Religion: what is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Huah!

[Jammer]

I forgot your affiliation... iirc it was nondenominational, correct?
Also, I could have flawless logic, and still have a mistake in the assumptions.

I'm a member (well, not really a member, because I haven't been baptized yet) of the Church of Christ. The Wikipedia article gives a fairly accurate view of how we do things, although there are a few mistakes. The general idea is that we follow everything in the Bible as closely as possible, but at my particular church, we tend to have a less literal interpretation of the Bible than some other churches (for example, we don't think God made the world in 6 literal days, although He easily could have). In other words, we aim to be the same church that Jesus started 2000 years ago. If you ask me, there is something about trying to follow the Bible as best as you possibly can that makes you feel secure that you are doing the right things, assuming the Bible is actually God's Word (that's what I'm having trouble believing as of late).

The assumption that I think we're both making is that the Bible is the Word of God. I think we can work from there--don't be afraid of saying something because you might be wrong. I promise I won't make you feel bad if I beat you in a debate, and I hope you'll do the same to me.

 

[Zink]

I'm a member (well, not really a member, because I haven't been baptized yet) of the Church of Christ. The Wikipedia article gives a fairly accurate view of how we do things, although there are a few mistakes. The general idea is that we follow everything in the Bible as closely as possible, but at my particular church, we tend to have a less literal interpretation of the Bible than some other churches (for example, we don't think God made the world in 6 literal days, although He easily could have). In other words, we aim to be the same church that Jesus started 2000 years ago. If you ask me, there is something about trying to follow the Bible as best as you possibly can that makes you feel secure that you are doing the right things, assuming the Bible is actually God's Word (that's what I'm having trouble believing as of late).

The assumption that I think we're both making is that the Bible is the Word of God. I think we can work from there--don't be afraid of saying something because you might be wrong. I promise I won't make you feel bad if I beat you in a debate, and I hope you'll do the same to me.

Agreed.
As well, I think we can both assume that we believe we are following God's word and the Bible in a way that we feel is closest to what Jesus and God intends. In other words, I assume mutual beneficience.

OK, I begin. I read that Wiki. It doesn't look like we have _that_ much in conflict. Your church seeks to restore religion to Jesus' original intentions (if I read this rightly) and mine seeks to keep it relevant to the modern world. A related Wiki stated that we (Roman Catholic Church, or RCC I guess) base our Scripture views on the authoritarian, teacher-based view. This means that sources of authority (synods, etc) are as valid as Scripture itself, because this is how the apostles learned- divine relevation from authority. Thisway of learning is regarded as a foundation of the Church.

 

[Jammer]

This means that sources of authority (synods, etc) are as valid as Scripture itself, because this is how the apostles learned- divine relevation from authority. Thisway of learning is regarded as a foundation of the Church.

I disagree.

First of all, there is no more "divine relevation from authority." Jesus is not on Earth right now, folks. Jesus (aka God) is the only authority on religious matters--just because he came in the form of a man doesn't mean that another man can have his authority.

Here's a single verse that says a lot:

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Paul was incredibly respected throughout Christiandom at that time, yet these people are praised for being wary of even him! Here, we are told that we should always look in the scriptures to verify what we are told, no matter who is preaching.

 

[commonyoshi]

Then how do you know it happened? During the time this flood was suppose to happen other civilizations had begun flourishing.

They knew by looking at their suroundings and oral tradition. These oral traditions were later written in the book of Genesis. You dont think that a global Flood would have been worth talking about?

Please source something which supports that civilizations were flourishing 6,000(ish) years ago.

I still don't like how you say its my interpretation. Are you saying that the holy translations need to be interpreted correctly. (I'm reading the KJV, BTW)

Huh, I was reading NIV. I'll go according to your version then.
Look at the last sentence of verse 20. "but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him."
or in NewKJV for easier reading: "But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him."

I can definitely see how you would confuse the meaning of the verse by looking for it alone, but if you read it in context it's pretty obvious that the passage where the animals forming was just a reiteration of the life God had already created. In vs 20, it states that there was no being/companion like Adam. It makes no sense for the writer of Genesis to imply that God tried creating something in the image of Adam, messed up on his first try, had Adam name all of His mistakes, and go off to have a second try with Eve.

In Mathew he says "My god[...]" then yells/screams. He doesn't say "Father into thy hands[...]" or "It is finished." You can't say because he screams before dying that it isn't the last intelligible thing he said. And "It is finished" I'm sure sounds a whole lot different than "Father into thy hands I commend my spirit," even in Aramaic.

In Matthew he cries out to God "why have you forsaken me?", hangs on the cross a bit more, and then dies without any other words recorded from him. They are in no way implied to be his very last words.

Gamer4Fire, does it really matter if Jesus said "It is finished" instead of "Father into your hands I give my spirit"? I'm just not seeing how that prooves the Bible is inconsistent. Both have to do with Jesus dying on the cross, and both have his last words being that of surrender. The message is consistent. Are you argueing that God should have divinely interceeded any contradiction, spelling error, or incorrect wording no matter how small? That would be a subjective arguement.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

The assumption that I think we're both making is that the Bible is the Word of God.

Agreed.
As well, I think we can both assume that we believe we are following God's word and the Bible in a way that we feel is closest to what Jesus and God intends.

Here, we are told that we should always look in the scriptures to verify what we are told, no matter who is preaching.

And here is the crux of failure. Here is where you move off the path of win. You should not/cannot assume that something is a perfect work without a base of reference. And not using a base of reference is how you moved to the path of fail.

Other than that, I have to agree with Jammer that only Jesus' word can be used to walk his path, and that the interpretations of others who go beyond his words will only take you further from them.

Have a nice day... Mmmm, milk-tea.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Gamer4Fire, does it really matter if Jesus said "It is finished" instead of "Father into your hands I give my spirit"? I'm just not seeing how that prooves the Bible is inconsistent. Both have to do with Jesus dying on the cross, and both have his last words being that of surrender. The message is consistent. Are you argueing that God should have divinely interceeded any contradiction, spelling error, or incorrect wording no matter how small? That would be a subjective arguement.

In the end, it doesn't really matter, I don't really care that much. But it is an inconsistency; if I wanted to nitpick it, I'd point out how "It is finished" is a statement of conclusion and not surrender. But I don't care enough to debate it down to the particles. What I do want, is for the book as a whole to not contradict itself and explain them away just because god felt like it or because you interpret them to be similar enough to be the same.

 

[commonyoshi]

Yeah, I can definitely understand that, and would have appreciated it so we wouldn't have to deal with this denomination jibberish. (Meh, I'd have appreciated wings on my back as well. What can you do?) But everything is made clear in context. We just have to read up to work for it.

