Debate Topic - The Christian God -

[freak6]

I can prove that the Christian god is impossible, and that Christians are wasting thier time praying to thier imaginations.

As a U.S. Marine and a liberal it is my job to liberate you from what keeps you from being free, like the bible and its lies and ridiculous rules.

Taking on all challengers.

[bronco_diesel]

I can prove that the Christian god is impossible, and that Christians are wasting thier time praying to thier imaginations.

As a U.S. Marine and a liberal it is my job to liberate you from what keeps you from being free, like the bible and its lies and ridiculous rules.

Taking on all challengers.


sigh

[SoCalBronco]

Ive witnessed miracles, you cant prove **** to me.

Why dont you go back to whining about how Champ and Tatum hit on your girl.

[RaiderH8r]

Looks like somebody just returned from Philosophy 101 and finished their first reading of Nietzche.

[bronco_diesel]

I can prove that the Christian god is impossible, and that Christians are wasting thier time praying to thier imaginations.

As a U.S. Marine and a liberal it is my job to liberate you from what keeps you from being free, like the bible and its lies and ridiculous rules.

Taking on all challengers.

i'm curious now. lets hear your argument...

[Crushaholic]

This should be interesting... :crazy:

[sisterhellfyre]

I can prove that the Christian god is impossible, and that Christians are wasting thier time praying to thier imaginations.

Okay, freak, let's hear it. State your case and prove your point. I'm curious...

Namaste,
m.

(BTW: I'm not a Christian, so have little vested interest in the answer one way or the other. This is more of a morbid curiosity for me.)

[DBruleU]

I just looked out the window and saw the Flatirons here in Boulder, and came to the conclusion God is possible. :~ohyah!:

[Spider]

I aint saying a word ........ Been there done that . all it does is piss people off

[sutoazul]

c'mon dude... we're all waiting!!!!!

[Montaq]

I aint saying a word ........ Been there done that . all it does is piss people off

ditto

I have no desire to change someone to my point of view.

[JPEZ]

How long will you simple ones love your simple ways?
How long will mockers delight in mockery
and fools hate knowledge?
If you had responded to my rebuke,
I would have poured out my heart to you
and made my thoughts known to you.
But since you rejected me when I called
and no one gave heed when I stretched out my hand,
since you ignored all my advice
and would not accept my rebuke,
I in turn will laugh at your disaster;
I will mock when calamity overtakes you-
when calamity overtakes you like a storm,
when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind,
when distress and trouble overwhelm you.
"Then they will call to me but I will not answer;
they will look for me but will not find me.
Since they hated knowledge
and did not choose to respect the LORD,
since they would not accept my advice
and spurned my rebuke,
they will eat the fruit of their ways
and be filled with the fruit of their schemes.
For the waywardness of the simple will kill them,
and the complacency of fools will destroy them;
but whoever listens to me will live in safety
and be at ease, without fear of harm."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Robb?

[Montaq]

How long will you simple ones love your simple ways?
How long will mockers delight in mockery
and fools hate knowledge?
If you had responded to my rebuke,
I would have poured out my heart to you
and made my thoughts known to you.
But since you rejected me when I called
and no one gave heed when I stretched out my hand,
since you ignored all my advice
and would not accept my rebuke,
I in turn will laugh at your disaster;
I will mock when calamity overtakes you-
when calamity overtakes you like a storm,
when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind,
when distress and trouble overwhelm you.
"Then they will call to me but I will not answer;
they will look for me but will not find me.
Since they hated knowledge
and did not choose to respect the LORD,
since they would not accept my advice
and spurned my rebuke,
they will eat the fruit of their ways
and be filled with the fruit of their schemes.
For the waywardness of the simple will kill them,
and the complacency of fools will destroy them;
but whoever listens to me will live in safety
and be at ease, without fear of harm."

Thanks for the Hallmark moment. Now I remember why I quit going to church.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Thanks for the Hallmark moment. Now I remember why I quit going to church.

:laugh:

One wonders what he'll do for an encore.

Handle a few snakes?

:D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/religions.jpg

[epicSocialism4tw]

Thanks for the Hallmark moment. Now I remember why I quit going to church.


Why, because obedience to God makes you accountable for your actions?

[clarker]

http://www.bartcop.com/religions.jpgThat is funny. Is that your shirt? If it is where did you get it?

[Montaq]

Why, because obedience to God makes you accountable for your actions?

I hold myself accountable for my actions, I don't need to be scared of eternal damnation to do the right thing.

[clarker]

This is a dumb thread (started to help feed the ego of the thread starter). There is no way to prove or disprove the existance of a God.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I can prove that the Christian god is impossible, and that Christians are wasting thier time praying to thier imaginations.

As a U.S. Marine and a liberal it is my job to liberate you from what keeps you from being free, like the bible and its lies and ridiculous rules.

Taking on all challengers.


freak15, if you can prove that there is no God, you have one up on Aristotle, Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Einstein, Newton, Charles Darwin, and Galileo.

Of course the Greeks came before the Christians by centuries, but they were on to the same thing in a sense. "Immoveable Mover."

Einstein was a believer in the Hebrew G-d YHWH.

Newton, Galileo, Darwin, Aquinas, Kirkegaard, St. Augustine, Gregor Mendel, and others all believed in the Christian God.

I am the direct result of prayer. I fell deathly ill after consuming large amounts of bad infant formula off of the shelves of your friendly grocer's freezer in the 70's. The company had tried to alter their formula and left critical nutrients out of the formula. My development was halted at 6 months. My lungs did not develop with my body and they collapsed. I was given zero chance to live. I was considered dead by my doctors who had done all that they could and had to regretfully tell my parents that there was no hope of my survival. The doctor then asked if my parents were Christians, which they sometimes were :) , and told them that prayer works and the only hope for my survival was a miracle. So my parents got together with their bible study group after cursing God for taking their child. They prayed and prayed and a miracle happened within days. I grew up a healthy child who was active and successful in several sports. I still have lung problems to a certain degree with all of that scar tissue in there, but I have never been unable to do things that a person with functional lungs couldnt do.

God answered prayer. God answers prayer. For this issue to be brought up as a proveable fact is silly. Dont be so caught up in the glory of man. There really isnt much glory in man.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That is funny. Is that your shirt? If it is where did you get it?

No - it's not mine. I just happened upon the pic about the same time I noticed this thread. Talk about your serendipity, eh? :D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Why, because obedience to God makes you accountable for your actions?

See, that's the problem with believing in a patriarchal God - you're always thinking of your relationship with God in political terms, i.e., obedience, etc.

I guess this sort of concept is a vestige of medieval times when the church was the center of political power and people, by extension, conceived of God as some sort of monarch.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

freak15, if you can prove that there is no God, you have one up on Aristotle, Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Einstein, Newton, Charles Darwin, and Galileo.

I'm not sure what Freak is getting at, but if he's talking about showing how the traditional philosophical proofs for the existence of God don't stand up to logical analysis, then he certainly isn't barking up the wrong tree.

[clarker]

I'm not sure what Freak is getting at, but if he's talking about showing how the traditional philosophical proofs for the existence of God don't stand up to logical analysis, then he certainly isn't barking up the wrong tree.But there is no way to disprove the existance of God. And there is no way to prove his existence either. Which is why I think this thread is pointless and is just here to feed this guys ego.

But he claimed to be a liberal, so I'm sure you'll do your best to defend him.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

But there is no way to disprove the existance of God. And there is no way to prove his existence either.

That certainly hasn't stopped people from trying since the dawn of human civilization.

Which is why I think this thread is pointless and is just here to feed this guys ego.

That's just a foregone conclusion on your part.

He might have just wanted to start a lively philosophical or theological discussion or debate.

But he claimed to be a liberal, so I'm sure you'll do your best to defend him.

His status as a liberal is irrelevent to the topic at hand, i.e., religion.

You're not seriously going to claim that liberals are known for marching in lockstep where matters of religion are concerned, are you?

[clarker]

That certainly hasn't stopped people from trying since the dawn of human civilization.



That's just a foregone conclusion on your part.

He might have just wanted to start a lively philosophical or theological discussion or debate.



His status as a liberal is irrelevent to the topic at hand, i.e., religion.

You're not seriously going to claim that liberals are known for marching in lockstep where matters of religion are concerned, are you?I am seriously saying that to you a liberal can do no wrong.

Read his post. He is boasting from the start and he is boasting about something he can not prove.

There is no way through science to prove or disprove the existence of God.

You can disprove the theory of Creation as described in the Bible, through evalution(SP?) but that still doesn't disprove the existence of some kind of higher being.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I am seriously saying that to you a liberal can do no wrong.

And you're saying it about a discussion of a non-political topic, i.e., religion.

Next thing you know you'll be saying that I choose to like or dislike certain kinds of music just because one of my liberal friends likes or dislikes them.

Read his post. He is boasting from the start and he is boasting about something he can not prove.

It depends on what he wants to disprove. If he wants to disprove the traditional theological arguments for the existence of God on logical grounds, then he can certainly emerge triumphant.

[clarker]

And you're saying it about a discussion of a non-political topic, i.e., religion.

Next thing you know you'll be saying that I choose to like or dislike certain kinds of music just because one of my liberal friends likes or dislikes them.



It depends on what he wants to disprove. If he wants to disprove the traditional theological arguments for the existence of God on logical grounds, then he can certainly emerge triumphant.Sure you can disprove say the story of Creation as stated in the Bible, but how can you disprove that God exists? You can't, not any more than I can prove that he does.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Sure you can disprove say the story of Creation as stated in the Bible, but how can you disprove that God exists? You can't, not any more than I can prove that he does.

Here is my point:

Over the centuries, theologians have formulated various philosophical and logical "proofs" for the existence of God - all of which can be (and have been) refuted.

Belief in God is about faith - not logic.

I'm guessing that this is what Freak is driving at (although I can't say for sure until he shows up again.)

[clarker]

Here is my point:

Over the centuries, theologians have formulated various philosophical and logical "proofs" for the existence of God - all of which can be (and have been) refuted.

Belief in God is about faith - not logic.

I'm guessing that this is what Freak is driving at (although I can't say for sure until he shows up again.)I agree with you that belief in God is about faith-not logic. Which is why Freak can't prove people who believe in God are wrong.

IMO, it is like trying to prove to someone who doesn't like the taste of apples that they taste good.

I hope you got my point. I'm not sure I'm making myself clear, sorry about that.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I agree with you that belief in God is about faith-not logic. Which is why Freak can't prove people who believe in God are wrong.

IMO, it is like trying to prove to someone who doesn't like the taste of apples that they taste good.

I hope you got my point. I'm not sure I'm making myself clear, sorry about that.

Yes, I agree that there is no way to argue that the decision to believe in God is itself wrong or bad - with the possible exception of those cases in which individuals or groups use their beliefs to justify some wrongdoing or another.

I agree with your point that, inasmuch as it is a matter of faith, (as opposed to a matter of logic) belief in God is analogous to liking (or disliking) the taste of apples.

IMO, it is like trying to prove to someone who doesn't like the taste of apples that they taste good.

Hey - isn't this what Eve was supposed to have done to Adam?

:D

[Mile High Shack]

I guess Champ was busy hittin' his GF and he didn't have time to respond eh?

maybe Champ made him video tape?

[RaiderH8r]

Apparently he wasn't going to get a rebuttal until he went to class today.

[bronco_diesel]

Sure you can disprove say the story of Creation as stated in the Bible, but how can you disprove that God exists? You can't, not any more than I can prove that he does.

you can't disprove the theory of creation. you can speculate...but you cannot absolutely disprove.

[clarker]

you can't disprove the theory of creation. you can speculate...but you cannot absolutely disprove.Sure if you ignore science altogether.

Don't be offended. Perhaps God did creat the Earth in 7 days, but whose to say how long a day is for God.

[Mile High Shack]

Sure if you ignore science altogether.

Don't be offended. Perhaps God did creat the Earth in 7 days, but whose to say how long a day is for God.
I’m not saying it was a true 7 days or 7 “day”……I still struggle with that, although I don’t think it’s important in regards to salvation however

But how can you as some who claims to believe in God put him in a box

He can do anything he wants to, if he wants to do everything in 7 days he can

[RaiderH8r]

Sure if you ignore science altogether.

Don't be offended. Perhaps God did creat the Earth in 7 days, but whose to say how long a day is for God.
God is a comedian playing for an audience too afraid to laugh.

-Voltaire

[bronco_diesel]

See, that's the problem with believing in a patriarchal God - you're always thinking of your relationship with God in political terms, i.e., obedience, etc.

as opposed to?

what is your view of who God is?

I guess this sort of concept is a vestige of medieval times when the church was the center of political power and people, by extension, conceived of God as some sort of monarch.

the dark ages are truly a black eye for all mankind. the actions contradict what the Bible tells us to do. this was not an act of God, but this was man taking things into his own hands and acting out of his personal agenda.

"Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith..."

"2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all [men], apt to teach, patient..."

[clarker]

I’m not saying it was a true 7 days or 7 “day”……I still struggle with that, although I don’t think it’s important in regards to salvation however

But how can you as some who claims to believe in God put him in a box

He can do anything he wants to, if he wants to do everything in 7 days he canSure I guess you could be right. Although with what limited science we have it suggests that he didn't.

But I do think our knowlege is more limited than we care to admit, so is possibe the world was created in 7 days sure. But if I believe in God, why do I have to believe the world was created in 7 days?

It says who ever believes in Me is saved. Not who ever believes that I created the world in 7 days is saved.

[Mile High Shack]

Sure I guess you could be right. Although with what limited science we have it suggests that he didn't.

But I do think our knowlege is more limited than we care to admit, so is possibe the world was created in 7 days sure. But if I believe in God, why do I have to believe the world was created in 7 days?

It says who ever believes in Me is saved. Not who ever believes that I created the world in 7 days is saved.

well there is more than belief, but like I said, I doubt belief in 7 days is essential to salvation :strong:

[epicSocialism4tw]

See, that's the problem with believing in a patriarchal God - you're always thinking of your relationship with God in political terms, i.e., obedience, etc.

I guess this sort of concept is a vestige of medieval times when the church was the center of political power and people, by extension, conceived of God as some sort of monarch.


If there is a God who created the universe, would there not be a subjective relationship between the creator and the createe? You by your very nature are completely subject to systems that exist outside of yourself.

Obedience comes in the manner of a trusting child doing what his wise father tells him to do. Your relationship with God (if you are a Christian) is manifested mainly through the human father/child relationship. This is why Jesus is so important. His purpose was to bring people to God in this type of relationship and to break the employer/employee type of relationship that has existed for recorded history. Jesus referred to God as 'The Father'. Why would a loving father demand that a child obey his rules? To protect him and to steer him in the right direction.

[orangeatheist]

I think the thread-starter may have bit off more then he can chew (maybe). It is very difficult to prove a negative. However, I do think that it can be shown to be unreasonable to believe in a god...but since this is not my thread, I won't say any more. Other than to comment on something Shack stated (and you know I love ya, Shack so this is directed at your comments, not at you personally!!)

I’m not saying it was a true 7 days or 7 “day”……I still struggle with that,

If you really are interested I think I can show you that Genesis 1 intended the "days" to be read as literal 24 hours.


although I don’t think it’s important in regards to salvation however

But, if you cannot be clear on what "God" meant when he said he created the heavens and the earth in 6 "days," how can you be clear on what he means regarding salvation?


But how can you as some who claims to believe in God put him in a box

He can do anything he wants to, if he wants to do everything in 7 days he can

He can do anything he wants to? Like can God kill a baby just for the sport of it? Is God beholden to a set of ethics that even he cannot break? Can God throw a deep pass to Rod Smith that even Jesus couldn't defend against? ;D

[Crushaholic]

If you really are interested I think I can show you that Genesis 1 intended the "days" to be read as literal 24 hours.

Even if Shack isn't interested, I am. I struggle between my faith in God and the Bible and proven science of the existence of dinosaurs, etc. What say you on this particular topic?

[bronco_diesel]

Even if Shack isn't interested, I am. I struggle between my faith in God and the Bible and proven science of the existence of dinosaurs, etc. What say you on this particular topic?


