable, it has no value. The existence of god is (so far, anyway) not verifiable.
Nor is the absence of God verifiable. So you should be an agnostic as well, and it is apparent that you are an atheist.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Nor is the absence of God verifiable. So you should be an agnostic as well, and it is apparent that you are an atheist.
Of course it isn't, the whole issue is unresolvable that way, but the onus lies with the people who introduced the idea of a god, not with the people they're trying to convince. That is why it's relevant that god was not invented until "later". If he had been there from the beginning, the atheists would have to disprove his existence, and probably have a hard time. You may hide your god in higher dimensions, and give yet an other "we just don't understand it" argument (in your other post) but that just extends a long history of "hiding god". First he would be up in the sky, but people went to take a look and he wasn't there so he had to be somewhere else, etc, and now in higher dimensions that we can not see? Do you believe in the invisible pink unicorn? Stories about her are usually internally consistent as well as consistent with reality. I guess we'd have to be agnostic about her as well then.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
God was not known to man until, well, choose your year - before that we were simply wrong? It's not entirely impossible.. just weird. It's a god we're talking about, he could have made his presence known at any moment.
Going back to the story you are complaining about, it says that the very first humans know God, in a very personal way, as I stated in the last post. The story is the story of those who knew God from the beginning of human kind.
harold aptroot wrote:
Why don't you believe in Allah then? He's the "newer insight", maybe he is the real god? (why wouldn't he be?)
Maybe he is, but he is not consistent with himself, and that kills it for me. I will look at the site you posted about later, and discuss it with you, if you want.
harold aptroot wrote:
I am especially opposed to the christian god, you know, the one who created man after his own image and is supposed to care about what people do down here.
Then you are not an atheist, you are an antichristian. :laugh: I think if you look Islam has those same 'issues', given how much of it was taken from judeo-chritianity.
harold aptroot wrote:
We're not all that special.
Just from a statistical standpoint, intelligent, tool building races are unusual. But special? I'm not sure what you mean.
harold aptroot wrote:
And I'm opposed to a non-physical magical being cable of thought. How would that work? It can't have a brain. And magic, if it exists at all, can not violate the laws of physics, because nothing can - how did god what he did?
You call it magic, I think of it as the thing that created something changing it, from the outside. It may look 'magic' to you, but that is us not being aware of whatever the 'space' is that space-time was created in. String theory says there are more dimensions that we can't see. If changes occur in those dimensions that effect ours, how would they be reflected in those we see? Could look magic to us. Think about stretching a piece of rubber, folding it or cutting it. To a flatlander, those changes could look like magic, yet they are obvious in our dimensions. So, given how much you don't know, how can you say it could not have something analogous to a brain?
h
RichardM1 wrote:
Would it matter to you if someone started applying pain to your person?
Yes, but me and my opinion are irrelevant as well.
RichardM1 wrote:
Which translation are you talking about? Do you have personal reason to believe it is poorly translated, or are you taking on faith what someone else has said? Have you gone back the the most original manuscripts you have available and checked them against the 'poorly translated' version?
The one from ancient Greek to English/other (so it was already translated before that). I know that, because I personally translated parts of it when I had Greek lessons at school, and the translations sometimes didn't match at all and sometimes the text was ambiguous. And that was the text used as the basis of most bibles.. comparing it with the oldest original can only be worse.
RichardM1 wrote:
Then you are not an atheist, you are an antichristian. I think if you look Islam has those same 'issues', given how much of it was taken from judeo-chritianity.
Most gods have the same problem and I don't like any of them, but I won't claim to know about all of them. If there is a god without these issues I would be happy to be agnostic about him. The "human like" properties of god in particular lead me to believe that he was made up by humans. Why else would he have human properties?
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Anyway, by your logic you (and me) would have to be agnostic yourself, and apparently you aren't, so what's up with that?
We are on the lounge, and this is a philosophical discussion. I see I am wrong. How much sway is my personal evidence going to have with you, and what would you do other than ridicule it? Anyway, I much more enjoy arguing on your home turf, as it is where you should have the best ability to fight. :) But the quick story is that as an engineering student, the combo of physics, calc, engineering and personal experience caused me to believe there is a god, a designer. Study of different philosophies and religions, as well as personal experience, caused me to believe it was the Christian God. I catch a hard time for it from both Christians and atheists.
harold aptroot wrote:
It is not internally consistent, there are even whole sites[^] about that.
As I asked in the other post, is this your opinion, based on research, or is this you not liking Christianity and picking up available stones? I will address that site in an upcoming post. It might be long. :) I will arbitrarily only address the first 10. It might still be long. If you have any favorites, let me know. :laugh:
harold aptroot wrote:
Actually no. This is why scientific experiments have to be repeatable - if something is not verifiable, it has no value. The existence of god is (so far, anyway) not verifiable.
Nor is the absence of God verifiable. So you should be an agnostic as well, and it is apparent that you are an atheist.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
So you believe the existence of evil proves there is no good? Fact is, believing in a Mom weakens man. It deludes him into believing he is looked after. Christianity teaches me that, while God may touch the world super naturally, in most cases He wants people to do it. So, knowing what I do, I try and make it a better place.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Fact is, believing in a Mom weakens man. It deludes him into believing he is looked after.
That's not belief... That's fact. Assuming a "normal" childhood, you ARE being looked after... Until a certain point. At some point, you learn to stand on your own two feet, metaphorically speaking, and no longer depend on your parents to look after you.
RichardM1 wrote:
Christianity teaches me that, while God may touch the world super naturally, in most cases He wants people to do it. So, knowing what I do, I try and make it a better place.