 

[Aesir]

They knew by looking at their suroundings and oral tradition. These oral traditions were later written in the book of Genesis. You dont think that a global Flood would have been worth talking about?

Sure if it actually happened but I've yet to see historical documents which claim it ever did. Furthermore it's scientifically impossible.

1. How where animals from the Americas suppose to reach the Americas? Theres this nasty thing called an ocean it's rather big.

2. If a global flood occurred it would have lifted the polar caps off of their ice shelves, using core samples we can see there was no breaking of the ice shelves furthermore we can tell from core samples that the climate wouldn't allow the ice caps to re-freeze on their shelves.

edit: Shelves is probably the wrong word choice but I couldn't think of a better one.

Please source something which supports that civilizations were flourishing 6,000(ish) years ago.

shminkledorf: I hear china was pretty big 6,000 years ago

anyway...

The great pyramids were built 100-500 years before the biblical date of the flood. Which is probably around 2400 - 2500 BC. Furthermore Stone Henge was built 3000 BC.

How could such a vast volume of water not degrade these structures? I'll give the pyramids the benefit of the doubt but stone henge? Lol

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Debunks basically the whole flood thing, or rather provides enough unanswered questions to deem it likely false.

 

[KaptKRool]

I think we can all agree, if there is a god, he doesn't want us to play as bowser, no matter how improved he's going to be in Brawl.


And Pit would seem like the logical choice, but this Palutena character isn't real, obviously. If she was, she'd be in the bible. Because everything in the bible is true. Why, you might ask? Because... its the bible, theres no more proof needed than that.

The only acceptable character is Luigi. He's a follower of Roman Catholocism, I think he's a registered priest (considering he could exercise ghosts in Luigi's Mansion), and his fireballs travel straight, instead of bouncing and going down.




BTW, mostly a joke post, just wanted to say something SSBB related as well as on topic, look at it as a satire of most closed-minded Christian beliefs.

 

[KrystalRules]

1. How where animals from the Americas suppose to reach the Americas? Theres this nasty thing called an ocean it's rather big.

umm...i little thing called the Ice Age... that created a land bridge where Alaska and Russia meet. so as John Madden would say "Boom! there you have it"

 

[Aesir]

Hmm I guess the KT Boundary apparently doesn't exist!

 

[Zink]

And here is the crux of failure. Here is where you move off the path of win. You should not/cannot assume that something is a perfect work without a base of reference. And not using a base of reference is how you moved to the path of fail.

Other than that, I have to agree with Jammer that only Jesus' word can be used to walk his path, and that the interpretations of others who go beyond his words will only take you further from them.

Have a nice day... Mmmm, milk-tea.

1. As we are debating among ourselves, the assumption is perfectly valid.
2. Nobody said the Bible was perfect. We both assume that we each feel that the Bible contains God's word.
3. Since we are not assuming the Bible's perfection, we may use it as a base of reference itself. This is valid because we are not arguing historical context, but theological differences in which background information is less relevant.

You both seem to assume that anyone at all can just make up a wacky interpretation and claim it is the truth. In reality, it takes hundreds of years and many learned men. Even then, it isn't like there's eighteen thousand interpretations for every verse. Interpretation is really a loaded word: a better description would be putting ideas into context. Just as it is invalid to argue about individual Bible verses, it is invalid to apply exact teachings to modern situations. So general guidelines must be drawn from the messages of the Bible as a whole from which we can then say "Okay, on THIS issue the Bible backs up x position". For example, abortion wasn't an issue in 70 AD. It is now. How do you think the Church decided to take such an anti-abortion stance? Not only Mosaic Law, but also the Greatest Commandment.
Jammer, it is of course good that people would look to the Scripture to check on Paul's, or anyone's, message. I'm not in any way downplaying the Bible. But think a little bit: how likely is it that only the writers of the Bible were divinely inspired? What about, say, Charles Darwin, who saw a beautiful and logical process in Creation? Or a synod of bishops praying for guidance on how to react to a particular issue?
As a point of my own, it seems that any Church which denies the significance of the sacraments is denying quite a lot of Jesus' message. Last Supper? Pentecost? Baptism?

Just so the atheists won't be left out and stuck with Krystal, here's Thomas Aquinas's five rational proofs for God. Have fun. (from Wiki, if you want to know)
-The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu).
Some things are moved.
Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
This mover is what we call God.
-The argument of the first cause (ex causa).
Some things are caused.
Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
This causer is what we call God.
-The argument of contingency (ex contingentia).
Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as something can't come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occurred.
Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).
-The argument of degree (ex gradu).
Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.
The pinnacle of perfection, from which lesser degrees of perfection derive, is what we call God.
-The argument of "design" (ex fine).
All natural bodies in the world act for ends.
These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
To act for ends is characteristic of intelligence.
Therefore, there exists an intelligent being which guides all natural bodies to their ends.
This being we call God.

Even if you don't feel like arguing, look up some of Thomas Aquinas's stuff. Extremely smart dude. He was the kind of person who thought things through in detail. It's hard to convey: read his words on the Eucharist for an example.

 

[commonyoshi]

Sure if it actually happened but I've yet to see historical documents which claim it ever did. Furthermore it's scientifically impossible.

1. How where animals from the Americas suppose to reach the Americas? Theres this nasty thing called an ocean it's rather big.

The same way people supposedly got to foreign lands. I dont know enough theory about this but krystal did mention the whole ice bridge thing which was how Native Americans supposedly got to America.

Edit: historical documents? I'm not following you here. The people were dead. >_>

2. If a global flood occurred it would have lifted the polar caps off of their ice shelves, using core samples we can see there was no breaking of the ice shelves furthermore we can tell from core samples that the climate wouldn't allow the ice caps to re-freeze on their shelves.

I admit complete ignorance in this area.

The great pyramids were built 100-500 years before the biblical date of the flood. Which is probably around 2400 - 2500 BC. Furthermore Stone Henge was built 3000 BC.

How could such a vast volume of water not degrade these structures? I'll give the pyramids the benefit of the doubt but stone henge? Lol

Stone hedge was actually constructed 300 yers after the Flood around 2200 BC.

But overall, there are some serious holes in the Flood story that I'd like to study when I get to college. I will concede this arguement.

 

[Aesir]

The same way people supposedly got to foreign lands. I dont know enough theory about this but krystal did mention the whole ice bridge thing which was how Native Americans supposedly got to America.

Ice age after the Kt boundary incident, for those of you who don't know what that is, its when the asteroid that impacted which completely changed the climate of the earth.

Ice age started a some time after this.

Stone hedge was actually constructed 300 yers after the Flood around 2200 BC.

Wrong, while it wasn't fully completed until 2200, constructing didn't really begin until maybe 3100 BC.

So again this civilizations made stone henge during the flood? the since the construction spans almost 3000 years.

I hate using wikipedia but it's usually right about history.

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


Sorry I had to clear up stuff. >_>

 

[RDK]

Dammit, KrystalRules.

Ignore this post. Go to next page.

 

[KrystalRules]

Ice age after the Kt boundary incident, for those of you who don't know what that is, its when the asteroid that impacted which completely changed the climate of the earth.

Ice age started a some time after this.




Wrong, while it wasn't fully completed until 2200, constructing didn't really begin until maybe 3100 BC.

So again this civilizations made stone henge during the flood? the since the construction spans almost 3000 years.

I hate using wikipedia but it's usually right about history.

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


Sorry I had to clear up stuff. >_>

its already been proven that if an asteroid as big as the one that is claimed to hit this earth then the earth would be gone, no longer existing! (thats not a christian clame, evolutionist say that because with that dinosaurs would have died which evolved into birds, without dinosaurs this place would be screwed, and thats by evolution standards.)

i watched a scientist do a carbon dating equation on a 20 year old tree. he was trying to provve that carbon dating was not flawed, well he failed misserably. the tree's age came out to be a couple of thousand of years old and he had many scientist look over his work. carbon dating is not accurate at all.

 

[RDK]

Just so the atheists won't be left out and stuck with Krystal, here's Thomas Aquinas's five rational proofs for God. Have fun. (from Wiki, if you want to know)
-The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu).
Some things are moved.
Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
This mover is what we call God.
-The argument of the first cause (ex causa).
Some things are caused.
Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
This causer is what we call God.
-The argument of contingency (ex contingentia).
Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as something can't come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occurred.
Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).
-The argument of degree (ex gradu).
Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.
The pinnacle of perfection, from which lesser degrees of perfection derive, is what we call God.
-The argument of "design" (ex fine).
All natural bodies in the world act for ends.
These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
To act for ends is characteristic of intelligence.
Therefore, there exists an intelligent being which guides all natural bodies to their ends.
This being we call God.

Not to sound crass, but the above statements are a pretty good example of what's wrong with most Christian arguments. It's all theoretical mumbo-jumbo. Assumption #1 must be true according to Assumption #2. Well, why is Assumption #2 correct? Because Assumption #1 says so. Circular reasoning at its finest.

Seeing as how I'm an atheist / agnostic, I'm kind of playing devil's advocate with this next request, but Gamer4Fire, could you please try and explain why people accept the geologic time scale / radio-carbon dating as a secure and accurate method for determining the age of fossils? Because after looking into it, it seems like it's incredibly unreliable, and dating some of the same fossils more than once garners mixed results.

 

[KrystalRules]

can an evolutionist explain the cambrian explosion to me? and then how it works with evolution.

 

[Zink]

Not to sound crass, but the above statements are a pretty good example of what's wrong with most Christian arguments. It's all theoretical mumbo-jumbo. Assumption #1 must be true according to Assumption #2. Well, why is Assumption #2 correct? Because Assumption #1 says so. Circular reasoning at its finest.

Not at all. Examine the first proof.

-The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu). 
Some things are moved.
Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
This mover is what we call God.

Step one is simple- some things are moved. I don't see how you can argue against that.
Step two is also simple- Laws of Motion, anyone? An object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by a force. That's all it says here.
Step three/four- it is not possible for there to be an infinite regression of forces, because there had to be an original one, otherwise the others could not exist. Imagine a box of marbles. The box is perfectly level and even, and is also isolated. So the marbles do not move. Now I tilt the box, and the marbles move. There is no way the marbles could have moved without a force acting on them to begin the movement, unless you question the existence of motion.

 

[AltF4]

Oh, man. I went to all the trouble of calling out Krystal and he completely ignores me...


Thanks Zink! I love some good proof-squashing.

First off, most of these are based off of the notion that objects exist independently of anything else and even that notions such as "objects" are well defined. Quantum Mechanics throws a kink into the premise of just about all of these proofs. The universe is not so cut-and-dry as "objects floating through space, bumping into one another".

You can come up with a lot of seeming contradictions if you try to think about the world entirely as Newton described. It is not correct to point out a paradox, and claim that it must be god to resolve the paradox! Paradoxes merely serve to demonstrate that our level of understanding is not yet sufficient. That being said, none of the things listed are 'actual' paradoxes.



1 and 2) The first two proofs assume that time works linearly. That time is a flat arrow which extends possibly infinitely, but also possibly finitely into the past. But this is not true, as the "No Boundary" condition of Stephen Hawking describes.

These two proofs bring up obvious problems (contradictions) that occur at the boundary condition of time. (the moment of the big bang) But as I mentioned earlier, it is possible that time is curved such that there WAS no moment of the big bang, and thus no boundary condition to cause a contradiction.

Lots of contradictions occur when you try to think about the moment of the big bang (and the singularities of black holes) in terms of conventional physics. However these contradictions have been each resolved. (resolved as in demonstrated that there is a case which is possible in which the contradictions do not occur)


3) Like I mentioned earlier, makes the assumption that existence is not relative. This is not necessarily the case. (Copenhagen Interpretation)


4) Proof is just stupid. Perfections of lesser degrees? It's either perfect or not. The existence of a non-perfect object does not imply the existence of a similar-but-perfect object of it's kind. This argument can be used to 'prove' the existence of a "perfect anything". Sounds a lot like St. Anselm's argument, eh? That also is debunked.


5)

All natural bodies in the world act for ends.

. No they don't. How can you make an assumption like that? Since when does every object have to act for some intended end? That's just assuming the conclusion. You're assuming off the bat that there is an intention for which every object acts, which is what you're trying to prove.



The last two were dumb, but the first three are convincing without substantial physics.

The fact is that there is no solid proof that god exists. If there were such a proof, then there wouldn't be such a big debate about his existence would there? I know I for one would believe in god if there was a proof. But then again, it wouldn't be believing at all if there was proof!

PS: Omg... the boards are so slow for me for some reason.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

i watched a scientist do a carbon dating equation on a 20 year old tree. he was trying to provve that carbon dating was not flawed, well he failed misserably. the tree's age came out to be a couple of thousand of years old and he had many scientist look over his work. carbon dating is not accurate at all.

You are either lying or the scientist was setting up the experiment to fail. Carbon dating has a minimum range of (IIRC) five thousand years and a maximum range of (IIRC) sixty thousand. Twenty years is too new of a substance to attempt carbon dating and a respectable scientist would know that.

 

[Jammer]

You are either lying or the scientist was setting up the experiment to fail. Carbon dating has a minimum range of (IIRC) five thousand years and a maximum range of (IIRC) sixty thousand. Twenty years is too new of a substance to attempt carbon dating and a respectable scientist would know that.

Hmm... if I recall correctly, carbon dating is good for up to 60,000 years, but it doesn't have a minimum age. It's done by looking at the amount of a certain type of carbon, which decays slowly (it has a half-life). This should mean that it is actually most accurate when the specimen being dated is newer.

The way it works is that living things have the same amount of carbon-14 as the atmosphere or something, but after they die, the carbon-14 decays at a rate of 14 disintegrations per minute per gram. So, a newly dead tree will have the same carbon-14 content as the atmosphere. The carbon in a 20-year-old tree shouldn't have decayed to the point where it seemed like it was 5,000 years old.

Something funny is going on here, but I'm not sure what. I believe that carbon dating is highly regarded by most scientists.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

1. As we are debating among ourselves, the assumption is perfectly valid.

If the assumption you are working from is wrong then you are fail.

2. Nobody said the Bible was perfect. We both assume that we each feel that the Bible contains God's word.

If god is perfect then his word is perfect.

3. Since we are not assuming the Bible's perfection, we may use it as a base of reference itself. This is valid because we are not arguing historical context, but theological differences in which background information is less relevant.

A base of reference of itself is circular and self defeating.

You both seem to assume that anyone at all can just make up a wacky interpretation and claim it is the truth.

They can and do. There are plenty of cults that use the absolute "truth®" of the bible to back up their interpretations.

In reality, it takes hundreds of years and many learned men. Even then, it isn't like there's eighteen thousand interpretations for every verse.

Only a few hundred.

Interpretation is really a loaded word: a better description would be putting ideas into context.

I like that, context. You can put anything into context.

Just as it is invalid to argue about individual Bible verses, it is invalid to apply exact teachings to modern situations. So general guidelines must be drawn from the messages of the Bible as a whole from which we can then say "Okay, on THIS issue the Bible backs up x position". For example, abortion wasn't an issue in 70 AD. It is now. How do you think the Church decided to take such an anti-abortion stance? Not only Mosaic Law, but also the Greatest Commandment.

Abortion is murder because they want more people to worship their religion. Is has everything to do with power and very little to do with the bible.

Jammer, it is of course good that people would look to the Scripture to check on Paul's, or anyone's, message. I'm not in any way downplaying the Bible. But think a little bit: how likely is it that only the writers of the Bible were divinely inspired?

I am putting forth that they were not divinly inspired, otherwise their book would not be so contrary to the real world.

What about, say, Charles Darwin, who saw a beautiful and logical process in Creation? Or a synod of bishops praying for guidance on how to react to a particular issue?

Darwin was inspired with logic and reason. Bishops are guided by their experience which filters their reality.

Just so the atheists won't be left out and stuck with Krystal, here's Thomas Aquinas's five rational proofs for God. Have fun. (from Wiki, if you want to know)
-The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu).
Some things are moved.
Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
This mover is what we call God.
-The argument of the first cause (ex causa).

Another take:
Everything has a certain amount of energy.
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
Energy must therefore have always existed.

Better yet,
Some things are moved.
Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
This mover is what we call the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves.

Some things are caused.
Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
This causer is what we call God.

And again,
Some things are caused.
Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
This causer is what we call the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Peace Be Unto Her.

I really don't understand why a goddess figure is allowed to exist for eternity but the universe that we've actually seen and live in can't.

-The argument of contingency (ex contingentia).
Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as something can't come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occurred.
Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).

Therefore a big bang from whence all things came did explode and- do you you understand the words I'm typing on this page?

-The argument of degree (ex gradu).
Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.
The pinnacle of perfection, from which lesser degrees of perfection derive, is what we call God.

Heh heh heh,
The pinnacle of perfection, from which lesser degrees of perfection derive, is what we call the Invisible Pink Unicorn, May Her Hooves Never Be Shod.

I'd prefer to state that all things are found in varying degrees of entropy. Which would make your god the most entropic thing to exist. Not quite what you were going for, eh?

-The argument of "design" (ex fine).
All natural bodies in the world act for ends.
These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
To act for ends is characteristic of intelligence.
Therefore, there exists an intelligent being which guides all natural bodies to their ends.
This being we call God.

Rain condensates and falls from the sky because it wanted to- it was called upon- it felt like- ...the laws of physics work. It isn't working toward an end, it merely is. Rocks do not work towards goals they just exist. Flying purple space monkey dishwashers do not work for a goal nor exist.

 

[Geist]

"Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe."-Saint Augustine, 354-430.
Faith is not faith if it needs proof.

I toggle between agnostic and atheist, and I require no explanations to life to live from day to day. I believe that not everything requires an explanation, and that's the beauty of it.

 

[Aesir]

its already been proven that if an asteroid as big as the one that is claimed to hit this earth then the earth would be gone, no longer existing! (thats not a christian clame, evolutionist say that because with that dinosaurs would have died which evolved into birds, without dinosaurs this place would be screwed, and thats by evolution standards.)

Lolwut?

Evidence please or you're just making **** up...again...

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Hmm... if I recall correctly, carbon dating is good for up to 60,000 years, but it doesn't have a minimum age. It's done by looking at the amount of a certain type of carbon, which decays slowly (it has a half-life). This should mean that it is actually most accurate when the specimen being dated is newer.

IIRC, it has to do with the half life of C14 being around five thousand years plus or minus a something. This makes it hard to date stuff that is too new. I haven't been in chemistry and physics in a few years though, so the times might be off, but I do remember that there is a specific range that carbon dating can accomplish and you have to use other forms of radiometric dating for other time frames.

 

[Zink]

Oh, man. I went to all the trouble of calling out Krystal and he completely ignores me...


Thanks Zink! I love some good proof-squashing.

First off, most of these are based off of the notion that objects exist independently of anything else and even that notions such as "objects" are well defined. Quantum Mechanics throws a kink into the premise of just about all of these proofs. The universe is not so cut-and-dry as "objects floating through space, bumping into one another".

You can come up with a lot of seeming contradictions if you try to think about the world entirely as Newton described. It is not correct to point out a paradox, and claim that it must be god to resolve the paradox! Paradoxes merely serve to demonstrate that our level of understanding is not yet sufficient. That being said, none of the things listed are 'actual' paradoxes.

Yes. I had hoped that someone would mention quantum mechanics. Especially considering these proofs were devised in the thirteenth century. Thing is, for the most part quantum mechanics applies at the quantum level. There's a reason Newtonian physics still exists- when dealing with objects larger than particles or ones moving at speeds below that of light, it is valid. And of course, those particles make up the large objects we percieve.

1 and 2) The first two proofs assume that time works linearly. That time is a flat arrow which extends possibly infinitely, but also possibly finitely into the past. But this is not true, as the "No Boundary" condition of Stephen Hawking describes.

These two proofs bring up obvious problems (contradictions) that occur at the boundary condition of time. (the moment of the big bang) But as I mentioned earlier, it is possible that time is curved such that there WAS no moment of the big bang, and thus no boundary condition to cause a contradiction.

Lots of contradictions occur when you try to think about the moment of the big bang (and the singularities of black holes) in terms of conventional physics. However these contradictions have been each resolved. (resolved as in demonstrated that there is a case which is possible in which the contradictions do not occur)

The Big Bang epoch is a bit messed up in terms of physics. Agreed. However, the proof is not dealing with it, it deals with before it. If time is linear, then this is not a problem and is valid, because it had a beginning. If time is curved, then that implies a condition in the convex- valid.

3) Like I mentioned earlier, makes the assumption that existence is not relative. This is not necessarily the case. (Copenhagen Interpretation)

From wiki:

Steven Weinberg in "Einstein's Mistakes", Physics Today, November 2005, page 31, said:
All this familiar story is true, but it leaves out an irony. Bohr's version of quantum mechanics was deeply flawed, but not for the reason Einstein thought. The Copenhagen interpretation describes what happens when an observer makes a measurement, but the observer and the act of measurement are themselves treated classically. This is surely wrong: Physicists and their apparatus must be governed by the same quantum mechanical rules that govern everything else in the universe. But these rules are expressed in terms of a wave function (or, more precisely, a state vector) that evolves in a perfectly deterministic way. So where do the probabilistic rules of the Copenhagen interpretation come from?
Considerable progress has been made in recent years toward the resolution of the problem, which I cannot go into here. It is enough to say that neither Bohr nor Einstein had focused on the real problem with quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen rules clearly work, so they have to be accepted. But this leaves the task of explaining them by applying the deterministic equation for the evolution of the wave function, the Schrödinger equation, to observers and their apparatus.

4) Proof is just stupid. Perfections of lesser degrees? It's either perfect or not. The existence of a non-perfect object does not imply the existence of a similar-but-perfect object of it's kind. This argument can be used to 'prove' the existence of a "perfect anything". Sounds a lot like St. Anselm's argument, eh? That also is debunked.

Perfections of lesser degrees do not exist? So this means that all cookies taste equally good (or bad?)? Because some may be baked perfectly, others may have the perfect recipe, etc. Obviously, nothing worldly is perfect. If everything is imperfect, how do you distinguish between them?

5) . No they don't. How can you make an assumption like that? Since when does every object have to act for some intended end? That's just assuming the conclusion. You're assuming off the bat that there is an intention for which every object acts, which is what you're trying to prove.

Please go read up on Aristotle and his telos idea.

The last two were dumb, but the first three are convincing without substantial physics.

The fact is that there is no solid proof that god exists. If there were such a proof, then there wouldn't be such a big debate about his existence would there? I know I for one would believe in god if there was a proof. But then again, it wouldn't be believing at all if there was proof!

No solid proof that satisfies everyone exists. Whoever said logic was "solid"? It's merely thinking exercises.

I find it a bit funny that we need quantum mechanics to counter a 13th century proof.

If the assumption you are working from is wrong then you are fail.

Do you even know what assumption we are talking about? We assume the Bible is God's word. How will you prove it wrong?

If god is perfect then his word is perfect.

Sure. But people aren't. People wrote the Bible.

A base of reference of itself is circular and self defeating.

It isn't a base of reference "for itself", it is a base of reference for our arguement. We're using it as a source, not using it to prove itself by its own existence.

They can and do. There are plenty of cults that use the absolute "truth®" of the bible to back up their interpretations.

Sure they do. I'm saying it takes effort to find a correct, workable, and valid interpretation. Obviously you CAN make anything up.

Only a few hundred.

List 'em.

I like that, context. You can put anything into context.

Yeah? And? What good is a passage, or an interpretation for that matter, if it only makes sense in the 1890s?

Abortion is murder because they want more people to worship their religion. Is has everything to do with power and very little to do with the bible.

Not like it's in the commandments or anything. Totally. And of course, in this day and age the Church is obviously a power that controls every aspect of its followers' lives. Right.
Stop spouting conspiracy theories and think.

I am putting forth that they were not divinly inspired, otherwise their book would not be so contrary to the real world.

Define contrary to the real world. Provide examples from the Bible.

Darwin was inspired with logic and reason. Bishops are guided by their experience which filters their reality.

Seeing the birds in the Galapagos had nothing to do with it, I assume. He just lived in a box and derived evolution from pure logic.
Experiences affect everyone from the moment they are born. And logic is worthless if it's not grounded in reality.

Another take:
Everything has a certain amount of energy.
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
Energy must therefore have always existed.

Cannot be created nor destroyed... but can be converted from another form. Nice try.

Better yet,
Some things are moved.
Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
This mover is what we call the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves.



And again,
Some things are caused.
Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
This causer is what we call the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Peace Be Unto Her.

Sweet, you aknowledge the existence of a creator. That's exactly what these were trying to prove.

I really don't understand why a goddess figure is allowed to exist for eternity but the universe that we've actually seen and live in can't.

This is entirely another debate. It's more physics based, anyway.

Therefore a big bang from whence all things came did explode and- do you you understand the words I'm typing on this page?

You're right. I don't. I have no knowledge of elementary physics or theology. In fact, I have no education whatsoever, and you cleverly noticed my ignorance. Cute.
What caused the big bang?

Heh heh heh,
The pinnacle of perfection, from which lesser degrees of perfection derive, is what we call the Invisible Pink Unicorn, May Her Hooves Never Be Shod.

Like I said, then. You therefore aknowledge the existence of a creator, I assume.

I'd prefer to state that all things are found in varying degrees of entropy. Which would make your god the most entropic thing to exist. Not quite what you were going for, eh?

Wrong. Entropy is a matter of energy exchange. Energy, however, is a product of the universe. God does not exist inside the universe. Another way- there can be no energy exchange without passage of time. God exists outside of time.

Rain condensates and falls from the sky because it wanted to- it was called upon- it felt like- ...the laws of physics work. It isn't working toward an end, it merely is. Rocks do not work towards goals they just exist. Flying purple space monkey dishwashers do not work for a goal nor exist.

I don't think you understand. The laws of physics are the means by which the goals are achieved. The pull of hunger on you to make dinner is analogous to the pull of gravity on a rock. The idea of acting towards an end does not imply active work. Another way to state it- Events occur according to certain rules. Where did the rules come from?

 

[Jammer]

IIRC, it has to do with the half life of C14 being around five thousand years plus or minus a something. This makes it hard to date stuff that is too new.

A couple things, Gamer4Fire: Please stop saying me and Zink "fail". We're debating amongst ourselves, and I think I made it very clear that we are assuming that the Bible is the Word of God. "Assuming" means that we know it's not cleared up yet--we're just working from there. Yes, I know that the Bible may be "fake". Right now, I only think there's about a 40% chance it's real. I'm just debating as if I was 100% sure.

Also, I think that carbon dating should be more accurate the newer the thing you're dating in. There is twice as much a difference between a newly dead animal and one that has been dead for 1 year, and an animal that has been dead for 5000 years and one that has been dead for 5001 years. That should mean that there is twice the accuracy for a 20-year-old tree than a 5020-year-old tree, not to mention that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has not been constant over the centuries, which adds additional error as time goes on.

 

[AltF4]

That was a long response, Zink! Let's see...


1) Newtonian physics is wrong. Period. Not correct. However, in most "every day" applications it is a good approximation of reality. But it is not true, ever.

If you try to use Newtonian physics for anything than approximating everyday occurrences, you come up with contradictions.

Quantum Mechanics does not "apply only at the quantum level". It applies everywhere. It is the most fundamental laws of nature. There is indeed a (very) small chance that this next very moment, you will randomly teleport one foot to the right. You can actually calculate these odds, and in fact it's typically an extra-credit question in a Quantum Mechanics class. It's just that the odds of it happening are so insignificant that it likely won't ever happen even given a google years.

It's easy to see, then, why quantum effects are usually left out in calculations on the galactic scale.


2) Time is curved. Time is not linear. The only question is how it is curved on a large scale.

3) There is no such thing as "before" the big bang. To even think of a situation "before" the big bang is fallacious. Any hypothetical you create that has to do with events before the big bang are inherently incorrect.

4) What was that Quote from Wiki supposed to show?

5) We are talking semantics here in the matter of perfection. If something is perfect, it cannot have any flaws and must be optimal in every way. A "perfection of a lesser degree" is NOT perfect. That term: "Perfection of a lesser degree" is contradictory. Perfection does not have degrees. Something is perfect or imperfect. Imperfect things have degrees of quality. Perfect things do not.

6) Aristotle's Telos is just a bunch of philosophical banter. It certainly doesn't prove anything except that Aristotle would like to believe that everything has an intention.

7) Who said that logic was solid? Well, it certainly is unless you're doubting the axioms of logic.

8) There are many "Paradoxes" that existed for a very long time which were only recently (relatively) resolved. Look up Xeno's Paradoxes. According to him, nothing should be allowed to move! And his proofs are very convincing until you know calculus. (1700's)

That's why it's important to not resort to spiritual solutions immediately just because there is a whole in the physics. It's not because science itself is at fault, it's our understanding of it.

Furthermore, if you believe in god then that means that god created science. God must have made all the laws of physics that govern the universe. Science itself must then be perfect in it's ability to control the world... after all, god made it. So why can't we explain everything using science and still have god? Why are so many theists threatened by science?

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Do you even know what assumption we are talking about? We assume the Bible is God's word. How will you prove it wrong?

By pointing out that when taken literally, it doesn't apply to us now. IOW it is not a universal document.

Sure. But people aren't. People wrote the Bible.

God made people write the bible. If god didn't make them write it perfect then he must not be perfect.

It isn't a base of reference "for itself", it is a base of reference for our arguement. We're using it as a source, not using it to prove itself by its own existence.

Okay.

Sure they do. I'm saying it takes effort to find a correct, workable, and valid interpretation. Obviously you CAN make anything up.

Thank you.

List 'em.

See above.

Yeah? And? What good is a passage, or an interpretation for that matter, if it only makes sense in the 1890s?

And that is why the bible can't be used as a perfect work.

Not like it's in the commandments or anything. Totally. And of course, in this day and age the Church is obviously a power that controls every aspect of its followers' lives. Right.
Stop spouting conspiracy theories and think.

What conspiracy theory? It has been well noted in history that the more people a religion can get to adhere to its practices the more powerful they become. The fifth commandment has less to do with abortion than the point when people consider a cluster of cells to be a human being.

Define contrary to the real world. Provide examples from the Bible.

So you see, in this book there was this flood that covered the entire earth, IRL there wasn't. And in this book this fictional character made the sun stand still in the sky so he could complete a battle, but no one else on earth noticed this. And there is a fictional account of the creation of woman from the rib of a man when the physical evidence points to a progression from ape like ancestors to modern human. Et al.

Seeing the birds in the Galapagos had nothing to do with it, I assume. He just lived in a box and derived evolution from pure logic.
Experiences affect everyone from the moment they are born. And logic is worthless if it's not grounded in reality.

What does that have to do with divine inspiration over observation and study? Or are you saying that observation is divine inspiration?

Cannot be created nor destroyed... but can be converted from another form. Nice try.

And this has what to do with energy always having existed? Energy and matter are interchangeable, so what?

Sweet, you aknowledge the existence of a creator. That's exactly what these were trying to prove.

Actually I was pointing out the absurdity of assuming that anything created anything. I don't personally believe in an invisible and very pink unicorn and I could have just as easily said Flying Spaghetti Monster or Bob.

This is entirely another debate. It's more physics based, anyway.

What does physics have to do with the possibility that the universe has always existed? Its more plausible than the possibility that an omnipresent god has always existed. Either way, something has to have always existed so why make up fairies in place of something we already know?

You're right. I don't. I have no knowledge of elementary physics or theology. In fact, I have no education whatsoever, and you cleverly noticed my ignorance. Cute.
What caused the big bang?

The big gun. Heh.

Like I said, then. You therefore aknowledge the existence of a creator, I assume.

When you assume you seem to fail a lot.

Wrong. Entropy is a matter of energy exchange. Energy, however, is a product of the universe. God does not exist inside the universe. Another way- there can be no energy exchange without passage of time. God exists outside of time.

But cookies can be perfect? Why invent something and then give it attributes to defeat the laws of physics when you can just stick with the laws of physics? There is no evidence of your deity except in a book, why not believe that Peter Pan exists?

I don't think you understand. The laws of physics are the means by which the goals are achieved. The pull of hunger on you to make dinner is analogous to the pull of gravity on a rock. The idea of acting towards an end does not imply active work. Another way to state it- Events occur according to certain rules. Where did the rules come from?

What goals? Rocks falling is not a goal. Rules by your definition implies goals where none exist. Things just exist and trying to add meaning where there isn't any doesn't help anyone or explain anything. If I get hungry a great many internal systems evolved to help me survive (of the fittest) kick in which tells me to find food. Their only goal is to survive.


Start out like a rational human being. Assume the world exists then see if the subject matter in the book corresponds with it, not the other way around. When you make the assumption that the bible is the true to life word of the all perfect god without first examining it against the real world you start on the path of fail. And as long as you try to skew the real world to fit your vision of perfection you will continue on the path of fail.

Its your life you don't get a second try, there is no reset button and you can't pick up extra lives. When you die this will all be over and only the works you accomplish here will mean anything.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

A couple things, Gamer4Fire: Please stop saying me and Zink "fail". We're debating amongst ourselves, and I think I made it very clear that we are assuming that the Bible is the Word of God. "Assuming" means that we know it's not cleared up yet--we're just working from there. Yes, I know that the Bible may be "fake". Right now, I only think there's about a 40% chance it's real. I'm just debating as if I was 100% sure.

Also, I think that carbon dating should be more accurate the newer the thing you're dating in. There is twice as much a difference between a newly dead animal and one that has been dead for 1 year, and an animal that has been dead for 5000 years and one that has been dead for 5001 years. That should mean that there is twice the accuracy for a 20-year-old tree than a 5020-year-old tree, not to mention that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has not been constant over the centuries, which adds additional error as time goes on.

If you don't want me to comment on your personal messages between each other then I suggest you use the PM system that exists for that reason.

And I'd think that if you have a ratio that is really close to one then it become difficult to render a correct date. When the ratio becomes smaller it is easier to calculate a date until the ratio reaches close to zero. That is why I think there has to be a minimum age, otherwise you haven't had enough time for C14 to become C12 in a great enough number for a difference in the two to be calculable.

 

[AltF4]

don't think you understand. The laws of physics are the means by which the goals are achieved. The pull of hunger on you to make dinner is analogous to the pull of gravity on a rock. The idea of acting towards an end does not imply active work. Another way to state it- Events occur according to certain rules. Where did the rules come from?

Well, it's just a circular argument. The argument tries to prove that god exists. Then it assumes that every object acts for a purpose. Who's purpose? God's. But the existence of god is what we're trying to prove, you can't use him in the proof.

But there's an easier route to falsify the proof

:

To act for ends is characteristic of intelligence.
Therefore, there exists an intelligent being which guides all natural bodies to their ends.

Object A being characteristic of Quality B does not imply that that A has quality B.

For example, I can make a computer program that exhibits all the qualities of consciousness, but that doesn't mean it's conscious. (Well... okay, I can't make that program. But you could, in principle. )



It should be noted that you cannot prove an existential claim with only universal premises.

 

[~N9NE~]

Im not going to read 42 pages of dense text but this topic interests me so here is my input.

I disagree with the OP's statement that religion is for weak minded people. The logic in such a statement is absurd. To stick with something and follow it requires dedication. I think it takes a strong minded individual to vehemently believe in a religion, especially during times of doubt and uncertainty, when external influences may test your resolve.

Religion provides me with a variety of things. Pride, belief, hope, identity, morals etc. I acknowledge that religion is not the only institution or action that can provide these things but I honestly feel that without my religion my life would have a void. It might sound like bull to some but its the truth.

EDIT: I shall strive to read the whole thread in order to contribute further.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

I applaud your resolve, but if you'd at least read the last page of posts you'd see that the thread has moved from its starting point.

And it does take a strong mind to continue to believe in something, even when given evidence to the contrary. But it is the alternative that we are discussing.

 

[RDK]

My problem with Christianity is that an all-powerful, all-loving God is, in itself, a paradox. Christians try to explain this away as "the human mind not being able to understand God fully", but you can't really blame humans for thinking like humans in this case, can you?

If God is the epitome of love, why create humans knowing beforehand that Adam and Eve would fall into sin in the garden, and **** the rest of humanity to eternity of hell? Doesn't sound like an all-loving God to me. The Bible's concept of God just doesn't make any sense.

I really haven't even touched the tip of the iceberg. There are so many contradictions and holes in the Bible, it's astounding.

 

[commonyoshi]

These two proofs bring up obvious problems (contradictions) that occur at the boundary condition of time. (the moment of the big bang) But as I mentioned earlier, it is possible that time is curved such that there WAS no moment of the big bang, and thus no boundary condition to cause a contradiction.

Lots of contradictions occur when you try to think about the moment of the big bang (and the singularities of black holes) in terms of conventional physics. However these contradictions have been each resolved. (resolved as in demonstrated that there is a case which is possible in which the contradictions do not occur)

There's something I've been wondering. Was the "big bang" the cause of the physical universe, or the cause of the universe and matter?

Eor called me out on something like this. You're simply working backwards to say that there "was no momment of the big bang" because there's no explanation for it.

The fact is that there is no solid proof that god exists. If there were such a proof, then there wouldn't be such a big debate about his existence would there? I know I for one would believe in god if there was a proof. But then again, it wouldn't be believing at all if there was proof!

PS: Omg... the boards are so slow for me for some reason.

Erg... me too.

We probably cant physically see God because we are imperfect and sinful. (as in, He wont appear to us because of this) We'd die if we saw Him.

If god is perfect then his word is perfect.
God made people write the bible. If god didn't make them write it perfect then he must not be perfect.

Why do you assume God made people write the Bible? I believe God inspires people. I dont believe, with the exception of the Laws of Leviticus, that He has ever commanded anything to be written down.

Abortion is murder because they want more people to worship their religion. Is has everything to do with power and very little to do with the bible.

What conspiracy theory? It has been well noted in history that the more people a religion can get to adhere to its practices the more powerful they become. The fifth commandment has less to do with abortion than the point when people consider a cluster of cells to be a human being.

What you're doing is exactly how conspiracy theories work. You start out with an idea and find reasons why it could work out without presenting evidence, making it unargueable. I could probably spout off a conspiracy theory of how America planned WW2 if I wanted to.

I am putting forth that they were not divinly inspired, otherwise their book would not be so contrary to the real world.

People are limited to writing only what they know. I've been pondering the possibility that Noah's story isn't as clear cut as it is made out to be in the Bible. Perhaps God didn't Flood the whole earth, but a big section of it instead. God's purpose was to restart mankind who had become corrupt, and save the righteous, correct? Was there any need then to Flood Antarctica where no one was living? And what if there were more righteous people besides Noah who God chose to save? What if they were in China while Noah was in Africa and were not even effected? The oral traditions state that only Noah was righteous in God's sight because Noah and his descendants didn't know about those other righteous people in China. It was called a global Flood, but could one man truely know how big the world was? It could very easily have been a Flood the size of a whole country (give or take assuming how spread out the wicked people had become), but not the whole earth. Noah and his descendants wouldn't have known the difference and assumed they were the only ones alive.

But this is just conjecture. I wouldn't want to be blasphemus. >_>

And there is a fictional account of the creation of woman from the rib of a man when the physical evidence points to a progression from ape like ancestors to modern human. Et al.

I'm curious. What evidence? You're not talking about Lucy, are you?

But cookies can be perfect? Why invent something and then give it attributes to defeat the laws of physics when you can just stick with the laws of physics? There is no evidence of your deity except in a book, why not believe that Peter Pan exists?

I'm not sure I understand this comment, not even in context. Are you saying that God created something which went against the laws of the universe?

 

[RDK]

I'm curious. What evidence? You're not talking about Lucy, are you?

I asked Gamer4Fire to explain his views on radiometric dating and its relationship to the origins of man earlier, but he either ignored my post or didn't see it.

 

[commonyoshi]

My problem with Christianity is that an all-powerful, all-loving God is, in itself, a paradox. Christians try to explain this away as "the human mind not being able to understand God fully", but you can't really blame humans for thinking like humans in this case, can you?

If God is the epitome of love, why create humans knowing beforehand that Adam and Eve would fall into sin in the garden, and **** the rest of humanity to eternity of hell? Doesn't sound like an all-loving God to me. The Bible's concept of God just doesn't make any sense.

Your "humans thinking like humans" reasoning isn't valid. When you were a child, you thought like a child. When you became an adult, you knew things you yourself as a child did not know. You were able to see reasons for things you never understood before. Your sense of right and wrong became more developed. In the same way, the wisest man on earth is a fool compared to God. We just have to accept that.

Let me ask you a question that will put this all in context. (hypothetically) When you were a child, would you blame your parents for punishing you for stealing candy? Stealing a candy bar is not that big of a deal so why did they *insert punishment*?
However, now that you've grown up, you know better. It's just that we can never "grow up" to God's status.

I think I've had this conversation with you alread about the whole Adam and Eve thing. God is not unloving for creating humans when He knew they were going to fall. He is more loving because of it. People get married even when they know without question there will be hard times. Couples have children even though the child will eventually rebel against them.

I've always been surprised whenever people use the Bible to give examples of why God is unloving. Did they not read the part where Jesus descended from Heaven, became a mere man, lived life with the temptations man has for 33 years, and died the most horrible deth for us? Was he not rejected, tempted, abused, mistreated, and mocked? All this done for humans so undeserving.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Why do you assume God made people write the Bible? I believe God inspires people. I dont believe, with the exception of the Laws of Leviticus, that He has ever commanded anything to be written down.

I'm happy that you can admit that the bible itself isn't perfect but then why did he change his laws which he specifically had written down? Why change something if it (the laws) are already perfect?

What you're doing is exactly how conspiracy theories work. You start out with an idea and find reasons why it could work out without presenting evidence, making it unargueable. I could probably spout off a conspiracy theory of how America planned WW2 if I wanted to.

I still don't understand what part of my post is a conspiracy theory. Explain.

People are limited to writing only what they know. [...]

I'll agree that the writers were indeed limited to what they knew at the time.

I'm curious. What evidence? You're not talking about Lucy, are you?

The current known chain from Australopithecus to Homo Sapien. You can read about it here, but it can get very wordy.

I'm not sure I understand this comment, not even in context. Are you saying that God created something which went against the laws of the universe?

Why do people need to invent a being that ignores the laws of physics. Does that clarify it?

My problem with Christianity is that an all-powerful, all-loving God is, in itself, a paradox. Christians try to explain this away as "the human mind not being able to understand God fully", but you can't really blame humans for thinking like humans in this case, can you?

And if god were all-powerful then he could simply allow humans to understand. Paradoxically, he doesn't.

 

[Eor]

Your "humans thinking like humans" reasoning isn't valid. When you were a child, you thought like a child. When you became an adult, you knew things you yourself as a child did not know. You were able to see reasons for things you never understood before. Your sense of right and wrong became more developed. In the same way, the wisest man on earth is a fool compared to God. We just have to accept that.

Let me ask you a question that will put this all in context. (hypothetically) When you were a child, would you blame your parents for punishing you for stealing candy? Stealing a candy bar is not that big of a deal so why did they *insert punishment*?
However, now that you've grown up, you know better. It's just that we can never "grow up" to God's status.

I think I've had this conversation with you alread about the whole Adam and Eve thing. God is not unloving for creating humans when He knew they were going to fall. He is more loving because of it. People get married even when they know without question there will be hard times. Couples have children even though the child will eventually rebel against them.

I've always been surprised whenever people use the Bible to give examples of why God is unloving. Did they not read the part where Jesus descended from Heaven, became a mere man, lived life with the temptations man has for 33 years, and died the most horrible deth for us? Was he not rejected, tempted, abused, mistreated, and mocked? All this done for humans so undeserving.

This is the second time you've done the "parents raising a kid" scenario. They don't compare. One, we are genetically programmed to want to raise kids, it's the only way we can increase our species, so the vast majority of people want to raise kids. Not that experiences can't override that, but really, the people who don't want to have kids do it because they dislike kids or don't want to deal with them, meaning they wouldn't be good parents in the first place.

Second, you are acting like a few years of rebelling against a parent is equal to being ****ed and tortured for all eternity. Really, think about that. If you knew your kid would become a mass murderer, then go to hell for all eternity, would you have him? I wouldn't. I'd rather my child never be born them for him to do nothing but give me a few years of happiness, then destroy dozens of innocent peoples lives and then have my son be tortured forever, wanting to die but not allowed to.

Third, please don't tell me you think being bigoted against for 33 years is equal to being tortured for all eternity. Jesus did die a pretty bad death. Hundreds of millions of others have died worse. This is also several thousand years after humans have been in existence, meaning that every human born before then was ****ed, as God knew, and he waited for no reason before he would rescue them. Moses was ****ed, John the baptist was ****ed (he died before jesus, correct?), every person in the Old Testement was ****ed before Jesus, yet God did not care. If he did, he would have changed it.

I don't think I can sway you, you have the trump card in any argument. Your position is right, and when something contradicts it, the answer is no different from Magic. When things directly contradict what you believe (Exodus), you literally pull things out of thin air and then hold to them because you are so far down your belief that you cannot be wrong.

We just have to accept that.

No one has to accept anything but you so your argument doesn't fail.


Edit: Also, my main problem with Christianity is the idea of original sin. It teaches that we where created by God with a planned imperfection, and that we can only overcome it by following their religion. I am against any form of thought that does nothing but put humanity down, and is used as nothing other then a control bargain from an organized church. Do you see the flaw in that? It's like if, as an artist, I purposefully paint a portrait with an over large head, then if it doesn't correct itself in a week I'll rip it to shreds for disobeying me. If I had wanted the head to be right, I should have just made the head right.