OA is correct - the text is intended to be taken as literal 24 hour days.

let me ask you a question - when was the term "dinosaur" started?

[Crushaholic]

let me ask you a question - when was the term "dinosaur" started?

I never thought about when the word was coined. I guess some scientist came up with "dinosaur" many decades ago... ???

[RaiderH8r]

OA is correct - the text is intended to be taken as literal 24 hour days.

let me ask you a question - when was the term "dinosaur" started?
7 days, 7 minutes, 7 seconds....it's God people. I'm no theologian, but it seems that God isn't exactly bound by the same physical rules the rest of the us are. Any way, I find it interesting that the thread starter tossed a molotov cocktail out here and hasn't been seen since. Oh well, back to the point. It's God, that's a power greater than mom and dad combined. ;D

[epicSocialism4tw]

Even if Shack isn't interested, I am. I struggle between my faith in God and the Bible and proven science of the existence of dinosaurs, etc. What say you on this particular topic?


Science is not intended to be a method of gathering information about religious philosophy. It's goal is to observe the world around it and to develop working thoeries that describe systems within it. You have to make a pretty big leap from scientific thought into religious or metaphysical thought. A good way to think of a scientist is to think of him as a mechanic that tries to discover the inner workings of vehicles he has never seen before or is unfamiliar with based on what he and his fellow mechanics know from working on cars in the past. We as scientists try to make inferences based on what has been proven to consistently garner very similar results.

A scientist (if he is a reasonable scientist) does not presume to deduce things that are outside of the realm of physical reality that cannot be proven within the bounds of human thought. To do that would be poor science. Scientists leave that stuff up to the mystics because it seems unpractical to pursue that type of information when there is in a sense no logical manner to deal with it.

Amateur scientists have distorted the intentions of science. It in no way is able to correlate with the Bible because they deal with two different things altogether. The Bible makes no attempts to be scientific. It was written by mystics and sages. Science makes no attempt to be mystical. It is governed by scientists.

I am a scientist who is a Christian who makes room in my philosophy for evolution. I find evolution to be something that is an observable phenomenon, but that does not discount anything said in the Bible.

[Spider]

I know Diesel you wasnt asking me , but the word Dinosaur was coined in england 1800's ..... I cant remember the name of the guy that coined it .....

[Crushaholic]

Science is not intended to be a method of gathering information about religious philosophy. It's goal is to observe the world around it and to develop working thoeries that describe systems within it. You have to make a pretty big leap from scientific thought into religious or metaphysical thought. A good way to think of a scientist is to think of him as a mechanic that tries to discover the inner workings of vehicles he has never seen before or is unfamiliar with based on what he and his fellow mechanics know from working on cars in the past. We as scientists try to make inferences based on what has been proven to consistently garner very similar results.

A scientist (if he is a reasonable scientist) does not presume to deduce things that are outside of the realm of physical reality that cannot be proven within the bounds of human thought. To do that would be poor science. Scientists leave that stuff up to the mystics because it seems unpractical to pursue that type of information when there is in a sense no logical manner to deal with it.

Amateur scientists have distorted the intentions of science. It in no way is able to correlate with the Bible because they deal with two different things altogether. The Bible makes no attempts to be scientific. It was written by mystics and sages. Science makes no attempt to be mystical. It is governed by scientists.

I am a scientist who is a Christian who makes room in my philosophy for evolution. I find evolution to be something that is an observable phenomenon, but that does not discount anything said in the Bible.

If that story is to be taken literally, all the stuff regarding carbon dating and everything else scientific has to be wrong. That's why I can't imagine that Genesis is to be taken literally. I believe in science, but I also want to believe a higher power created our existence.

[Rascal]

If that story is to be taken literally, all the stuff regarding carbon dating and everything else scientific has to be wrong. That's why I can't imagine that Genesis is to be taken literally. I believe in science, but I also want to believe a higher power created our existence.

This brings up a question of who says the earth couldn't have been created old?

Even in the big bang theory there has to be a first mover no matter how OA argues it.

[Hotrod]

Thanks for the Hallmark moment. Now I remember why I quit going to church.

That was kind of a BS remark really. Someone posts a religious posting on a religious thread and all you have is 3rd grade smack. Looks like the daily neg rep is gonna have to return :poke:

[epicSocialism4tw]

If that story is to be taken literally, all the stuff regarding carbon dating and everything else scientific has to be wrong. That's why I can't imagine that Genesis is to be taken literally. I believe in science, but I also want to believe a higher power created our existence.


Carbon dating and fossil records are what they are and they are to be valued for what information that they provide. With that said, quantum thoery is breaking the mold for what science has traditionally accepted as explanation for physical reality. According to quantum theory (which is very young), a thing can exist in infinite 'places' simultaneuosly, which has earth shattering implications on the foundations of traditional physics. This and Einsteins theory of relativity create a view of the universe that is fluid. Time can be manipulated and could have existed in a different form at some point in the development of the universe, so according to science, 7 days could have literally been 7 days, but what does it matter? 7 days in a compact universe could mean a completely different thing scientifically.

[Rascal]

How about you explain your beliefs lama, you seem to be well versed in science and such.

[Hotrod]

I have to say a thread that started with such 'little' promise has atleast become interesting to read.

[Montaq]

That was kind of a BS remark really. Someone posts a religious posting on a religious thread and all you have is 3rd grade smack. Looks like the daily neg rep is gonna have to return :poke:

That cheesey poem had no relevance to the thread. You're struggling too hard to find things to neg rep me for. If LABF had posted something like that you'd been crying "SPAM".

[JPEZ]

I hold myself accountable for my actions, I don't need to be scared of eternal damnation to do the right thing.
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

[JPEZ]

That cheesey poem had no relevance to the thread. You're struggling too hard to find things to neg rep me for. If LABF had posted something like that you'd been crying "SPAM".
A whip for the horse, a halter for the donkey, and a rod for the backs of fools! Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. Like cutting off one's feet or drinking violence is the sending of a message by the hand of a fool.

[Montaq]

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Thanks for the Bible study. Romans or something? Anyway - I'm now convinced and I'll begin repenting immediately.

[Spider]

I know a prayer ...... say it before dinner ......
Father , son, holy ghost , who ever eats the fadtest gets the most ... Amen .....

[Mile High Shack]

Rather than try to speak like a scientist (b/c I’m not), I’ll let a guy I go along with belief wise speak for me……….

Scientists speak of the earth as being millions of years old, and some have thought this sets aside the Bible. But it does not, for the Bible does not say the heavens and the earth were created on the first day of the six days creation. But it says, "In the beginning,", which was an indefinite time in past--"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" ( Genesis 1:1-2). Now, what was the condition of the earth during that time and after the creation of the heavens and the earth, and before the six days of other things? The Bible says, "and the earth was without form and void" ( Genesis 1:1-2 ). The Bible does not say how long the earth was in this condition, and if scientists want to make it millions of years, then the Bible is still true. The Bible does not say this earth is only six thousand years old. God created only light, day and night on this first day of the six days creation ( Genesis 1:1-5). The world "created" is from two different Hebrew words. "In the beginning God created (Bahrah) the heavens and the earth" ( Genesis 1:1). But in Exodus 20:11 we read that "In six days the Lord made (Ahsah) heaven and earth." The first passage means God originally "created" the heavens and the earth, which afterward remained for some time "without form and void", then the second passage means God "made" or arranged the heavens and the earth, in six days, bringing it out of its void and formless state. (emphasis, Nichols) --Gus Nichols

Then there is this link to look at…quite long
http://doesgodexist.org/JulAug04/MotivesAndAssumptionsInTheAgeOfTheEarthQuestion.ht ml

[bronco_diesel]

I know Diesel you wasnt asking me , but the word Dinosaur was coined in england 1800's ..... I cant remember the name of the guy that coined it .....

it's all good. the reason i ask this, is many folks will say - "well the Bible doesn't say anything about dinasaurs"

true, it doesn't, but i do believe the Bible was written before 1800.

now, take a look at a scripture in Job:

"Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feed on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God..."
-Job 40:15-19 (NIV)

[Spider]

it's all good. the reason i ask this, is many folks will say - "well the Bible doesn't say anything about dinasaurs"

true, it doesn't, but i do believe the Bible was written before 1800.

now, take a look at a scripture in Job:

"Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feed on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God..."
-Job 40:15-19 (NIV)
either that or he was talking about Mary beth here in Wyoming ...... ;D

[bronco_diesel]

If that story is to be taken literally, all the stuff regarding carbon dating and everything else scientific has to be wrong. That's why I can't imagine that Genesis is to be taken literally. I believe in science, but I also want to believe a higher power created our existence.

Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in "lead" pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.

Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.


Ordinary carbon (12C)is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.

We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.

In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a "clock" which starts ticking the moment something dies.

Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.

cont-

[bronco_diesel]

The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the "half-life." So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.

However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.[2]

Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant -- for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.[3] This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.

Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the "clock" is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.

Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C "clock is not possible.[4]

[Spider]

My only problem is what is lost in translation ?
I could be off here , but the King James version of the holy Bible was written or Translated in the late 1500 - 1600 , somthing about 6 groups ......

[bronco_diesel]

either that or he was talking about Mary beth here in Wyoming ...... ;D

i'm more convinced it was tabatha from my home town...

[epicSocialism4tw]

My only problem is what is lost in translation ?
I could be off here , but the King James version of the holy Bible was written or Translated in the late 1500 - 1600 , somthing about 6 groups ......


The greek scriptures that those guys used to translate from are referenced in modern translations. Modern translators go directly to the oldest known Greek and Hebrew texts and translate from them. The greek texts are more abundant, but there are some extremely old Hebrew texts available. They are also very accurately copied from generation to generation. More accurately copied than any other known document. It is more accurately copied than Homer's Odyssey.

[Falconer]

My only problem is what is lost in translation ?
I could be off here , but the King James version of the holy Bible was written or Translated in the late 1500 - 1600 , somthing about 6 groups ......

That's it? That is your only problem? If that is your only problem then I should soon call you a fellow believer! We have much older manuscripts than the ones you state, and besides a few differences (none of which change the meaning of what is being written) they all state the same message. Welcome to the club Spidy!

[Spider]

I think the translation is a big deal fellas ...... If I am going to bank a faith off of a Book I would like to know I am getting the full text .......

[bronco_diesel]

I think the translation is a big deal fellas ...... If I am going to bank a faith off of a Book I would like to know I am getting the full text .......

you got that right. that is why i study as much as i do.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I think the translation is a big deal fellas ...... If I am going to bank a faith off of a Book I would like to know I am getting the full text .......


You should check out greek/english and hebrew/english interlinears. They have the greek and hebrew texts line-by-line with the english. There are some great unfettered truths to be gathered from those books if you know the cultural context that they were originally penned in.

[Spider]

You should check out greek/english and hebrew/english interlinears. They have the greek and hebrew texts line-by-line with the english. There are some great unfettered truths to be gathered from those books if you know the cultural context that they were originally penned in.
I wouldnt know greek from Hebrew , but I do know in different languages , when you translate them alot of the context gets lost .......

[Rascal]

Which is why you a) learn the languages or b) get several different translations or c) get several different commentaries written by scholars of both languages.

I go with b and c.

[Spider]

Which is why you a) learn the languages or b) get several different translations or c) get several different commentaries written by scholars of both languages.

I go with b and c.
No offense , but that is way to much , for religion to work a guy has to have faith , the mere fact that I am hung up on translation means I dont have faith , I need proof .......
if it wasnt for religion , would tend to view god with a more open mind , but as it is now , I view god I see Pat Robertson , and those guys .....
I view god , I see I have to give up a way of life , I have to fall in step with certian beliefs , or I would be living a lie ...... Not saying that Christians are , but for me it would be .......

[orangeatheist]

This brings up a question of who says the earth couldn't have been created old?

Even in the big bang theory there has to be a first mover no matter how OA argues it.


But, Rascal, even if there was a "first mover" in the Big Bang, who is to say that "mover" was supernatural? Or intelligent? Or purposeful?


Crush, if you want to open another thread to discuss Genesis I'd be happy to jump over there. There are too many posts here that are kind of flying around that I can't keep track. If we have another thread to discuss Genesis, specifically how it was intended to be read (or, rather, how it was written [i.e. word choice, context]) and we keep it focused just on that topic, that'd be great!

[Falconer]

No offense , but that is way to much , for religion to work a guy has to have faith , the mere fact that I am hung up on translation means I dont have faith , I need proof .......
if it wasnt for religion , would tend to view god with a more open mind , but as it is now , I view god I see Pat Robertson , and those guys .....
I view god , I see I have to give up a way of life , I have to fall in step with certian beliefs , or I would be living a lie ...... Not saying that Christians are , but for me it would be .......

Spider, I really appreciate your views, and I can readily understand your hesitations. I will only try to address your last view, as the other two are things that I can do little about.

I also used to believe that I would have to give up things to become a Christian. What I have found though is a kind of freedom. It is very funny that those things I was worried about having to give up, are things that I was more enslaved to than anything else. Now I am free from those things and find freedom to be refreshing. Now please note that I am not saying that your or anybody else's situation is exactly like mine, but it at least deserves some examination.

[ClevelandBronco2]

I can prove that the Christian god is impossible, and that Christians are wasting thier time praying to thier imaginations.

As a U.S. Marine and a liberal it is my job to liberate you from what keeps you from being free, like the bible and its lies and ridiculous rules.

Taking on all challengers.

Anyone besides me suspect that God just took this fokker out?

[Hotrod]

Anyone besides me suspect that God just took this fokker out?

Ha!

REP

[Rascal]

LOL!!!!

That's hillarious.

[Spider]

Spider, I really appreciate your views, and I can readily understand your hesitations. I will only try to address your last view, as the other two are things that I can do little about.

I also used to believe that I would have to give up things to become a Christian. What I have found though is a kind of freedom. It is very funny that those things I was worried about having to give up, are things that I was more enslaved to than anything else. Now I am free from those things and find freedom to be refreshing. Now please note that I am not saying that your or anybody else's situation is exactly like mine, but it at least deserves some examination.
Fair enough , I just not ready to vote Republican ;D ......

[orangeatheist]

Anyone besides me suspect that God just took this fokker out?

Then he must've jumped in line cuz I thought I was next.

[FADERPROOF]

4 pages worth of bull****, I was really hoping to here this guy try to say that the Christian God doesn't exist.

My question for him would be, is it just the Christian God, or all Gods? Seems a little weird to say that Christian God isn't real, but the Buddhist God is, or the Pagan Gods are, or the Islam God is etc.

I'm not even Christian, and I'm not about to rival Christians by telling them that they are praying to something that doesn't exist. My job isn't to sell something to others, my job is to believe in what I find my faith in, and go about my business as long as I continue on my path.

I do find some irony in this because it's usually the Christians trying to sell that my religion is wrong and that I should become a Christian. Might be just that most people I talk with are Christians while I only know a few select Jewish people, but mainly it has ben Christians telling me that this is the truth and that I need to follow it.

[Hotrod]

Then he must've jumped in line cuz I thought I was next.

Nope he puts the shallow end of the gene pool at the front of his to "strike down" list. Your safe...............for now :devil:

[Spider]

or all Gods?
The football gods are real ........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If there is a God who created the universe, would there not be a subjective relationship between the creator and the createe?

This notion presupposes that the universe is a construct and that God is some sort of Divine engineer or construction worker. In this sort of artifactual view of the universe, the foregone conclusion is that the universe was somehow put together or built from some originally shapeless, inert, and/or unintelligent raw materials or "stuff" by some external agent at some point in linear time/space.


You by your very nature are completely subject to systems that exist outside of yourself.

This notion presupposes an ontological distinction between "myself" and those systems. Where is the proof of such a distinction? Certainly not to be found in modern ecology, biology, or physics.

Obedience comes in the manner of a trusting child doing what his wise father tells him to do. Your relationship with God (if you are a Christian) is manifested mainly through the human father/child relationship.

"If you are a Christian" being the operative phrase - which brings us back to my original point, i.e., that a patriarchal (i.e., Judeo-Christian-Islamic) concept of God isn't the only possible concept.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

But, Rascal, even if there was a "first mover" in the Big Bang, who is to say that "mover" was supernatural? Or intelligent? Or purposeful?


Good question.

And, BTW, he also said that there "must" be a "first mover" without really qualifying why there "must" be such a thing.

In any event, everybody who didn't sleep through his lower-division philosophy of religion class knows that this sort of cosmological proof for God's existence doesn't work.

You are left with two possible conclusions: Either an infinite regression of causes or the conclusion that God is Himself not a first cause.

[TheDave]

Benefit #2,763 of being an agnostic... I think you could all be right!

Benefit #2,764 of being an agnostic... I think you could all be wrong!

Benefit #2,765 of being an agnostic... I won't waste any more time thinking about it!!!

[errand]

But if I believe in God, why do I have to believe the world was created in 7 days?

It says who ever believes in Me is saved. Not who ever believes that I created the world in 7 days is saved.

But to believe in Him is to believe He did in fact create the world in 7 days. The bible is God's word...we cannot pick and choose which parts of it we want to believe...or follow.

It's easier said than done, trust me...but it's not impossible to do.

[errand]

Can God throw a deep pass to Rod Smith that even Jesus couldn't defend against? ;D

.....the question isn't whether or not Jesus could defend a pass from God...but whether or not Rod Smith could catch it.

[bronco_diesel]

Benefit #2,763 of being an agnostic... I think you could all be right!

Benefit #2,764 of being an agnostic... I think you could all be wrong!

Benefit #2,765 of being an agnostic... I won't waste any more time thinking about it!!!


oh, but it is worth the time. there is too much at stake - whether i am right or wrong, to just let it pass without finding out for myself.

[errand]

4 pages worth of bull****, I was really hoping to here this guy try to say that the Christian God doesn't exist.

My question for him would be, is it just the Christian God, or all Gods? Seems a little weird to say that Christian God isn't real, but the Buddhist God is, or the Pagan Gods are, or the Islam God is etc.

Exactly...amazing how everyone is trying to dispel Christianity's God...but not allah or buddah, or what ever else people believe in.



I do find some irony in this because it's usually the Christians trying to sell that my religion is wrong and that I should become a Christian. Might be just that most people I talk with are Christians while I only know a few select Jewish people, but mainly it has ben Christians telling me that this is the truth and that I need to follow it.

It's not just Christians that are trying to "sell" you on their religion...the Muslims are doing the same thing.....via acts of terror.

[errand]

Benefit #2,763 of being an agnostic... I think you could all be right!

Benefit #2,764 of being an agnostic... I think you could all be wrong!

Benefit #2,765 of being an agnostic... I won't waste any more time thinking about it!!!

good thing your not dyslexic, otherwise you'd be staying awake wondering if there really is a Dog.

[Mile High Shack]

OA I think you'd find it interesting ... the link I provided

[orangeatheist]

.....the question isn't whether or not Jesus could defend a pass from God...but whether or not Rod Smith could catch it.


I don't think that's the question at all. We saw God throw a number of passes to Rod Smith and he caught a good deal of them.

http://www.digi7.com/pwn/elway/images/pics/afc2.jpg
GOD

http://www.itsalreadysigned4u.com/shop/media/images/product_category/FRT-08PHSMI763.jpg
ROD SMITH (catching a pass from God)

So, unless that's Jesus wearing # 20 for the Falcons behind Rod Smith in the picture above, the question remains as unanswered as How Many Licks Does It Take To Get To The Center Of a Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pop.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

But to believe in Him is to believe He did in fact create the world in 7 days. The bible is God's word...we cannot pick and choose which parts of it we want to believe...or follow.

It's easier said than done, trust me...but it's not impossible to do.

You could also choose to join some cult where you are required to believe something equally contrary to fact, e.g., that the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man created the world in eight days and that the moon is made of cheese - but what would be the point?

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000ZG478.01._PE27_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[orangeatheist]

OA I think you'd find it interesting ... the link I provided


I missed it, Shack. Can you give me the post # and I'll go check it out?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Errand country?

Pilgrims in an exodus to South Carolina: Evangelicals want a biblically governed state

GREENVILLE, S.C. - Frank and Tammy Janoski, the Pennsylvania pilgrims, have landed.

With their four children, they have settled into a little subdivision in the country, the first transplants of a movement that wants to bring legions of conservative Christians here to turn South Carolina's government into a biblically inspired oasis.

In the South Carolina of their dreams, abortion would be illegal. The Ten Commandments would be proudly displayed. Public schools would be a thing of the past. Taxes would be severely limited, and property rights would be paramount.

And if the federal government tried to interfere, well, they'd secede.

So far, the Christian Exodus movement has not been a mighty magnet for change. Only four other families have followed the Janoskis' lead, a far cry from the "thousands of Christians" touted on the group's Web site. Even the founder of the group is still in his California home, promising to move in 2006 or 2007.

Their idea, however, is as old as America: a haven for like-minded people with a government run according to their particular religious lights. Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Utah all got their start as religious sanctuaries.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/breaking_news/12214371.htm

[epicSocialism4tw]

This notion presupposes that the universe is a construct and that God is some sort of Divine engineer or construction worker. In this sort of artifactual view of the universe, the foregone conclusion is that the universe was somehow put together or built from some originally shapeless, inert, and/or unintelligent raw materials or "stuff" by some external agent at some point in linear time/space.Exactly. There are always going to be philosophical questions that can be raised over cosmology, but these are not really pragmatic questions that can be useful in building a useful philosophy for everyman.

Space and time are both viewed as creations and act as limiting factors to the will of man. Thus, they are external systems that exert control over man's existence. You can also include gravity, temperature, density, and a number of other recognizeable materialistic factors. You say that this is a presupposition, which any belief is, but it has contributed to man's travels outside of Earth's atmosphere and the creation of many useful devices and medicines. If nothing else, it has proven to be useful to our society in many ways. Man empiracally sets his figurative hand to the clay that is already prepared for him (no matter how you think that it got there) and manipulates it into his control. Where the majority of the action occurs between the neumenon and the phenomenon is debateable. We do know that when I paint a picture and hand it to you without mentioning anything about my creation of that object, that you perceive it with your sensory faculties and your brain helps you to understand what it is that you are looking at. Instead of receiving signals from a universal subconscious or a universal intangible mind, Okham's Razor would say that you simply use the obvious faculties (why else would you have them?) to observe the phenomenon.

[epicSocialism4tw]

This notion presupposes an ontological distinction between "myself" and those systems. Where is the proof of such a distinction? Certainly not to be found in modern ecology, biology, or physics..If you are a physician or an ecologist, your philosophy is hard-wired with the belief that there is recognizeable distinction that is practically manipulable for the good of man. Otherwise their would be no point in being a scientist. If you are looking for a scientist to prove to an idealist that the neumenon is completely separated from the observer, then you are looking for an impossible task. Idealists wouldnt even beleive that matter exists. Science would tell you that all things really are connected as there is a finite amount of matter in the universe and it is connected through chemical and physical relationships.


"If you are a Christian" being the operative phrase - which brings us back to my original point, i.e., that a patriarchal (i.e., Judeo-Christian-Islamic) concept of God isn't the only possible concept.It might not be the only concept, but it sure is the most comforting one that I have ever heard. The universe is cold and harsh. What point would there be in living if it's sole purpose was to try and destroy you despite all of your best efforts. The sad thing with that paradigm is that it eventually wins and you get absorbed back into the giant trash compactor.

YHWH G-d is very unique in all of the deist religions. He cares for his people, attempts to show them how to live life while allowing them to remain mentally autonomous, communicates with individual believers on an intimate and personal basis, promises them a place in creation and to maintain that part of creation for them, gives them responsability in His plans as a father and friend would, and more.

[Mile High Shack]

I missed it, Shack. Can you give me the post # and I'll go check it out?
Rather than try to speak like a scientist (b/c I’m not), I’ll let a guy I go along with belief wise speak for me……….

Scientists speak of the earth as being millions of years old, and some have thought this sets aside the Bible. But it does not, for the Bible does not say the heavens and the earth were created on the first day of the six days creation. But it says, "In the beginning,", which was an indefinite time in past--"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" ( Genesis 1:1-2). Now, what was the condition of the earth during that time and after the creation of the heavens and the earth, and before the six days of other things? The Bible says, "and the earth was without form and void" ( Genesis 1:1-2 ). The Bible does not say how long the earth was in this condition, and if scientists want to make it millions of years, then the Bible is still true. The Bible does not say this earth is only six thousand years old. God created only light, day and night on this first day of the six days creation ( Genesis 1:1-5). The world "created" is from two different Hebrew words. "In the beginning God created (Bahrah) the heavens and the earth" ( Genesis 1:1). But in Exodus 20:11 we read that "In six days the Lord made (Ahsah) heaven and earth." The first passage means God originally "created" the heavens and the earth, which afterward remained for some time "without form and void", then the second passage means God "made" or arranged the heavens and the earth, in six days, bringing it out of its void and formless state. (emphasis, Nichols) --Gus Nichols

Then there is this link to look at…quite long
http://doesgodexist.org/JulAug04/Mo...thQuestion.html
it's not just a Jesus link, he talks about how he thinks 7 days is wrong too

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Exactly. There are always going to be philosophical questions that can be raised over cosmology, but these are not really pragmatic questions that can be useful in building a useful philosophy for everyman.

That's where myths (Christian or other) come in.

And I'm not sure these questions are not "pragmatic" - even children ask questions like "who created God?"

Space and time are both viewed as creations and act as limiting factors to the will of man.

To claim that these systems are 'creations' once again invokes the cosmological argument (and invokes the compositional fallacy, e.g., "the error of arguing from a property of parts of a whole to a property of the whole."

Thus, they are external systems that exert control over man's existence.

Are they necessarily "external?" They might just as well be internal, i.e., inherent properties of matter or characteristics of phenomena. (As opposed to ontologically distinct agents or forces which act on matter.)

In a religious context, if you believe that man has an eternal soul, then space-time might ultimately be no more than an intellectual convention, i.e., purely subjective. In fact, scientists actually believe that it is possible that mass-energy as a whole can never begin or end (the First Law of Thermodynamics states this.)

[epicSocialism4tw]

Right. You are not bringing to light anything more than traditional ontological questions.

Quantum Theory further illustrates the possible unity of all matter at a subatomic level, so science is not far from idealism, it just refrains from presupposing a connection until a reasonable theory can be developed. Not to say that scientific theory pretends to be the end-all because it changes and evolves just like any other philosophy.

I am a pragmatist/empiricist with quite a helping of idealism. It is obvious that fundamentally, there are very few answers to some heavy philosophical questions. It all boils down to what you are comfortable with and what your epistemology has presented you with.

[epicSocialism4tw]

And by the way, "Who Created God?" is not a pragmatic question, it's a metaphysical question.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And by the way, "Who Created God?" is not a pragmatic question, it's a metaphysical question.

Let us not assume that metaphysical questions cannot also be pragmatic questions (or vice-versa.)

[epicSocialism4tw]

Let us not assume that metaphysical questions cannot also be pragmatic questions (or vice-versa.)

We would have to understand what the definitions of those terms would be, now wouldnt we? We wouldnt want that.

[FADERPROOF]

Exactly...amazing how everyone is trying to dispel Christianity's God...but not allah or buddah, or what ever else people believe in.





It's not just Christians that are trying to "sell" you on their religion...the Muslims are doing the same thing.....via acts of terror.

True, I'm just talking about people that I know, friends and family and such. Like I said, it's probably because they are all Christians for the most part as I only know a few Jewish people and some agnostic(and they don't say anything about religion), so it's just been my personal experience that Christians push their views onto me once they hear that I'm not a Christian.

[epicSocialism4tw]

True, I'm just talking about people that I know, friends and family and such. Like I said, it's probably because they are all Christians for the most part as I only know a few Jewish people and some agnostic(and they don't say anything about religion), so it's just been my personal experience that Christians push their views onto me once they hear that I'm not a Christian.

Jewish people dont try to convert people mainly because they have an exclusivist tradition, but I still like them anyway! They have some great traditions and holidays.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

We would have to understand what the definitions of those terms would be, now wouldnt we?

Knowing the definitions of the terms wouldn't be sufficient - it would be necessary to show that they were also incompatible.

We wouldnt want that.

"We" wouldn't?

Why not?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And by the way, "Who Created God?" is not a pragmatic question, it's a metaphysical question.

Only for dualists and people who don't understand paradox.

[ClevelandBronco2]

Jewish people dont try to convert people mainly because they have an exclusivist tradition, but I still like them anyway! They have some great traditions and holidays.

I'm a nondenominational church-going, Bible-study-leading Christian who lives in a neighborhood that is significantly Jewish. My son was invited to Passover dinner with his friend's family.

Coolest thing ever. I wish I'd been invited to go to such an observance as a youngster.

[REB]

"But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2 Peter 3:8

REB

[Rohirrim]

The man who knows nothing can be convinced of anything.

[orangeatheist]

Hmm...let's me post "test"...and this change. Why not my actual post??

...Keep getting "Network Timeout". Screw it. TJ put an atheist block on the forum.

[bronco_diesel]

"But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2 Peter 3:8

REB


this scripture is often taken out of content.

this scripture is in reference to be patient that the day of the Lord will come.

following verse:

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. "

the creation text in Genesis is meant by the writer to be taken as literal 24 hour days. so with that said, and what this text is referring to - it is two separate meanings.

even if you took this statement and applied it to creation, that only makes the world 12,000 to 14,000 years old. still a much younger age to the earth than evolution states.

[bronco_diesel]

Hmm...let's me post "test"...and this change. Why not my actual post??

...Keep getting "Network Timeout". Screw it. TJ put an atheist block on the forum.

i have got those too. maybe shorten your post - break it up to several posts.

[bronco_diesel]

Rather than try to speak like a scientist (b/c I’m not), I’ll let a guy I go along with belief wise speak for me……….

Scientists speak of the earth as being millions of years old, and some have thought this sets aside the Bible. But it does not, for the Bible does not say the heavens and the earth were created on the first day of the six days creation. But it says, "In the beginning,", which was an indefinite time in past--"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" ( Genesis 1:1-2). Now, what was the condition of the earth during that time and after the creation of the heavens and the earth, and before the six days of other things? The Bible says, "and the earth was without form and void" ( Genesis 1:1-2 ). The Bible does not say how long the earth was in this condition, and if scientists want to make it millions of years, then the Bible is still true. The Bible does not say this earth is only six thousand years old. God created only light, day and night on this first day of the six days creation ( Genesis 1:1-5). The world "created" is from two different Hebrew words. "In the beginning God created (Bahrah) the heavens and the earth" ( Genesis 1:1). But in Exodus 20:11 we read that "In six days the Lord made (Ahsah) heaven and earth." The first passage means God originally "created" the heavens and the earth, which afterward remained for some time "without form and void", then the second passage means God "made" or arranged the heavens and the earth, in six days, bringing it out of its void and formless state. (emphasis, Nichols) --Gus Nichols

Then there is this link to look at…quite long
http://doesgodexist.org/JulAug04/Mo...thQuestion.html
it's not just a Jesus link, he talks about how he thinks 7 days is wrong too


"Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

In the beginning clearly means that this is the absolute beginning. there was no time before it. the condition of the earth is, as you stated, without form, void, and darkness. so there was basically a big dark empty hole. - i.e. there was no life.

what you are touching on speaks to what is called the Gap Theory. the main purpose for the Gap Theory is to make sense based on the statements of evolution. it allows for us to consider the idea that life was formed before creation week, that dinasours could have lived before creation, and then there was a "re-creation" to the earth as we now know it - referring to Exodus.

cont-

[bronco_diesel]

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-gaptheory-problems.html

The earliest available manuscript of Genesis 1:1-2 is found in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX), prepared about 250-200 B.C. The LXX does not permit the reading of any "ruin-reconstruction" scenario into these verses, as even Custance admitted. A closer look at these verses reveals that the gap theory imposes an interpretation upon Genesis 1:1-2 which is unnatural, and grammatically unsound. Like many attempts to harmonize the Bible with uniformitarian geology's supposed long ages of earth history, the gap theory involves a well-meant but misguided twisting of Scripture.

It is generally acknowledged that the Hebrew word bara, used with "God" as its subject, means "to create" -- in the sense of the production of something which did not exist before.

However, in the Fourth Commandment God "made" (asah) the heavens and the earth and everything in them in six days (Exodus 20:11). If God made everything in six days then there is clearly no room for a gap. To avoid this clear scriptural testimony against any gap, gap theorists have alleged that asah cannot mean "to create," but to "form" or even "re-form." They claim that Exodus 20:11 refers not to six days of creation, but six days of re-forming a ruined world.

Is there such a difference between bara and asah in biblical usage? A number of verses show that while asah may mean "to do," or "to make," it can also mean "to create," the same as bara. For example, Nehemiah 9:6 states that God made (asah) "heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things in it, the seas, and all in them." The reference is obviously to the original ex nihilo creation, but the word asah is used. (We may safely assume that no "gappist" will want to say that Nehemiah 9:6 refers to the supposed "reconstruction," because if it did, the "gappist" would have to include the geological strata as well, thereby depriving the whole theory of any purpose.)

The fact is that the words bara and asah are often used interchangeably in the Old Testament; indeed, in some places they are used in synonymous parallelism (e.g., Genesis 1:26-27; Exodus 34:10; Isaiah 41:20; 43:7).

Applying this conclusion to Exodus 20:11 (cf. 31:17) as well as Nehemiah 9:6, we see that Scripture teaches that God created the universe (everything) in six days, as outlined in Genesis 1.

[bronco_diesel]

cont-

Many adherents of the gap theory claim that the grammar of Genesis 1:1-2 allows, even requires, a time-gap between what happened in verse 1, and what happened in verse 2. Into this gap -- believed to be billions of years -- they want to place all the major geological phenomena that have shaped the world.

This is a most unnatural interpretation, which is not suggested by the plain meaning of the text. The most straightforward reading of the verses sees verse 1 as a subject-and-verb-clause, with verse 2 containing three "circumstantial clauses" -- that is, three statements further describing the circumstances introduced by the principal clause in verse 1.

This conclusion is reinforced by the grammarian Gesenius. He says that the conjunction waw ("and") at the beginning of verse 2 is a "waw copulative," which compares with the old English expression "to wit."

This grammatical connection between verses 1 and 2 thus rules out the gap theory. Verse 2 is in fact a description of the state of the originally created earth: "And the earth was without form, and empty" (Genesis 1:2).

"Gappists" translate "the earth was without form and empty" as "the earth became [or, "had become"] without form and empty." At stake is the translation of the Hebrew word hayetah (a form of the Hebrew verb, hayah, "to be").

Custance claims that out of 1,320 occurrences of the verb hayah in the Old Testament, only 24 can certainly be said to bear the meaning "to be." He concludes that in Genesis 1:2 hayetah must mean "became" and not simply "was." Note again that the meaning of a word is controlled by its context, and that in the previous section we showed that verse 2 is circumstantial to verse 1. Thus, "was" is the most natural and appropriate translation for hayetah. It is rendered this way in most English versions (as well as the LXX). Furthermore, in Genesis 1:2 hayetah is not followed by the preposition le, which would have removed any ambiguity in the Hebrew and required the translation "became."

[kappys]

Jewish people dont try to convert people mainly because they have an exclusivist tradition, but I still like them anyway! They have some great traditions and holidays.

My experience has been the exclusive religions like Christianity and Islam are the ones that try hard to convert people to their faith. In both of those religions going to heaven after death can only be acheived by buying into their faith.

In the Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist traditions a person's particular denomination does not affect acheivment of heaven or nirvana, so the push to convert people isn't there. I would venture to say that these religions are more inclusive in some respects.

[orangeatheist]

Thanks for the tip, diesel. And nice reply. Here's mine:

PART I:

Rather than try to speak like a scientist (b/c I’m not), I’ll let a guy I go along with belief wise speak for me……….

Scientists speak of the earth as being millions of years old, and some have thought this sets aside the Bible. But it does not, for the Bible does not say the heavens and the earth were created on the first day of the six days creation. But it says, "In the beginning,", which was an indefinite time in past--"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" ( Genesis 1:1-2). Now, what was the condition of the earth during that time and after the creation of the heavens and the earth, and before the six days of other things? The Bible says, "and the earth was without form and void" ( Genesis 1:1-2 ). The Bible does not say how long the earth was in this condition, and if scientists want to make it millions of years, then the Bible is still true. The Bible does not say this earth is only six thousand years old. God created only light, day and night on this first day of the six days creation ( Genesis 1:1-5). The world "created" is from two different Hebrew words. "In the beginning God created (Bahrah) the heavens and the earth" ( Genesis 1:1). But in Exodus 20:11 we read that "In six days the Lord made (Ahsah) heaven and earth." The first passage means God originally "created" the heavens and the earth, which afterward remained for some time "without form and void", then the second passage means God "made" or arranged the heavens and the earth, in six days, bringing it out of its void and formless state. (emphasis, Nichols) --Gus Nichols

Then there is this link to look at…quite long
http://doesgodexist.org/JulAug04/Mo...thQuestion.html
it's not just a Jesus link, he talks about how he thinks 7 days is wrong too


This is where I get to have the most fun: Pit YECs against OECs, sit back and watch the fur fly! If two Christians, both committed to the literal and unerring interpretation of the Bible cannot agree on what the creation account means, how do they pretend to convince us skeptics? (in case you're wondering, my studies of the Hebrew text persuades me to believe the YEC's case, btw)

CONTINUED BELOW:

[orangeatheist]

PART II:

When Moses, under the inspiration of God, compiled the account of creation in Genesis 1, he used the Hebrew word yôm for 'day'. He combined yôm with numbers ('first day', 'second day', 'third day', etc.) and with the words 'evening and morning', and the first time he employed it he carefully defined the meaning of yôm (used in this way) as being one night/day cycle (Genesis 1:5). Thereafter, throughout the Bible, yôm used in this way always refers to a normal 24–hour day. There is thus a prima facie case that, when God used the word yôm in this way, He intended to convey that the days of creation were 24 hours long. From: How Long Were The Days of Genesis 1? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/days.asp)

While I find the explaination from AIG somewhat simplistic, they have the right idea. Given the word choice and the context of the passages, literal days were implied by the writer(s) of Genesis 1.

[bronco_diesel]

sorry for going Labf style on you guys with the lengthy read.

OA - i prolly saved you a little trouble.

bd

[orangeatheist]

PART III:

What your original author above seems to be arguing is that the wording of Genesis 1 was vague enough to imply a long passage of time during the creation of the planet. I disagree. He states:

...the Bible does not say the heavens and the earth were created on the first day of the six days creation. But it says, "In the beginning,", which was an indefinite time in past--"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" ( Genesis 1:1-2).

"In the beginning" is a literary device. It merely introduces the theme of the following narrative. What did Nic expect it to say? "Sometime in the middle,"?

Now, what was the condition of the earth during that time and after the creation of the heavens and the earth, and before the six days of other things? The Bible says, "and the earth was without form and void" ( Genesis 1:1-2 ).

Yes, the Bible says that the earth was without form and void, thus making it impossible for any geological events to occur, such as stratographical layering. What existed before God began to "create" was chaos. Seems simple enough to understand. How long did this chaos, this "void" exist? No one knows. The Bible doesn't say. All we know from the text is that at some point in time, God began to "move across the face of the deep" and started creating.

The Bible does not say how long the earth was in this condition, and if scientists want to make it millions of years, then the Bible is still true.

Certainly. I'll buy this. If creationists want to say that the earth was without form and void for the billions of years following the Big Bang before it began to form in our solar system, I have no problem with that. In this sense the Bible does not conflict with what we know from science. The earth indeed did not exist (was without form and void) for billions of years following the Big Bang ("in the beginning").

The Bible does not say this earth is only six thousand years old.

No, it doesn't. At least not explicity. However, the Bible does say that after he created light from darkness on day one, and an dome to separate the waters which were above the dome from the waters below on the second day (more or less making a bubble in the formless void of the waters), he brought forth the dry land on day three. Since the term "day" used in Genesis 1 was meant to be read as a literal 24 hour period, the deductions of Lightfoot and Ussher were that the creation occured on the 23rd of October, 4004BCE at around 9 in the morning, thus making the earth about 6,000 years old. In that sense, then, the Bible does say the earth is only six thousand years old.

[orangeatheist]

PART IV:


God created only light, day and night on this first day of the six days creation ( Genesis 1:1-5). The world "created" is from two different Hebrew words. "In the beginning God created (Bahrah) the heavens and the earth" ( Genesis 1:1). But in Exodus 20:11 we read that "In six days the Lord made (Ahsah) heaven and earth." The first passage means God originally "created" the heavens and the earth, which afterward remained for some time "without form and void", then the second passage means God "made" or arranged the heavens and the earth, in six days, bringing it out of its void and formless state.

Hmmm...this explaination doesn't fly very well when you consider the use of the word bahrah in other verses of Genesis. If bahrah means merely to "create without form and void," how does that explain its usage in Genesis 1:21? "And God created [bahrah] great whales, and every living creature that moveth.." Were the whales and every living creature without form and void on this day of creation? If a whale didn't have form, how do you know it was a whale? If there were formless creatures, how could you tell a rabbit from a T-Rex? Or how about Genesis 5:2, "Male and female created (bahrah) he them..." If they were created (bahrah), which means without form and void, I'm not certain God could really tell the difference between which one of those formless creatures was Adam and which was Eve!

This is the trouble one gets into when trying to stretch a point and when one doesn't understand 1.) the formation of the Hebrew Bible from its many sources (which would include differing word choices by the various authors) and 2.) the use of the same word in the same book/chapter under discussion not used in the manner offered (i.e. he pulled his explanation out of context).

**We need to fix that. This should have only been one post. Sorry folks.**

[bronco_diesel]

PART IV:
**We need to fix that. This should have only been one post. Sorry folks.**

looks like one of my posts didn't make it.
i was getting into the words tohu and bohu - though, my link should suffice.

[Rohirrim]

I like the story that Joseph Campbell told. He said he was talking to a Hindu pundit who was explaining to him how scripture tells us that all of life is balanced on the back of an enormous turtle. Campbell asked him, "What's holding up the turtle?" Whenever I see these various mythologies masquerading under the more respectable term "Religion", I'm reminded of the pundit's answer: It's turtles, all the way down.

Those who are deeply faithful in their belief in Christianity and it's scriptures should remember something; The Greeks were just as deeply and soulfully committed to the reality of Zeus, and the Egyptians in Isis, Horus, etc. Someday, humans will look back on Christianity the same way we now look back at those mythologies.

[Mile High Shack]

I like the story that Joseph Campbell told. He said he was talking to a Hindu pundit who was explaining to him how scripture tells us that all of life is balanced on the back of an enormous turtle. Campbell asked him, "What's holding up the turtle?" Whenever I see these various mythologies masquerading under the more respectable term "Religion", I'm reminded of the pundit's answer: It's turtles, all the way down.

Those who are deeply faithful in their belief in Christianity and it's scriptures should remember something; The Greeks were just as deeply and soulfully committed to the reality of Zeus, and the Egyptians in Isis, Horus, etc. Someday, humans will look back on Christianity the same way we now look back at those mythologies.

fair enough you have read, seen, heard enough not to have any excuse on the day you die……….

[bronco_diesel]

I like the story that Joseph Campbell told. He said he was talking to a Hindu pundit who was explaining to him how scripture tells us that all of life is balanced on the back of an enormous turtle. Campbell asked him, "What's holding up the turtle?" Whenever I see these various mythologies masquerading under the more respectable term "Religion", I'm reminded of the pundit's answer: It's turtles, all the way down.

Those who are deeply faithful in their belief in Christianity and it's scriptures should remember something; The Greeks were just as deeply and soulfully committed to the reality of Zeus, and the Egyptians in Isis, Horus, etc. Someday, humans will look back on Christianity the same way we now look back at those mythologies.

thats fine. But Zeus never walked this earth and performed miracles. He never died on a cross and rose again.

you can argue all you want that Jesus never 1) walked this earth or 2) rose again, but the evidence speaks for itself. The evidence has not only brought men to their death by this proclmation, it has passed the test of time, and it would even stand up in a court of law.

[Spider]

thats fine. But Zeus never walked this earth and performed miracles. He never died on a cross and rose again.

you can argue all you want that Jesus never 1) walked this earth or 2) rose again, but the evidence speaks for itself. The evidence has not only brought men to their death by this proclmation, it has passed the test of time, and it would even stand up in a court of law.
Just curious , who saw jesus arise ?

[bronco_diesel]

Just curious , who saw jesus arise ?

all the apostles.
and 500 other witnesses.

paul did not see him at the same time, but saw him in his resurrected form traveling to demascus.

it is also noteworthy that paul (who was saul) was actually persecuting christians - until his encounter with Christ, which completely changed his mission in life.

[Montaq]

I read a quote from someone once that said ""A myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes." I don't know who said it. ???

[Spider]

all the apostles.
and 500 other witnesses.

paul did not see him at the same time, but saw him in his resurrected form traveling to demascus.

it is also noteworthy that paul (who was saul) was actually persecuting christians - until his encounter with Christ, which completely changed his mission in life.
I thought it was just mary ...... at least that is what I was told , I know 500 went to the tomb and saw the heavy boulder moved , but I didnt know they actually saw Jesus rise from the tomb ........

[bronco_diesel]

I thought it was just mary ...... at least that is what I was told , I know 500 went to the tomb and saw the heavy boulder moved , but I didnt know they actually saw Jesus rise from the tomb ........

mary saw him first...but there were an actual eyewitness account of 500. plus paul a short time later.

[bronco_diesel]

mary saw him first...but there were an actual eyewitness account of 500. plus paul a short time later.

thomas, an apostle didn't believe at first - so he had to put touch the holes in Christs hands. Hence "doubting Thomas"

[epicSocialism4tw]

I like the story that Joseph Campbell told. He said he was talking to a Hindu pundit who was explaining to him how scripture tells us that all of life is balanced on the back of an enormous turtle. Campbell asked him, "What's holding up the turtle?" Whenever I see these various mythologies masquerading under the more respectable term "Religion", I'm reminded of the pundit's answer: It's turtles, all the way down.

Those who are deeply faithful in their belief in Christianity and it's scriptures should remember something; The Greeks were just as deeply and soulfully committed to the reality of Zeus, and the Egyptians in Isis, Horus, etc. Someday, humans will look back on Christianity the same way we now look back at those mythologies.


That sounds like a good excuse. Judaism was founded on personal interaction with G-d...empirical evidence witnessed within communities. Christianity was founded on the same evidence and then later with an encounter with someone who said that they were God that was brilliant and performed miracles that defied natural laws.

There is more historical evidence supporting Jesus' legitimacy and impact on his immediate surroundings than evidence that stands in opposition. Historians that have a contrarian view have to take a revisionist stance.

[Spider]

mary saw him first...but there were an actual eyewitness account of 500. plus paul a short time later.
I see ......

[epicSocialism4tw]

I see ......


Paul is the one to look at if you want to know about the resurrection's authenticity. Imagine Bin Laden's top lieutenant suddenly having the revelation that the US is the ideal government and enlisting in the army to fight Al-Qaeda. That is Paul.

At that point, Christianity was a small sect of Judaism and the leaders of the Jewish state were trying to get rid of them. Paul was a chief in this endeavor and killed many Christians. Jesus encountered him in his resurrected form and the rest is history.

[Spider]

Paul is the one to look at if you want to know about the resurrection's authenticity. Imagine Bin Laden's top lieutenant suddenly having the revelation that the US is the ideal government and enlisting in the army to fight Al-Qaeda. That is Paul.
according to who ? History is pretty suggestive , you can find people that will tell you the Holocaust never happened , we never steped foot on the moon , FDR knew of Pearl Harbor , Bush knew of 9-11 ........

[Rohirrim]

All I know is that the Greeks believed so strongly in their Gods that they were willing to sacrifice their children to them, as were the Aztecs, Mayans, ancient Hebrews, etc. Talk about faith! So now people tell me Jesus was this and Jesus was that, and he did this, and he did that. And God is this, and God is that. And If you don't live right, you're going to hell. And if you do live right, you're going to heaven. And we'll tell you what's right and wrong as based on this book that God wrote, which we will interpret for you.

Well, across the sea, somebody else is saying the same thing, except their God wrote a completely different book.

Zeus sent lightening bolts to whack the unworthy and everybody could see their smoking ruin. It's all the same stuff. Stories to fill up the gaps. To soothe that vacuum created by the reality of all we don't know. Like a nightlight in a child's room. My heaven and hell are here. The rest, I don't know. I guess I'm the guy who's going to get smote.

[Montaq]

we never steped foot on the moon

ummm... why are you including that theory with all those other crazy things? ;D

[Spider]

ummm... why are you including that theory with all those other crazy things? ;D
;D ......to give my post legitimacy ..... I thought of Area 51 , but no one in the gen. population knows what goes on out there , so I couldnt use it even though I wanted to ...... But my point is , what do we know as fact , and what is conspiracy ........

[Montaq]

;D ......to give my post legitimacy ..... I thought of Area 51 , but no one in the gen. population knows what goes on out there , so I couldnt use it even though I wanted to ...... But my point is , what do we know as fact , and what is conspiracy ........

Well - I have my doubts about landing on the moon. If that makes me a crazy person, I don't care. ;D

[epicSocialism4tw]

according to who ? History is pretty suggestive , you can find people that will tell you the Holocaust never happened , we never steped foot on the moon , FDR knew of Pearl Harbor , Bush knew of 9-11 ........

Paul wrote many of the books that are in the New Testament, so you get the story straight from the horses mouth.

The historical viability of Paul's books and other NT writings are another topic altogether, and one that you will find stands up in recorded history as well as or better than any other known docuements from that era.

[Spider]

Well - I have my doubts about landing on the moon. If that makes me a crazy person, I don't care. ;D
this isnt about if we did or didnt , this is about preception ...... what we understand to be fact ..... oh and you are a loon ;D

[Montaq]

Paul wrote many of the books that are in the New Testament, so you get the story straight from the horses mouth.

The historical viability of Paul's books and other NT writings are another topic altogether, and one that you will find stands up in recorded history as well as or better than any other known docuements from that era.

I thought the Gospels were written about 200 years after Jesus. ???

(I'm seriously not trying to be a smart-ass - just what I thought) here comes more neg rep.

[clarker]

Well - I have my doubts about landing on the moon. If that makes me a crazy person, I don't care. ;DIt is good that you don't care, because.... :thumbs: :peace: You might want to put down the pipe. :puff:

[Montaq]

..... oh and you are a loon ;D

Probably. :D

[Spider]

Paul wrote many of the books that are in the New Testament, so you get the story straight from the horses mouth. Didnt Paul kill Christians ? wouldnt his word be dubious ? How do we know if Paul wasnt Batshít ?

The historical viability of Paul's books and other NT writings are another topic altogether, and one that you will find stands up in recorded history as well as or better than any other known docuements from that era.
as to what ?

[Montaq]

It is good that you don't care, because.... :thumbs: :peace: You might want to put down the pipe. :puff:

4 words:

Van Allen radiation belt

[bronco_diesel]

[QUOTE=§Pide®]Didnt Paul kill Christians ? wouldnt his word be dubious ? How do we know if Paul wasnt Batshít ? [QUOTE]

yes, paul did kill chistians - until his road to damascus as told earlier.

i believe this actually lends a great deal of credibility to his story. what other motivation would paul have for drastically changing his life? it was not a political agenda, it was not a popularity contest, it was not for safety.

why would a man who was killing christians as instructed, suddenly change his ways, put his life in danger, and dedicate his entire purpose to the gospel of Christ?

could it be because his encounter with Christ was real?

[bronco_diesel]

4 words:

Van Allen radiation belt

montaq, i am a loon with you on this one. i have serious doubts too.

[clarker]

4 words:

Van Allen radiation beltSorry, you lost me on that, but I was just joking any way.

[bronco_diesel]

Sorry, you lost me on that, but I was just joking any way.

study what the van allen radiation belt is. then ask yourself if men could truly pass through it with the little protection they had.

[Spider]

[QUOTE=§Pide®]Didnt Paul kill Christians ? wouldnt his word be dubious ? How do we know if Paul wasnt Batshít ? [QUOTE]

yes, paul did kill chistians - until his road to damascus as told earlier.

i believe this actually lends a great deal of credibility to his story. what other motivation would paul have for drastically changing his life? it was not a political agenda, it was not a popularity contest, it was not for safety.

why would a man who was killing christians as instructed, suddenly change his ways, put his life in danger, and dedicate his entire purpose to the gospel of Christ?

could it be because his encounter with Christ was real?
good question . one i dont have an answer for ..... If the above is true , Paul did take a risk or develop a conscience

[epicSocialism4tw]

I thought the Gospels were written about 200 years after Jesus. ???

(I'm seriously not trying to be a smart-ass - just what I thought) here comes more neg rep.

Pauls 'books' are letters written to developing churches and pastors that Paul was mentoring. These were written relatively closely to the resurrection. You have to remember that Christians were killed for being Christians, so they didnt have a working Bible until later down the road. They couldnt keep documents around right after Jesus' death because the Romans and Jewish leaders tried to eradicate the Christians.

[FADERPROOF]

We never landed on the moon.

[clarker]

study what the van allen radiation belt is. then ask yourself if men could truly pass through it with the little protection they had.
I might have to do that. ;D

[Spider]

study what the van allen radiation belt is. then ask yourself if men could truly pass through it with the little protection they had.
Sure they could ....they didnt use the gear for Chernobyl either ..... Air locks ...
The Russians discovered this years ago , before we went to the moon , air locks and oxidizers provide alot of Protection ......

[clarker]

Here is what I found with a quick google.

Conspiracy theorists have argued that space travel to the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. In practice, even at the peak of the belts, one could live for several months without receiving a lethal dose.

Apollo nevertheless deliberately timed their launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation. Astronauts who visited the moon probably have a slightly higher risk of cancer during their lifetimes, but still remain unlikely to become ill because of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt#The_Van_Allen_Belt.27s_im pact_on_space_travel

[Spider]

Here is what I found with a quick google.

Conspiracy theorists have argued that space travel to the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. In practice, even at the peak of the belts, one could live for several months without receiving a lethal dose.

Apollo nevertheless deliberately timed their launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation. Astronauts who visited the moon probably have a slightly higher risk of cancer during their lifetimes, but still remain unlikely to become ill because of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt#The_Van_Allen_Belt.27s_im pact_on_space_travel
The deal is there are 2 belts inner and outer , most believe that you cant survive the Radiation cause it is fairly vast . but a simple air locks and oxidizers go along ways in defeating Radiation ......

[Montaq]

Here is what I found with a quick google.

Conspiracy theorists have argued that space travel to the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. In practice, even at the peak of the belts, one could live for several months without receiving a lethal dose.

Apollo nevertheless deliberately timed their launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation. Astronauts who visited the moon probably have a slightly higher risk of cancer during their lifetimes, but still remain unlikely to become ill because of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt#The_Van_Allen_Belt.27s_im pact_on_space_travel

Yes, that's the "official" story. ;D

I'm going to do more reading up and then I'll start a thread on it. If for no one else but me and bronco diesel.

[clarker]

The deal is there are 2 belts inner and outer , most believe that you cant survive the Radiation cause it is fairly vast . but a simple air locks and oxidizers go along ways in defeating Radiation ......You have stated a way they could protect them and this link says if you could live for several months even at the peak of the belts.

So I think it is safe to say we landed on the moon.

[orangeatheist]

WOW!!!

There are so many good topics floating around in these posts I wish each one could be made into its own thread. I know I'd be busy! For example:

Are the "days" of Genesis literal 24hrs?

Who witnessed the Resurrection?

Are religions merely myths in the waiting?

This is good stuff, fellas! Wish we could split these off....

[Spider]

LOL . this proves my point about historical events ........

[clarker]

Yes, that's the "official" story. ;D

I'm going to do more reading up and then I'll start a thread on it. If for no one else but me and bronco diesel.I still think you should lay off the pipe. ;D

[bronco_diesel]

WOW!!!

There are so many good topics floating around in these posts I wish each one could be made into its own thread. I know I'd be busy! For example:

Are the "days" of Genesis literal 24hrs?

Who witnessed the Resurrection?

Are religions merely myths in the waiting?

This is good stuff, fellas! Wish we could split these off....

yeah, this thread is pretty fun.

we should spin off some new ones to discuss further.

[Spider]

You have stated a way they could protect them and this link says if you could live for several months even at the peak of the belts.

So I think it is safe to say we landed on the moon.
;D we did ....... If the moon was rich in Minerals , we would still be going there ..... Space we have no real clue about , could be untold riches out there , but as it stands right now ( what we know ) Water is the most valuble thing in our solar system ..... ;D

[Montaq]

I still think you should lay off the pipe. ;D

I forgot to take my medication today. ;D

[RaiderH8r]

I forgot to take my medication today. ;D
Shut up and drink the kool aid.

[clarker]

I forgot to take my medication today. ;DI hate it when that happens. :laugh:

[orangeatheist]

To try and steer the discussion back onto topic, I want to point out that science is the product of one worldview: a worldview that compels us to make as few binding assumptions about the nature of the world as is possible and then to question the very assumptions we do make. Atheism is a "natural" by-product of this worldview, in my opinion.

Contrast this approach with the approach of a religionist. I will use the Christian as an example. The Christian also has a worldview and that worldview is guided by a few binding assumptions as well. However, unlike the scientist or atheist, there are certain assumptions in the Christian worldview that are not questioned. These assumptions are not falsafiable. The Christian assumes there is a god and there is no amount of argument or demonstration that can make them assume otherwise. Nothing can falsify their belief in god.

Those committed to the truth which to believe in that which is plausible and coherent; something that stands a chance of being true. Human beings are naturally driven to remove as much of their ignorance as possible and discover what is true about the world around them. Perhaps this is an evolutionary survival device. Regardless, we have to recognize that when we try to explain something to remove our ignorance, we run the chance of being wrong. So, we should probably start our inquiries with as few assumptions as possible (because our assumptions may be wrong in the first place, thereby driving our inquiry off from the very start). This is what I, as an atheist, try to do.

However, the Christian believer (and nearly all religious adherants) start with a number of assumptions, very elaborate, and immune to later revision no matter how much these assumptions are contradicted by later discoveries and realizations. Christians assume in their worldview that there is a god and this guides their thinking. I would ask any Christian to tell me what I can do to show them evidence that there is no god. What would it take? How can I falsify their assumption that there is a god? Conversely, a Christian may say that I approach my worldview with the assumption that there is no god. I think that's somewhat silly because having a negative assumption isn't quite the same thing as having a positive assumption. For example, does it make sense to accuse someone of having an anti-invisible-pink-fairy assumption which clouds their worldview? Anyway, even if I were to grant that I held this assumption the assumption itself could easily be falsified. God simply would need to be demonstrated in a rational, repeatable way just as any other scientific observation.

Anyway, my point is to say that it is more reasonable to approach the world with as few assumptions as possible and then to always keep the assumptions you do make available to contrary evidence which can overturn those assumptions. My assertion is that believers in God don't do this. They have at least one assumption (god exists) that is unavailable to falsification. If you think I'm wrong, let me know.

Now, to focus specifically on the topic challenge, I think those who think they can provide evidence that the Christian god (specifically) does not exist needs to have a Christian give them a definition of this god. I think, once this is done, it is very possible to show the irrationality of believing in the Christian deity (specifically).

[FADERPROOF]

So, if their is no air up in space, how is the flag waiving in the videos we've seen?

[bronco_diesel]

good question . one i dont have an answer for ..... If the above is true , Paul did take a risk or develop a conscience

develop a conscience to the point of total loyalty to something he was so strongly opposed to that he would completely change? don't think so.

what would it take for you to believe in Christ and be completly loyal to the point that you dedicate your life to it? you'd have to believe he is who he says he is.

for paul to completely change his life and dedicate himself to the gospel he was trying to destroy - he had to have a conviction, something that drastically changed him. short of actually seeing Christ, i am not sure what would have changed a guy like that.

[Spider]

So, if their is no air up in space, how is the flag waiving in the videos we've seen?
whats to stop it once it is started in Motion ?

[Spider]

develop a conscience to the point of total loyalty to something he was so strongly opposed to that he would completely change? don't think so.
Sure it happens all the time ..... there is even a child molestor that writes books telling you how to protect your kids , Hilters men turned on him ........

what would it take for you to believe in Christ and be completly loyal to the point that you dedicate your life to it? you'd have to believe he is who he says he is.
This is why I said earlier , it takes Faith for Religion to work .....

for paul to completely change his life and dedicate himself to the gospel he was trying to destroy - he had to have a conviction, something that drastically changed him. short of actually seeing Christ, i am not sure what would have changed a guy like that.
Who knows , but it does happen ......

[bronco_diesel]

Anyway, even if I were to grant that I held this assumption the assumption itself could easily be falsified. God simply would need to be demonstrated in a rational, repeatable way just as any other scientific observation.

Anyway, my point is to say that it is more reasonable to approach the world with as few assumptions as possible and then to always keep the assumptions you do make available to contrary evidence which can overturn those assumptions. My assertion is that believers in God don't do this. They have at least one assumption (god exists) that is unavailable to falsification. If you think I'm wrong, let me know.

Now, to focus specifically on the topic challenge, I think those who think they can provide evidence that the Christian god (specifically) does not exist needs to have a Christian give them a definition of this god. I think, once this is done, it is very possible to show the irrationality of believing in the Christian deity (specifically).


good post.

i take interest in the assumptions. you are correct that christianity assumes there is a God. better said, a person comes to terms with their God, and thus knows who he is. the creator of the universe. enough of that - we've been there.

now, there are assumptions both ways. you say there isn't a god. fair enough. you say you have proven to yourself there isn't a god, again, fair enough.

however, evolution cannot be proved as fact. i will grant you that there are many facets of evolution that are factual, but the overall geological clock is an assumption.

[bronco_diesel]

Sure it happens all the time ..... there is even a child molestor that writes books telling you how to protect your kids , Hilters men turned on him ........


This is why I said earlier , it takes Faith for Religion to work .....


Who knows , but it does happen ......

well, i think it is worth reading pauls writings. he is anything but crazy. i think you'd actually be impressed with him.

[orangeatheist]

well, i think it is worth reading pauls writings. he is anything but crazy. i think you'd actually be impressed with him.


psst....Paul never mentioned an empty tomb. Think about it.

[bronco_diesel]

psst....Paul never mentioned an empty tomb. Think about it.

psst...no, but he did mention he was in the presence of the resurrected Christ.

so...with that, it would be fair to say that there wasn't any need to mention his empty tomb, if indeed he mentioned he saw Christ in a resurrected form. don't ya think?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Zeus sent lightening bolts to whack the unworthy and everybody could see their smoking ruin. It's all the same stuff. Stories to fill up the gaps. To soothe that vacuum created by the reality of all we don't know. Like a nightlight in a child's room. My heaven and hell are here. The rest, I don't know. I guess I'm the guy who's going to get smote.

Good point(s) and good analogy.

At various times in life, everybody needs a "night light in a child's room" to make the passage.

However, organized religion wants to get you addicted to the night light.

Instead of saying "OK, you've heard everything we have to say - now go away," modern-day churches, preachers and pastors encourage a condition of dependency (i.e., on the church, the Bible, authority figures, etc.)

Instead of leading you to yourself, they try to get you hooked on the futile enterprise of trying to conform to some ideal set forth by someone else 2000 years ago or whenever.

I believe it was Carl Jung who said "religion is a defense against religious experience."

[orangenblue2]

however, evolution cannot be proved as fact. i will grant you that there are many facets of evolution that are factual, but the overall geological clock is an assumption.

We are living in the dark ages...I'm going to try try and not bash someone for their faith and belief in god. That belief is your right. However, "Evolution" has been proven many times over. Let me briefly explain. The weakness in using "god" to explain anything scientifically is that the explanation is not falsifiable. That means that you can't test it. For every possible test and result, we could just say "god did it". What does that explain? If humankind had stayed with that reasoning, we'd never have any real science, medicine, technology, or engineering to name just a few. Hence, the Dark Ages. There are no scientific, rational, or logical arguments for the existence of "god". For defenders of creationism or people who point to any "gaps" in Evolution, I would submit that your main fault lies in your supposition that any current lack of knowledge on a certain subject means that it can't be known, i.e.--unknown means "unknowable". Throughout history, science has made remarkable advancements on every front and will continue to do so. Enough for now, I'm tired...Peace :peace:

[clarker]

We are living in the dark ages...I'm going to try try and not bash someone for their faith and belief in god. That belief is your right. However, "Evolution" has been proven many times over. Let me briefly explain. The weakness in using "god" to explain anything scientifically is that the explanation is not falsifiable. That means that you can't test it. For every possible test and result, we could just say "god did it". What does that explain? If humankind had stayed with that reasoning, we'd never have any real science, medicine, technology, or engineering to name just a few. Hence, the Dark Ages. There are no scientific, rational, or logical arguments for the existence of "god". For defenders of creationism or people who point to any "gaps" in Evolution, I would submit that your main fault lies in your supposition that any current lack of knowledge on a certain subject means that it can't be known, i.e.--unknown means "unknowable". Throughout history, science has made remarkable advancements on every front and will continue to do so. Enough for now, I'm tired...Peace :peace:There is also no logical, scientific or rational argument against the existence of God.

Evolution, IMO disproves the literal story of creation, but if there is a gap of knowledge that can't be known leaves room for some kind of higher power.

What we know about the world and the universe is so small that you can not say without a doubt that there is no God.

In other words, name the scientific test that disproves God.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There is also no logical, scientific or rational argument against the existence of God.

Evolution, IMO disproves the literal story of creation, but if there is a gap of knowledge that can't be known leaves room for some kind of higher power.

What we know about the world and the universe is so small that you can not say without a doubt that there is no God.

In other words, name the scientific test that disproves God.

You can't prove a negative, i.e., that there is no God (just like you can't prove there are no pink unicorns.)

The burdon of proof for God's existence is on the believer.

[clarker]

You can't prove a negative, i.e., that there is no God (just like you can't prove there are no pink unicorns.)

The burdon of proof for God's existence is on the believer.No it is not, because it is a matter of faith, like we both said yesterday. I don't have to prove to you the existence of God to validate(sp?) my belief in God.

It is like I said yesterday, you can't prove that God is real and like you said you can't prove a negative, so you can't prove that God in NOT real.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No it is not, because it is a matter of faith, like we both said yesterday. I don't have to prove to you the existence of God to validate(sp?) my belief in God.

It is like I said yesterday, you can't prove that God is real and like you said you can't prove a negative, so you can't prove that God in NOT real.

Yes - if it's just a matter of faith, then there is no need for proof and no dispute.

However, many believers go beyond mere articles of faith and try to prove God's existence on logical or scientific grounds.

The burdon of proof is on them.

There is no burden for non-believers to prove that God doesn't exist.

[clarker]

Yes - if it's just a matter of faith, then there is no need for proof and no dispute.

However, many believers go beyond mere articles of faith and try to prove God's existence on logical or scientific grounds.

The burdon of proof is on them.

There is no burden for non-believers to prove that God doesn't exist.
I would agree with that. If a believer tries to prove God's existence on logical or scientific grounds then yes, the burdon is on them.

But what I'm saying it is a matter of faith and like I said yesterday to try tell someone their faith in God is dumb, is like telling someone who likes the taste of oranges that oranges taste bad.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I would agree with that. If a believer tries to prove God's existence on logical or scientific grounds then yes, the burdon is on them.

But what I'm saying it is a matter of faith and like I said yesterday to try tell someone their faith in God is dumb, is like telling someone who likes the taste of oranges that oranges taste bad.

No argument there.

[FADERPROOF]

whats to stop it once it is started in Motion ?

The damn thing doesn't move by itself, it needs air to wave, and there isn't any air up in space.

[clarker]

The damn thing doesn't move by itself, it needs air to wave, and there isn't any air up in space.There are springs in it to make it look like it waves.

[FADERPROOF]

There are springs in it to make it look like it waves.

springs in the flag?

That's a good one, seriously.

[clarker]

springs in the flag?

That's a good one, seriously.There is something in the in the flag to make it appear as if it is waving. I read it at the Air & Space Museum in D.C.

I don't have a link, because I read it right there at the museum.

[FADERPROOF]

There is something in the in the flag to make it appear as if it is waving. I read it at the Air & Space Museum in D.C.

I don't have a link, because I read it right there at the museum.

Or could they be saying that as a cover up?

Conspiracies rule because the truth isn;t known.

[clarker]

Or could they be saying that as a cover up?

Conspiracies rule because the truth isn;t known.Or your nuts. :thumbs: ;D

[FADERPROOF]

Or your nuts. :thumbs: ;D

I get that a lot as well.

[clarker]

I get that a lot as well.No. Really? ;D

[Spider]

The damn thing doesn't move by itself, it needs air to wave, and there isn't any air up in space.
No it doesnt , once somthing in space or low gravity gets going , it is hard to stop .... But there is a Rod in the top of the flag to keep it full out like that .....

[Spider]

There is something in the in the flag to make it appear as if it is waving. I read it at the Air & Space Museum in D.C.

I don't have a link, because I read it right there at the museum.
there is a a rod in the top of the flag , but as I said once you get soming moving in space or low gravity , it takes alot of force to stop it ......

[FADERPROOF]

No it doesnt , once somthing in space or low gravity gets going , it is hard to stop .... But there is a Rod in the top of the flag to keep it full out like that .....

You know this because you've been out in space before?

[FADERPROOF]

No. Really? ;D

Its either nuts or drunk, I'm one of the two most of my waking hours.

[FADERPROOF]

Also, where is this douche chip that said he could prove that the Christian God doesnt exist?

[clarker]

there is a a rod in the top of the flag , but as I said once you get soming moving in space or low gravity , it takes alot of force to stop it ......I knew it something like that. I read it at the Smithsonian but that was in 1985.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I want to extend a challenge to every individual who is interested in this thread and says that they believe that God does not exist because of their own experience to take one month out of their life (that is one out of around 864 months) to make an honest attempt to find out whether or not God is there.

You have to make an honest attempt. One that you know is a true attempt to find out. You will need to come to this honestly and while accepting the possibility that God is there. Stubborn doubt will disable the enterprise by dimming your paradigm.

Take moments every day to ask the question of God, who can possibly hear even your thoughts, about whether or not He is there. Be sure that you approach God like you would an honorable and powerful ruler. Do so humbly and honestly. Ask God if he will show himself to you. Admit to yourself that it might not be the way you want it, but be sure that you tell God that you will take a visit from Him however you can get it. If you make an honest attempt, there is no doubt in my mind that He will speak to you softy. Probably not through an audible voice or anything that is that dramatic, but it will be subtle like a gentle father showing you a nice gift that he bought you because he loves you. God will come to you and has throughout your life, but you have to be willing to listen.

We are talking about a creator that created logic as a seat in the relationships of the brain and created our truth gathering mechanisms. He created love and anger. He created the complex systems that govern our worlds on all levels. He set the electron cloud far from the atom and decided that we all should be made of space. We are talking about a God who watches man toil in his empirical efforts and joys in the fact that man seeks to learn the beauty of the universe.

God will single you out and come to you if you let Him.

If you make the effort and nothing comes of it for you, then by your standards, nothing is lost and you have gained knowledge of what its like to be a subject of God. If you do not make the effort, you will only be able to guess as an outsider as to why 'these idiots' put blind faith in something that is not scientifically proveable. There is something to it, if you are to be truly educated on it, I suggest that you get in there and get your hands dirty a litte.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Be sure that you approach God like you would an honorable and powerful ruler.

This sort of patriarchal/political image isn't the only possible image of God.

If that's how you imagine God, then that's your business, but you really shouldn't presume to tell others how they should imagine or relate to God.

[Rausch]

I've always had one constant in my wavering religous beliefs: No matter how, when, or why my life ends, once it has, and if there is an afterlife, I'll tell him/her "thanks for giving me the chance."

[Rausch]

Its either nuts or drunk, I'm one of the two most of my waking hours.

I hear that...

[Rohirrim]

I believe it was Carl Jung who said "religion is a defense against religious experience."

No truer words were ever spoken.

[Mile High Shack]

We are living in the dark ages...I'm going to try try and not bash someone for their faith and belief in god. That belief is your right. However, "Evolution" has been proven many times over. Let me briefly explain. The weakness in using "god" to explain anything scientifically is that the explanation is not falsifiable. That means that you can't test it. For every possible test and result, we could just say "god did it". What does that explain? If humankind had stayed with that reasoning, we'd never have any real science, medicine, technology, or engineering to name just a few. Hence, the Dark Ages. There are no scientific, rational, or logical arguments for the existence of "god". For defenders of creationism or people who point to any "gaps" in Evolution, I would submit that your main fault lies in your supposition that any current lack of knowledge on a certain subject means that it can't be known, i.e.--unknown means "unknowable". Throughout history, science has made remarkable advancements on every front and will continue to do so. Enough for now, I'm tired...Peace :peace:

a mass species jump evolution has never been proven sunshine

we've been over this before

micro-evolution occurs....sure....men living longer, getting bigger, etc etc

macro has NEVER been proven

it was a theory stated by a guy with no scientific background...Darwin had a theological degree

[Rohirrim]

The basic ideas of evolution have been proven to be true so many times over that they are accepted, scientific fact by "real" science. For example, every practicing molecular biologist doing DNA research no longer questions the laws of evolution, but uses them to his advantage. Only in camps where science is preached in the name of another agenda, is there any argument about it. Sure, the religious right can slap together a group of degreed scientists who share their beliefs and are willing to say whatever is required about evolution, stem cells or abortion. Fine. Just like energy companies can put together groups of scientists who deny global warming and tobacco companies can create other groups of scientists who say smoking has nothing to do with cancer. These are the times we live in. When you abandon discretion, everything has equal value. A couple of issues ago, National Geo did an intensive, exhaustive article on evolution. The only person it would not convince, is one who's discretion has been surrendered to his philosophy. After all, science is only concerned with fact.

[Mile High Shack]

The basic ideas of evolution have been proven to be true so many times over that they are accepted, scientific fact by "real" science. For example, every practicing molecular biologist doing DNA research no longer questions the laws of evolution, but uses them to his advantage. Only in camps where science is preached in the name of another agenda, is there any argument about it. Sure, the religious right can slap together a group of degreed scientists who share their beliefs and are willing to say whatever is required about evolution, stem cells or abortion. Fine. Just like energy companies can put together groups of scientists who deny global warming and tobacco companies can create other groups of scientists who say smoking has nothing to do with cancer. These are the times we live in. When you abandon discretion, everything has equal value. A couple of issues ago, National Geo did an intensive, exhaustive article on evolution. The only person it would not convince, is one who's discretion has been surrendered to his philosophy. After all, science is only concerned with fact.

a mass species jump evolution has never been proven sunshine

we've been over this before

micro-evolution occurs....sure....men living longer, getting bigger, etc etc

macro has NEVER been proven

it was a theory stated by a guy with no scientific background...Darwin had a theological degree

edit...why aren't we still seeing macro evolution? The monkeys I see in the zoo look the same to me

[Rohirrim]

a mass species jump evolution has never been proven sunshine

we've been over this before

micro-evolution occurs....sure....men living longer, getting bigger, etc etc

macro has NEVER been proven

it was a theory stated by a guy with no scientific background...Darwin had a theological degree

edit...why aren't we still seeing macro evolution? The monkeys I see in the zoo look the same to me

Benjamin Franklin had no scientific background whatsoever. His theories on electricity - that it operates as a single fluid, that some materials operate as conducters and some as insulators, etc. - are still used by electricians every day. He invented the lightning rod, thereby saving countless lives in the last two hundred years.

Sharks have not evolved in millions of years, except they've gotten smaller. Neither have cockroaches, dragonflies, etc. etc. etc. When a species finds a niche that its adaptation fits perfectly, it obviously has no need to evolve further. Evolution is a byproduct of environmental pressures that force adaptation, or extinction. The shark no longer needs to evolve. It fits its niche perfectly, and has for millions of years.

Look at the streptococcus bacteria that mankind has produced. A simple strep bacteria in a hospital is bombarded with disinfectant, soaps, penicillins of every type, etc. What does it do? It becomes a super bacterium. It can't be killed by anything we possess. We have become the environmental pressure that forced that bacterium to adapt.

Notice that there is not "one" monkey. There are numerous adaptations within the species that apply to different environmental niches. Just as there was not just one "homo." There were numerous branches of the species homo, many of which were unable to adapt, and disappeared.

I don't know what you mean by "macro" as opposed to "micro." Successful species supplant unsuccessful ones. Simple.

[Mile High Shack]

macro refers to evolving to another species

micro happens all the time, species adapt.....such as growing more hair......learning to eat different food

but they don't jump from a fish to a frog

last I checked mutation wasn't good for any species, but somehow it just happened to work for the betterment of the species as opposed to the detrement?

[Montaq]

macro refers to evolving to another species

micro happens all the time, species adapt.....such as growing more hair......learning to eat different food

but they don't jump from a fish to a frog

last I checked mutation wasn't good for any species, but somehow it just happened to work for the betterment of the species as opposed to the detrement?

Mutation worked well for Kevin Costner in Waterworld. ;D

[Rohirrim]

macro refers to evolving to another species

micro happens all the time, species adapt.....such as growing more hair......learning to eat different food

but they don't jump from a fish to a frog

last I checked mutation wasn't good for any species, but somehow it just happened to work for the betterment of the species as opposed to the detrement?

Those mutations that lead to better adaptation in an environment survive and pass on more of their genes than the mutations that don't lead to a better adaptation. As far as the "fish to frog" argument goes, the Earth has had a relatively stable climate for thousands of years. When the climate went from predominantly swampland to a temperate one in the PreCambrian period, we know that new species arose and millions went extinct. Fishes did become frog. We've seen the same in the fossil record during the ice ages right here in the Americas. Perhaps we haven't had any radical species adaptations because the environment hasn't produced any radical pressures for a very long time? If global warming gets as bad as some predict, we probably will see radical adaptations like we see in the Eocene and Cambrian fossil record.

Interesting that you would choose frogs. Frog species are declining all over the Earth right now, probably due to either a rise in pollution, ozone, temperature, habitat loss, or a combination thereof. At some point, some frog is going to have a mutation that keeps him in the tadpole stage, and keeps him under the protection of the algae in some pond. At that point, maybe we'll see a "frog to fish" evolution.

[clarker]

Mutation worked well for Kevin Costner in Waterworld. ;D LOL Unless you count a the box office. :wiggle:

[TheDave]

we've been over this before




There's the understatement of the year! :)

[Mile High Shack]

Mutation worked well for Kevin Costner in Waterworld. ;D

LOL

[bronco_diesel]

This sort of patriarchal/political image isn't the only possible image of God.

If that's how you imagine God, then that's your business, but you really shouldn't presume to tell others how they should imagine or relate to God.

the point is to approach Him humbly.

[bronco_diesel]

"Evolution" has been proven many times over. Let me briefly explain. The weakness in using "god" to explain anything scientifically is that the explanation is not falsifiable. That means that you can't test it. For every possible test and result, we could just say "god did it". What does that explain? If humankind had stayed with that reasoning...

thanks for the insight. lets address this part of your comment.

evolution has not completely been proven as fact. the actual fact is, neither evolution or creation can be proven as absolute fact.

evolution states that the earth is millions of years old. last i checked to prove something as fact, you need to be able to test, and re-test etc. the only proof you have regarding the age of the earth is dependant upon tools that have known errors and the interpretations by man, who we know is flawed.

can you prove the the dating mechanisms are absolutely correct? no.
can you prove the conditions of the earth 20,000 to 200 million years ago? no

so if you can't prove the condidtions of the earth have remained consistent...you were not around 20,000 to 200 million years to give eyewitness testimony account of factual findings...how can you possibly say this is fact?

i can respect that you believe it as fact, but to state it is fact with so many unknowns -that takes just as much "faith" in your system as it does me to have "faith" that a God created us.

[Rohirrim]

thanks for the insight. lets address this part of your comment.

evolution has not completely been proven as fact. the actual fact is, neither evolution or creation can be proven as absolute fact.

It's as much of a fact as the laws of gravity.

evolution states that the earth is millions of years old. last i checked to prove something as fact, you need to be able to test, and re-test etc. the only proof you have regarding the age of the earth is dependant upon tools that have known errors and the interpretations by man, who we know is flawed.

A known error is still a scientific certainty. Over time, the span of error may expand, but it is a given just as the errors of true magnetic north are a constant, and a given. If the breakdown of a carbon atom over a billion years is plus or minus a million years, we still know that the age of the geological artifact it describes is billions of years old. Interpretations by scientists may disagree. One may say, it's not quite 4 billion years. Another might say it's more than a billion years. But neither of them is going to say, "It's only a couple of thousand years old." Get real.

As far as "that have known errors and the interpretations by man, who we know is flawed." The same logic could be applied to the Bible which has gone through innumerable mens' hands in two thousand years (Greeks, Constantine, Popes, St. James court, etc.). Not only that, all of the stories are derived from "eyewitnesses."

can you prove the the dating mechanisms are absolutely correct? no.
can you prove the conditions of the earth 20,000 to 200 million years ago? no

Depends what you mean by "absolute." Can we say on Dec. 12th, 70 million years, 15 days, and twenty two minutes ago, the last T-Rex dropped dead? Nope. Can we say, "Within a million years or so of this period of time, the theropods went extinct?" Sure. There is a substantial fossil and geological record. The evidence is there.

so if you can't prove the condidtions of the earth have remained consistent...you were not around 20,000 to 200 million years to give eyewitness testimony account of factual findings...how can you possibly say this is fact?

As anyone who watches CSI can tell you, eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence. Physical evidence cannot lie. I was not around 20,000 to 200 million years ago. But the evidence of life and geology were. I can hold it in my hand. I can subject it to experiment.

i can respect that you believe it as fact, but to state it is fact with so many unknowns -that takes just as much "faith" in your system as it does me to have "faith" that a God created us.

Faith is the belief in something that cannot be physically examined.

Science is an amalgam of conclusions drawn from the physical testing of physical artifacts within the physical universe using physical tools, and subject to repetition and/or physical or mathematical proofs. It may not define the laws of the faith-based universe, but it's not intended to. It only explores and defines the realities of the physical universe.

[Tom H.]

As anyone who watches CSI can tell you, eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence. Physical evidence cannot lie. I was not around 20,000 to 200 million years ago. But the evidence of life and geology were. I can hold it in my hand. I can subject it to experiment.

Sorry I'm going off topic but physical evidence can be tricky. You can conclude something sure but there are situations where the evidence is only part of the story. Take Chimerism for example. You can have blood evidence that says the mother is not the baby's natural mother but after close examination and testing it is brought forward that the mother has chimerism and tests from samples of her womb matches the baby's DNA. So there are examples of science failing to explain things but with great care it should lead to the truth.

Religion I've had problems with. I still don't see how a world flood could happen. Perhaps it could be that a great civilization established itself where the black sea exists today and the Mediterranean at some point flooded the entire area. I don't know.

Perhaps some of the stories are not to be taken as fact but rather as life lessons to guide you to a better life. I think Jesus was a great philosopher and only tried to help mankind. Sure people used Christianity to do evil but the core of the religion is anything but.

[orangeatheist]

good post.

i take interest in the assumptions. you are correct that christianity assumes there is a God. better said, a person comes to terms with their God, and thus knows who he is. the creator of the universe. enough of that - we've been there.

now, there are assumptions both ways. you say there isn't a god. fair enough. you say you have proven to yourself there isn't a god, again, fair enough.

But the "assumption" that there is no god (especially the Christian god) is no different than the assumption that there is no Giant Invisible Pink Polar Bear controlling the weather. The assumption that there is a god and the "assumption" that there isn't can hardly be equitable.


however, evolution cannot be proved as fact. i will grant you that there are many facets of evolution that are factual, but the overall geological clock is an assumption.

Evolution is not proven as a fact, the facts (observations) are evidence of evolution. Nothing is ever "proven" in science. Facts are observed and explainations for those facts are given. There is the fact that the fossils of simpler lifeforms are found in geological strata greater in age than more complex lifeform fossils which are found in relatively younger strata. This is a fact. Coupled with a huge host of other facts, evolution is the explanation that, so far, best explains and predicts these facts. Creationism has not demonstrated that it has equal explanatory power. That's it.

[epicSocialism4tw]

It's as much of a fact as the laws of gravity.



A known error is still a scientific certainty. Over time, the span of error may expand, but it is a given just as the errors of true magnetic north are a constant, and a given. If the breakdown of a carbon atom over a billion years is plus or minus a million years, we still know that the age of the geological artifact it describes is billions of years old. Interpretations by scientists may disagree. One may say, it's not quite 4 billion years. Another might say it's more than a billion years. But neither of them is going to say, "It's only a couple of thousand years old." Get real.

As far as "that have known errors and the interpretations by man, who we know is flawed." The same logic could be applied to the Bible which has gone through innumerable mens' hands in two thousand years (Greeks, Constantine, Popes, St. James court, etc.). Not only that, all of the stories are derived from "eyewitnesses."



Depends what you mean by "absolute." Can we say on Dec. 12th, 70 million years, 15 days, and twenty two minutes ago, the last T-Rex dropped dead? Nope. Can we say, "Within a million years or so of this period of time, the theropods went extinct?" Sure. There is a substantial fossil and geological record. The evidence is there.



As anyone who watches CSI can tell you, eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence. Physical evidence cannot lie. I was not around 20,000 to 200 million years ago. But the evidence of life and geology were. I can hold it in my hand. I can subject it to experiment.



Faith is the belief in something that cannot be physically examined.

Science is an amalgam of conclusions drawn from the physical testing of physical artifacts within the physical universe using physical tools, and subject to repetition and/or physical or mathematical proofs. It may not define the laws of the faith-based universe, but it's not intended to. It only explores and defines the realities of the physical universe.


Rohirrim, I agree with you about the empirical evidence that you have stated previously. Evolution is not a far off abstract concept, but it is very simple and common sense.

Christians will eventually have to accept evolution, but they have to know what it is first and science has misrepresented it in the public forum due to overzealous anti-metaphysicals who have difficulty accepting the possibility of something that does not have to have empirical evidence in the modern sense to exist. This is not a reasonable stance for a scientist and leads to bad science. You are weilding a double edged sword there. It is also bad logic to believe that something as elegant and complex as the universe that we know cannot have been designed. It shows signs of design in its laws (such as evolution if it ultimately is scientifically proven - it is not accepted a law yet, but is still working theory - it may be a fact to you, but it takes more than that in the scientific community), it's complexity, and it's current stability.

[orangeatheist]

psst...no, but he did mention he was in the presence of the resurrected Christ.

So do a lot of people. And some even claim to see emissaries from Alpha Centari. You don't believe all of them, do you?


so...with that, it would be fair to say that there wasn't any need to mention his empty tomb, if indeed he mentioned he saw Christ in a resurrected form. don't ya think?

No, I don't. The empty tomb was quite important to the gospel writers to reinforce a physical resurrection. Paul not mentioning this "fact" lends support that perhaps the resurrection was not bodily in the early church but spiritual only. Paul says god "remembered" Jesus and it was god who rose him from the dead. In this sense, Jesus is not the one with the power of resurrection, only god, and it may not have involved a physical body but merely god's recognition of Jesus' significance. Instead of Sheol, and the meaningless existence of the dead held for most people, god "rose" Jesus to heaven (spiritually) and gave him the power to do the same for those who would follow his teachings. In other words, Paul doesn't mention an empty tomb because 1.) there was no need for one because the early church did not believe in a bodily resurrrection and 2.) there, in fact, wasn't a tomb at all.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Evolution is not intended to infer a creator or method of creation in contrast to the Biblical account. It is intended to describe the methods of creation and the propogation of species for their continued existence on the planet. We are talking about natural selection with sexual selection and random reproduction which all together provide a template gene pool to push a species into the next generation fit for survival. This does not necessarily mean change for the better at all times, but it does mean change. This is evolution. Anything more than this is speculation, and I think that this is where many scientists are making mistakes and being careless. The fossil record indicates that there are in fact correlations between species in large increments, and it is also logical to a scientist to believe that it is extremely unlikely to prove gradual evolution by evidence in the fossil record alone. You just dont come up with that many fossils by the same species in such brief increments, so the obvious induction is that there are other fossils out there that fill the gaps and it is more likely that they exist than that they dont exist. This seems like common sense.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Many scientists are stepping outside of their bounds and into the bounds of the mystic by claiming an evolved world does not in fact correlate with deistic intervention and origination. Many point to Genesis and say that the two ideas clash, but those same people do not understand Genesis and/or evolution. There is common ground there. You first have to realize that science was not important when the Torah was penned. They had no interest in the physics of the creation event and they could've cared less how the first man was created, but they did care that there was a God and that God could help them to survive in a harsh world.

[orangeatheist]

I want to extend a challenge to every individual who is interested in this thread and says that they believe that God does not exist because of their own experience to take one month out of their life (that is one out of around 864 months) to make an honest attempt to find out whether or not God is there.


Would spending your childhood in evangelical churches, keeping your nose buried in the Bible through your teen years, studying religion as an undergrad and attending a bit of seminary in hopes of being a minister count as an "honest attempt to find out whether or not God is there"? If so, been there done that, am now an atheist.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Why would God need to communicate science to a generation of men that did not know it and would have no use for it?

[orangeatheist]

a
macro has NEVER been proven

Macroevolution FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html)

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)


it was a theory stated by a guy with no scientific background...Darwin had a theological degree

Same hold true for Creationists. Wonder what Darwin saw (and what assumptions he was able to hold up for falsification) that they don't?

[orangeatheist]

Why would God need to communicate science to a generation of men that did not know it and would have no use for it?

What kind of science are you talking about? There are plenty of (pre) scientific assertions in the Bible. Did God inspire these assertions or are they the musings of the authors themselves?

[epicSocialism4tw]

So do a lot of people. And some even claim to see emissaries from Alpha Centari. You don't believe all of them, do you?



No, I don't. The empty tomb was quite important to the gospel writers to reinforce a physical resurrection. Paul not mentioning this "fact" lends support that perhaps the resurrection was not bodily in the early church but spiritual only. Paul says god "remembered" Jesus and it was god who rose him from the dead. In this sense, Jesus is not the one with the power of resurrection, only god, and it may not have involved a physical body but merely god's recognition of Jesus' significance. Instead of Sheol, and the meaningless existence of the dead held for most people, god "rose" Jesus to heaven (spiritually) and gave him the power to do the same for those who would follow his teachings. In other words, Paul doesn't mention an empty tomb because 1.) there was no need for one because the early church did not believe in a bodily resurrrection and 2.) there, in fact, wasn't a tomb at all.


This stands in contrast to the gospel account that there were witnesses. The gospel writers went out of their way to mention in several ways that Jesus had been resurrected in physical form.

The gospel writers would have had to do some serious twisting to contort the resurrection account into a figurative aside to the meat of their teaching, which was that you are to give away your earthly existence on a daily basis to achieve enternal life in a benificial state. It does not seem to be very unfortunate to die and become nothing in the minds of of those that still live. In fact, that is what is becoming of everyone who has ever existed including the famed rulers of old. It does not seem like a fair trade to give away the hedonistic pleasures of the earth for a page in history. It seems like an arrogant pursuit, and one that does not agree with the life and theology of Paul. Paul spent too many hours with his reputation and life in shambles to say that Paul believed this philosophy.

[bronco_diesel]

So do a lot of people. And some even claim to see emissaries from Alpha Centari. You don't believe all of them, do you?



No, I don't. The empty tomb was quite important to the gospel writers to reinforce a physical resurrection. Paul not mentioning this "fact" lends support that perhaps the resurrection was not bodily in the early church but spiritual only. Paul says god "remembered" Jesus and it was god who rose him from the dead. In this sense, Jesus is not the one with the power of resurrection, only god, and it may not have involved a physical body but merely god's recognition of Jesus' significance. Instead of Sheol, and the meaningless existence of the dead held for most people, god "rose" Jesus to heaven (spiritually) and gave him the power to do the same for those who would follow his teachings. In other words, Paul doesn't mention an empty tomb because 1.) there was no need for one because the early church did not believe in a bodily resurrrection and 2.) there, in fact, wasn't a tomb at all.

allow me sometime to study this. on the surface, i feel there are some easy answers to this, but i want to have the content to back this up.

[epicSocialism4tw]

What kind of science are you talking about? There are plenty of (pre) scientific assertions in the Bible. Did God inspire these assertions or are they the musings of the authors themselves?


I am talking about the Torah and specifically Genesis. The creation account is what was in question in the post that I responded to.

I believe that any communication at all in the Bible is done for the culture of the writer except for the prophetic writings, which are meaningful to all generations including the muse of the prophecy which is usually some contemporary issue to the author.

That does not mean that the scripture is not practically useful today. Let's just hope that teachers are taught well and communicate this effectively by using tools like concordances, historical events, and original texts.

[orangeatheist]

This stands in contrast to the gospel account that there were witnesses. The gospel writers went out of their way to mention in several ways that Jesus had been resurrected in physical form.

Yes, they sure did. Conflicting accounts. Accounts that cannot be verified because they were written decades after the event the "participants" of which were likely dead already. Dead men (or women) tell no tales.

And this just highlights the point I was making regarding Paul. Having been one "untimely born" (1Co 15:8) you'd think to add force to his argument (as the anonymous [and non-eyewitness] gospel writers did many years later) he would have suggested to his critics that they contact those who (the gospels allege) witnessed the empty tomb. In Paul's lifetime, those characters mentioned in the resurrection story should have still been alive, unlike their physical state by the time the gospels were written and in circulation.


The gospel writers would have had to do some serious twisting to contort the resurrection account into a figurative aside to the meat of their teaching, which was that you are to give away your earthly existence on a daily basis to achieve enternal life in a benificial state.

Agreed. I think the gospel writers may have indeed believed there had been a physical resurrection. But, having not witnessed this event and reporting the story as mere hearsay (or propaganda for the Christian cause) they nonetheless go to great extremes to try and belabor a point (bodily resurrection) missing from Paul's letters.


It does not seem to be very unfortunate to die and become nothing in the minds of of those that still live. In fact, that is what is becoming of everyone who has ever existed including the famed rulers of old. It does not seem like a fair trade to give away the hedonistic pleasures of the earth for a page in history. It seems like an arrogant pursuit, and one that does not agree with the life and theology of Paul. Paul spent too many hours with his reputation and life in shambles to say that Paul believed this philosophy.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here.
???

[orangeatheist]

I am talking about the Torah and specifically Genesis. The creation account is what was in question in the post that I responded to.

I believe that any communication at all in the Bible is done for the culture of the writer except for the prophetic writings, which are meaningful to all generations including the muse of the prophecy which is usually some contemporary issue to the author.

That does not mean that the scripture is not practically useful today. Let's just hope that teachers are taught well and communicate this effectively by using tools like concordances, historical events, and original texts.


So, if there are scientific errors in the text, reflective of a pre-scientific world, could there not also be primitive, superstitous beliefs reflective of a society that believed in gods and demons? Both are incorrect. The earth is not encased in a solid dome and no god exists in a mythical heaven. If one, why not the other?

[epicSocialism4tw]

I'm not really sure what you're saying here.
???
Basically that there is no reason to contort the resurrection into a figurative aside because it is the crux of Christianity. Why would someone give up all of the trappings of hedonistic life to pursue something so trivial, and that the individual would experience no benefit from?

It doesnt make sense to think that Paul would give up a position of power and influence to achieve a position of worldy legend by becoming a social outcast and nomad when he had an easier path by staying where he was.

[epicSocialism4tw]

So, if there are scientific errors in the text, reflective of a pre-scientific world, could there not also be primitive, superstitous beliefs reflective of a society that believed in gods and demons? Both are incorrect. The earth is not encased in a solid dome and no god exists in a mythical heaven. If one, why not the other?


Because you would be making a clear fallacy to discount all other evidences available to you by simply stating that the writers were too primitive to understand truths. We are of the same mold today. One day humans will look back on us from 2000 years down the line and wonder why we thought many of the things that exist in popular opinion. The one thing that has stood the test of recorded time is the existence of God. It is reasonable to say that man will never prove or disprove the existence of God because we are so completely distant from a unified scientific fact that ties science together that it should be humbling.

[orangeatheist]

Basically that there is no reason to contort the resurrection into a figurative aside because it is the crux of Christianity.

Actually, it may have been the other way around. The resurrection may have been figurative and was contorted into a literal story.


Why would someone give up all of the trappings of hedonistic life to pursue something so trivial, and that the individual would experience no benefit from?

I dunno. People do it all the time. Why would someone give up the trappings of hedonistic life to strap a bomb on themselves and blow up a bus? Why do some give up a hedonistic life and shut themselves in a monestary? Why are there only two choices here? Hedonism and religiosity?


It doesnt make sense to think that Paul would give up a position of power and influence to achieve a position of worldy legend by becoming a social outcast and nomad when he had an easier path by staying where he was.

I'm not suggesting he didn't believe what he preached. I'm sure he was convinced by his convictions. I could also question, "It doesn't make snese to think that Osama would give up a position of wealth and prestige to achieve a position of worldly legend (infamy) by becoming a social outcast and cave-dweller when he had an easier path by staying where he was." People do a lot of foolish things for a great many reasons. Sometimes people are just plain touched.

[FADERPROOF]

Would spending your childhood in evangelical churches, keeping your nose buried in the Bible through your teen years, studying religion as an undergrad and attending a bit of seminary in hopes of being a minister count as an "honest attempt to find out whether or not God is there"? If so, been there done that, am now an atheist.

Sounds like my childhood, except I grew in up a Catholic church, and stopping that path before I went to college.

I'm not atheist, but I am not Christian, I have my Gods and my faith and I am living just fine.

[orangeatheist]

Because you would be making a clear fallacy to discount all other evidences available to you by simply stating that the writers were too primitive to understand truths.

I'm not the one asserting that God didn't give the writers of Genesis the "real scoop" when he inspired them to write of the creation. The fallacy isn't mine. You had said, "I believe that any communication at all in the Bible is done for the culture of the writer..." We know that early Israelite culture was primitive and pre-scientific. If, therefore, the communication in the Bible was done for the cultrue of the writer, then wouldn't the communication also be primitive and pre-scientific? Or am I misunderstanding your meaning?


We are of the same mold today. One day humans will look back on us from 2000 years down the line and wonder why we thought many of the things that exist in popular opinion.

Like creationism! :P


The one thing that has stood the test of recorded time is the existence of God.

So have astrology, soothsayers and good luck charms. What's your point?


It is reasonable to say that man will never prove or disprove the existence of God because we are so completely distant from a unified scientific fact that ties science together that it should be humbling.

That does'nt mean that there won't be a unifying scientific theory, but my point is merely that belief in god is unreasonable given the very fact that we have no evidence of his/her/its existence. More to the point, we have even less evidence of Yahweh/Christs' existence which, I venture to say, is the point of this whole thread!

[epicSocialism4tw]

Actually, it may have been the other way around. The resurrection may have been figurative and was contorted into a literal story.

Yeah, I was commenting on that in the previous post. Saul of Tarsus lived in Jesus' generation and knew the events surrounding Jesus' persecution and death. He was also a brilliant scholar. There was no time to develop a myth that is that elaborate and separated from events.



I dunno. People do it all the time. Why would someone give up the trappings of hedonistic life to strap a bomb on themselves and blow up a bus? Why do some give up a hedonistic life and shut themselves in a monestary? Why are there only two choices here? Hedonism and religiosity?

You are equating the goals of Paul with the goal of radical Muslims and there is no evidence to say that Paul was building communities of Christians to overthrow governments or to force people into subjectivity. Paul proves to be the opposite of that. Paul was an intellectual and an apologist who tried to convince others that there is good news. That God made a real appearance and told us that there is hope.


I'm not suggesting he didn't believe what he preached. I'm sure he was convinced by his convictions. I could also question, "It doesn't make snese to think that Osama would give up a position of wealth and prestige to achieve a position of worldly legend (infamy) by becoming a social outcast and cave-dweller when he had an easier path by staying where he was." People do a lot of foolish things for a great many reasons. Sometimes people are just plain touched.

You are resorting to a reductive fallacy here. To reduce Paul's actions to meet a modern example of a supposed religious leader of equal value. Osama Bin Laden and Paul had different means to achieve their goals. Bin Laden kills innocent people to advance the power of his people. Paul was Bin Laden in those regards when he served his government by willingly killing Christians. Paul as a Christian was not really too concerned about politics, which suggests that he wasnt really that involved in politics while he was a Pharisee, or that he changed his mind about what was important in life after his encounter.

Bin Laden is not a cave dweller. He still sits in the lap of luxury. His money is far reaching. Ever wonder why he has asylum in so many countries? Bin Laden is a political leader, not a pastor. He pays people that are poor to kill others to advance his cause. He spends money. To associate him with the role of a pastor or prophet of the religion of Islam is to make another fallacy.

[Rohirrim]

It is also bad logic to believe that something as elegant and complex as the universe that we know cannot have been designed.

There are a lot of presumptions we could make based on the complexity of the universe. One is that some deity designed it. Another is that there is some binding force, that we are not yet aware of, that is responsible. Perhaps all that we see is not all that there is. We didn't know about gravity before Newton described it for us, but it still worked.

[epicSocialism4tw]

That does'nt mean that there won't be a unifying scientific theory, but my point is merely that belief in god is unreasonable given the very fact that we have no evidence of his/her/its existence. More to the point, we have even less evidence of Yahweh/Christs' existence which, I venture to say, is the point of this whole thread!

There is more evidence for 'God as Jesus' available to us than there is evidence on the contrary. There was a man in history whose life was recorded by several sources, including secular sources. Historical Jesus is pretty easy to prove to a reasonable person.

Unifying scientific fact (a theory would be discounted if you use the same rigors as you would while examining the metaphysical) is not visible from the standpoint of modern science. Quatnum physics is the next fronteir in those regards and it hasnt really gotten off of the ground yet. It might not ever get off of the ground. We might get to the end of the superstrings and say "wow...the moon really is on a track hung in the sky!" To me this is a little bit of an extreme example, but it makes the point. Everything is theory and very little is proven fact. Theory by nature changes constantly. Are you comfortable putting your faith in a philosophy that is in constant flux? By doing so, you are saying something to yourself that is very contradictory and are putting faith in the same humans that you ridicule for writing accounts of spiritual truths...but are putting your faith in them to be able to disprove the existence of God? That sounds like wishful thinking to me.

You are projecting that science and the Bible are headed in two different directions, which is a presupposition based on recently developed theories. A Christian philosophy says that it believes what has been tested and proven true over the generations of man and has yet to be disproven. Until something is disproven, it will not adopt the latest philosophical fad.

[REB]

Science can't make up it's mind from week to week whether or not diet soda, coffee, eggs, this or that medicine or nutrient is good or bad for you. New reports constantly contradicting the last and then contradict it again. So I'll take the Word of God as to how the Universe and all the millions and millions of different planets, plants, animals, reptiles, fish, elements etc were formed. Not saying Science is a bad thing. Science and Technology are great. Wonderful advances over the course of history, (except for figuring out how to blow the world up) but I will stick to faith in the Word of God as far as the beginnings of the Universe. jmho

REB

1-2-3-:Broncos:!!!!!!!

[orangeatheist]

Yeah, I was commenting on that in the previous post. Saul of Tarsus lived in Jesus' generation and knew the events surrounding Jesus' persecution and death. He was also a brilliant scholar. There was no time to develop a myth that is that elaborate and separated from events.

Paul never knew Jesus. Paul allegedly met with those who had known Jesus and my point, again, is that in none of his letters does Paul ever mention a physical resurrection, with the "witness" of the empty tomb, that seems so important and central to the gospel writers. That's my point.



You are equating the goals of Paul with the goal of radical Muslims and there is no evidence to say that Paul was building communities of Christians to overthrow governments or to force people into subjectivity.

Nor am I suggesting as much; although a case can be made that Christianity --and the teachings attributed to Jesus--stood in contrast to the Roman Pax. In that sense it was indeed a system set up to overthrow a government. The threat of hell fire and damnation, while not immediately threatening, was nonetheless an attempt to force people into subjectivity (at least spiritually).

You had asked, "Why would someone give up all of the trappings of hedonistic life to pursue something so trivial, and that the individual would experience no benefit from?" and I was merely answering that people do a lot of things, give up many luxuries, to follow an ideal --whether or not that ideal is objectively true or not.

See PART II (sigh)

[orangeatheist]

PART II


Paul proves to be the opposite of that. Paul was an intellectual and an apologist who tried to convince others that there is good news. That God made a real appearance and told us that there is hope.

Which underscores my original point that, if Paul was so intellectual and an ace apologist as you assert, with the intention of trying to convince others of the good news, the "evidence" of the empty tomb (if such existed) should have been in his arsenal of apologetics. It is absent. I'm suggesting that it is absent because no such thing ever existed.


You are resorting to a reductive fallacy here.

I'm not reducing anything. I'm simply responding to your incredulity regarding Paul's "remarkable" adherance to a cause that took away from him a pleasant lifestyle. I'm merely pointing out that people do things all the time for their beliefs, regardless of if those beliefs are objectively true or not. Forget Osama. Take Marshall Applewhite instead. Or Mohammed.

Your argument that you can't believe Paul would give up his "good" life for one of scorn is simply one of incredulity and that's the fallacy. Simply because you cannot fathom Paul's reasoning other than to attribute it to a genuine encounter with the risen Christ is not evidence that indeed Paul had such an experience. Did Paul think he had encountered the risen Christ? Probably. Did he really? Well, that's a matter of faith. You, given your assumptions about the world, think he really did. I don't have an assumption in my worldview that god exists and that people can survive bodily death (especially after three days and nights in a cold tomb after a severe and tramatic demise). I do, however, understand the human mind is a mystery and can be fooled into believing a whole host of things that are not real. Given those presuppostions, I tend to doubt the objective reality of Paul's experience but nonetheless grant that Paul himself believed his experience to be true.

[orangeatheist]

There is more evidence for 'God as Jesus' available to us than there is evidence on the contrary.

This I gotta see.


There was a man in history whose life was recorded by several sources,
including secular sources. Historical Jesus is pretty easy to prove to a reasonable person.

Name the sources and explain how they are an objective source and support for an historical Jesus.


You are projecting that science and the Bible are headed in two different directions, which is a presupposition based on recently developed theories. A Christian philosophy says that it believes what has been tested and proven true over the generations of man and has yet to be disproven. Until something is disproven, it will not adopt the latest philosophical fad.

Science and the Bible are headed in different directions. The Bible says there is a dome over a flat earth protecting it from the chaotic waters above the dome. Science says the earth is blanketed by a permiable atmosphere and that there is no ocean of water just beyond the atmosphere's earthly limit. I'm not sure how much more divergent you can get.

[enjolras]

Unifying scientific fact (a theory would be discounted if you use the same rigors as you would while examining the metaphysical) is not visible from the standpoint of modern science. Quatnum physics is the next fronteir in those regards and it hasnt really gotten off of the ground yet. It might not ever get off of the ground. We might get to the end of the superstrings and say "wow...the moon really is on a track hung in the sky!" To me this is a little bit of an extreme example, but it makes the point. Everything is theory and very little is proven fact. Theory by nature changes constantly. Are you comfortable putting your faith in a philosophy that is in constant flux? By doing so, you are saying something to yourself that is very contradictory and are putting faith in the same humans that you ridicule for writing accounts of spiritual truths...but are putting your faith in them to be able to disprove the existence of God? That sounds like wishful thinking to me.


Your reducing the term theory here. A theory is not the same as a hypothesis which is not the same as a supposition. A theory is something that has met scientific scrutiny and is the best explanation for something given the facts available. When presented with a theory (such as super-string theory) you can be sure that experiments have been run, undergone peer review, and have been reproduced that support the theory. The reason so few facts exist in science is simply because the burden of proof required to declare something a 'fact' requires absolute proof that it is correct. Hypothesis and supposition can keep a theory from becoming widely accepted as fact, even though the theory has undergone years, decades, or even centuries of scientific scrutiny.

To say that Quantum is 'just a theory', for example, is a drastic reduction of what we DO know. Quantum has been used to formulate thousands of modern inventions (for example the modern transistor was born out of hypothesis formulated thanks to Quantum theory). Large amounts of experimental evidence have shown the basic existence of sub-atomic particles to be absolutely true and all aspects of Quantum theory succesfully passed experimental scrutiny. That doesn't mean Quantum is correct, only that it is supported by large amounts of evidence. It best explains what is going on at the sub-atomic level given the facts that we currently have.

Science is not something that is constant flux.. it's much more evolutionary than that. It is VERY rare that science finds something that causes the old thinking to be simply tossed aside (it does happen, but not often). Most discoveries simply cause existing theory to evolve.. in the end it may be quite different than what we began with, but there are almost always thousands of small steps in between.

[bronco_diesel]

It's as much of a fact as the laws of gravity..

do explain. that is a very bold statement that i find very difficult to back up.

A known error is still a scientific certainty. Over time, the span of error may expand, but it is a given just as the errors of true magnetic north are a constant, and a given. If the breakdown of a carbon atom over a billion years is plus or minus a million years, we still know that the age of the geological artifact it describes is billions of years old.

carbon dating can only give ages of thousands of years. the fact that something contains carbon is a good indication that it is at most 50,000 years old.

Interpretations by scientists may disagree. One may say, it's not quite 4 billion years. Another might say it's more than a billion years. But neither of them is going to say, "It's only a couple of thousand years old." Get real. .

so you're asking me to believe disagreeing scientists, disagreeing data, and put trust in dating mechanisms that have been known to give wild readings? i think you should get real too.

As far as "that have known errors and the interpretations by man, who we know is flawed." The same logic could be applied to the Bible which has gone through innumerable mens' hands in two thousand years (Greeks, Constantine, Popes, St. James court, etc.). Not only that, all of the stories are derived from "eyewitnesses." .

fair enough.

Depends what you mean by "absolute." Can we say on Dec. 12th, 70 million years, 15 days, and twenty two minutes ago, the last T-Rex dropped dead? Nope. Can we say, "Within a million years or so of this period of time, the theropods went extinct?" Sure. There is a substantial fossil and geological record. The evidence is there..

i am saying you can not absolutely prove that something is a million years old. there are far too many unknowns to make such a bold procolmation.

cont-

[bronco_diesel]

As anyone who watches CSI can tell you, eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence. Physical evidence cannot lie. I was not around 20,000 to 200 million years ago. But the evidence of life and geology were. I can hold it in my hand. I can subject it to experiment...so you can say that without a doubt, you have read all the evidence accuratly?

you know what the conditions of the earth have been since the beginning of time until today and can adjust your readings accordingly, without error?

you have taken into consideration every case by case scenario which could alter your readings or intepretations and give detailed explanations as to why?

evolutionists continually make changes to previous findings. for something that is stated so boldy to be factual, why then are there so many discoveries regarding error in their previoius findings?

Faith is the belief in something that cannot be physically examined.

Science is an amalgam of conclusions drawn from the physical testing of physical artifacts within the physical universe using physical tools, and subject to repetition and/or physical or mathematical proofs. It may not define the laws of the faith-based universe, but it's not intended to. It only explores and defines the realities of the physical universe.fair enough - but in my research i have discovered that science is not always based on absolute fact - there is a lot of grey area where "interpretations" are made. so alas, there is still faith in the system. i guess the real question here is, what is a fact to you?