Good attitude... If only more people followed it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I think you might be misreading some of them. If someone says morals come from God, that is not the same as saying only Christians have morals. But I am only saying that some of them can't articulate the thought well. Others can't, or won't, understand it themselves, let alone express it. :rolleyes:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
I could give you piles of them, but some are misread. Lately it's more common just to insist that atheists know there is a god, and simply hate him. So they still have morality, because they know there's a god, but they hate him so they don't follow it the exact way that the given individual thinks they should. Typically including but not limited to allowing women to wear pants, not lynching and/or ostracizing gay people, and my personal favorite, understanding science. They typically enjoy looking down on others from their platform of being the only moral creatures, generally including anyone who doesn't completely agree with them as not real Christians and thus not moral. So pretty much they're just assholes who use religion as a way to prop themselves up. But I've never really worked out if that means you're still Christian or not, seems a bit murky.
-
*grin* that's not confronting at all. In the Bible, God acts in the lives of His people. The proof is not of the sort that one could make a TV documentary on, it's personal. Having said that, there have been people who have joined my church because they did what the Bible says to try to prove that God would not answer, and He did. What the Bible specifically offers the non believer is that if they repent ( which means they are willing to let God prove He is real and, if He is, that they are willing to do things His way ), and be baptised ( that is, be submersed in water, which indicates a willingness to bury the old way of life, when God proves Himself and proves the wherewithall to create a new and better way of life for the individual ), then when someone becomes a Christian, they will have a physical experience which will always include ( but is rarely limited to ) the ability to speak a language that God gives, which is commonly known as speaking in tongues. In my case, when this happened to me, I immediately felt different in many ways, I did literally become a new person. I had gone to many churches before hand, and had 'given my heart to Jesus', and I'd meant it, but I'd been unable to change the negative things in my life. So, if blind faith is all that we're talking about, why didn't my blind faith work before ? You know, there have been down times in my life, and times where I've been disconnected from my faith to a degree, but I can't imagine ever denying what happened to me. In fact, my atheist mother admits that something real enough happened to change me totally, she too would point to that moment as a time of change, and not my other religious experiences that came to nothing. So, yes, the proof God offers is not of a nature that is easy to observe as an outsider. It's not meant to be. God does offer proof to the individual, but He still wants us to have faith. I'm not saying it only works if people are already converted, but I would also say it would not 'work' if someone was not serious enough about it to be willing to consider that God might well exist, simply because I don't see how anyone could be seriously asking Him in those circumstances. That is, it's not a party trick or a joke. And, because it doesn't conform to what people would like God to do, they tend to simply reject it without looking into it at all. Which I would accept if it was done honestly, but 'I don't like the nature of the proof God offers so I will reject it and mock you' doesn't seem like a reasonable
Well put, though I'd have to disagree about Speaking in Tongues - it's not a gift that is given to all by any means (in all honestly, I've never seen it happen in any of the Churches I've attended, though plenty of other spiritual gifts are obvious amongst my co-ministers if you look). In case you're wondering, the gift I (seem to, as if it could be quantified) score highest on appears to be Evangelism. Which just just goes to show that God has a sense of humour and likes to challenge us. ;)
Anna :rose: Tech Blog | Visual Lint "Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
-
viaducting wrote:
I subscribe to PZ Myers' Pharyngula[^] blog. There have been plenty of instances there where he has reported exactly the views I mentioned.
Reading his first three or four posts, I believe he does report the views you mentioned. Do you also believe that survivor was spitting in the faces of the families of the dead passengers? Or do you see how extreme his blogging is? If you do not, you are on the same level as you paint the 'you have no morals if you are not Christian' group.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
How exactly is that extreme, it's pretty self centered to walk away from a pile of dead bodies and declare god wanted you to live. It's not god let me live, it's not god spared me, it's god wanted me to live. Humility, it's a wonderful tool in not tap dancing on other people, particularly their graves.
-
So you believe the existence of evil proves there is no good? Fact is, believing in a Mom weakens man. It deludes him into believing he is looked after. Christianity teaches me that, while God may touch the world super naturally, in most cases He wants people to do it. So, knowing what I do, I try and make it a better place.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
So you believe the existence of evil proves there is no good?
So you believe gods 'good' is weaker than mans 'evil'?
RichardM1 wrote:
Fact is, believing in a Mom weakens man. It deludes him into believing he is looked after.
True. Many children are abused because they place their trust in their so called betters.
RichardM1 wrote:
He wants people to do it.
So he has walked away and left Hitler to kill innocent 5 year old children eh? What a cunt. If he exists I would like to punch his fucking lights out the twat.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
The fact that Hitler did what he did proves there isnt a god. Or the Serbs, or Stalin, or the English in Ireland. Or pol pot.
No, it proves free will, AND that there isn't the God that you'd like there to be. But, if there WAS a God who constrained our actions, and forced us to live a certain way, you'd probably not like that, either.
fat_boy wrote:
Fact is believing in god weakens man. It deludes him intio believing he is looked after. He isnt. The sooner people realise it is up to them to create a better life on earth the sooner we will get on and do it.
I would agree that some people are happy to destroy the earth because they think God will fix it. I don't think that's a correct way of looking at things. But hey, there's nothing wrong with the earth anyhow, right ? :P
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
if there WAS a God who constrained our actions, and forced us to live a certain way
What? So you are saying there isnt a god who constrains our actions? So just what os the point of god based morality then? Is the whole point of hell about dissuading us from, and thereby controling, certain actions?
Christian Graus wrote:
But hey, there's nothing wrong with the earth anyhow, right ? :P
Ha ha, feeble joke, feeble logic. We never left the garden of eden dude. :)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription