I'm in a fight with some crazy jesus freak on Youtube
- Thread starter Paul-o-Rama
- Start date
$tezzyStu
Active member
YO! yell him that the only thing worse than his narrowminded-ness is the universializing religion he supports, for who are christians to go to cultures over 5000 years old and tell them that their beliefs are wrong and that they need to believe in a "man" who is supposed to be the son of god. AND, since god is "infalliable" then his blood line would also be, but as cathloics point out "people are born sinners" making Yeshua flawed, making god flawed, making the system break down.
Danger.
Active member
I like the ideas of religion but I absolutely hate the politics. They're just good guidelines I believe people should follow. I can't stand when someone tries to force anything on me...
With that said, it seems that many people believe in God because its easier to understand. I'm not either pro or anti God in any way, thats just what it seems like sometimes.
With that said, it seems that many people believe in God because its easier to understand. I'm not either pro or anti God in any way, thats just what it seems like sometimes.
Patty, I am going to admit I've never read the Bible cover to cover, so please correct my thinking if I blunder over something.
The Bible is a text, we can all agree to that. While people may disagree about its author or creator(s), Christians around the world have been reading one form or another of it and interpreting it to shape their society. The Bible has been used to support many things, such as the Ten Commandments (which are pretty good laws for a society to follow, regardless of where you think they came from), and also some not so good ideas, such as the ones behind the Spanish Inquisition. The Bible has been cited over time as reason for Crusades, racial segregation, sexual repression, etc.
But the Bible doesnt actually give anyone the right to do anything. Look at it this way; the Bible is a huge text. Thousands of stories, sayings, psalms... if you look hard enough, you will find something supporting your view in the Bible. The Bible isn't a textbook for whats wrong or right in the world - I see it more as a lens that society uses to reflect its own values and express them. If you're a renowned poet and hand a list of grocery store items to a publisher, chances are they'll think its the best haiku they've ever read. Interpreting meaning from a text depends on what you're looking for and with what kind of eyes you read the text with. Thus, I dont think the Bible supports or discredits anything - its only function is to interpret our societies true feelings.
Thus for the example on women, sure the Bible now in our present culture seems to give women equal power. Would someone 400 years ago agree with that? Hell no. The text hasnt changed (although come on, people that say the Bibles unchanged since its conception - its been translated through at least 3 different languages over 2000 years, not even Stevie Wonder is that good...) so what did? Society! Its all society. And thats why I believe that the Bible doesnt prove or disprove anything, and why I completely discredit anyones evidence from the Bible. Its a tool for society, and what you draw from it depends on how you view it.
The Bible is a text, we can all agree to that. While people may disagree about its author or creator(s), Christians around the world have been reading one form or another of it and interpreting it to shape their society. The Bible has been used to support many things, such as the Ten Commandments (which are pretty good laws for a society to follow, regardless of where you think they came from), and also some not so good ideas, such as the ones behind the Spanish Inquisition. The Bible has been cited over time as reason for Crusades, racial segregation, sexual repression, etc.
But the Bible doesnt actually give anyone the right to do anything. Look at it this way; the Bible is a huge text. Thousands of stories, sayings, psalms... if you look hard enough, you will find something supporting your view in the Bible. The Bible isn't a textbook for whats wrong or right in the world - I see it more as a lens that society uses to reflect its own values and express them. If you're a renowned poet and hand a list of grocery store items to a publisher, chances are they'll think its the best haiku they've ever read. Interpreting meaning from a text depends on what you're looking for and with what kind of eyes you read the text with. Thus, I dont think the Bible supports or discredits anything - its only function is to interpret our societies true feelings.
Thus for the example on women, sure the Bible now in our present culture seems to give women equal power. Would someone 400 years ago agree with that? Hell no. The text hasnt changed (although come on, people that say the Bibles unchanged since its conception - its been translated through at least 3 different languages over 2000 years, not even Stevie Wonder is that good...) so what did? Society! Its all society. And thats why I believe that the Bible doesnt prove or disprove anything, and why I completely discredit anyones evidence from the Bible. Its a tool for society, and what you draw from it depends on how you view it.
396222687862
New member
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHHAAHHHAHA
Literature
Active member
Preachy Christians give my religion a bad name. I really get annoyed when people go on a christian spree and only make more enemies in the process, because of the huge amount of potential good that religion can do.
h4rdc0r3sk13r
Member
I LOVE JESUS!
saskskier
Active member
sorry to come back to this, but i was talking to a buddy of mine who is a fourth year bio major and asked his opinion on the Miller-Urey experiments. he says that the complexity of the interior of the cell cannot have happened that way. sure these small macromolecules could have formed, but for those to come together correctly and STAY that way is rediculous. the biggest problem is information storage. the Miller-Urey experiments can explain a few RNA fragments, but to conserve that structure, information needs to be replicated and replicated with a degree of accuracy. he sent me this video too showing the inner workings of a cell. no matter what you believe, it is pretty freeking incredible.
http://www.studiodaily.com/main/technique/tprojects/6850.html
http://www.studiodaily.com/main/technique/tprojects/6850.html
almostaskier
Active member
well, from a logical standpoint, that's a silly question. Two things that are immediately contradictory cannot exists at the same time. An irresistible force cannot exist along side an immovable object, it just isn't possible. Therefore, God cannot make anything that would undermine his definition. I think JD said it best: being omnipotent means being able to do everything that is possible, not everything imaginable. God cannot make a four sided triangle because as the definition stands, it's impossible. This doesn't undermine any sort of Divine power.
Now, Rowen, you're wrong in your appreciation that the Bible is merely a book of "guidelines". It states certain things outright that are stated as absolute truth. The Bible claims there is Truth with a capital T, not many different truths for each one to interpret from a single book of morals one can pick and choose from to find what is best. The Bible doesn't give you that choice.
On the matter of women, you're expressed precisely my point. Back in those times, equality of women in society was unheard of, yet women played essential roles in God's Plan. The fact that the Bible was ahead of its time in societal knowledge says something.
About the biblical text and its accuracy... well, if you contest the literary accuracy of the text itself, you basically are contesting all history from that time. The Bible has over 50000 manuscripts and more manuscripts in the original language than any other text from that period. the next best is Homer's Illiad, and that has a paltry 2000 texts, all written some millenia after the fact. If you contest the literary accuracy of the Bible, you might as well contest that Caesar was ever in power, that Gaul was invaded and attacked by the romans, and that the greeks discovered pi. Now, the biblical manuscripts have some variance, but out of all the texts, the errors do not occur in any sort of important doctrinal passage, and all that they change is certain degrees of interpretation. Only a handful of passages are contested, and none in direct opposition to any important theological view. The integrity of the biblical text is very well assured.
If you read the Bible, you will soon realize that it is not a book of moral guidelines. 40 different authors from all classes of society spanning millenia, all agreeing on the nature of God, the world, sin and the Messiah in remarkable fashion... The Bible is not your ordinary book. Even if you don't care about its message, you better get that notion out of your mind...
On the matter of interpreting text the way you want, well, there comes a time when someone will interpret a text and be wrong. Ever been in an english class, and there's one pompous retard who starts bullshitting on the nature of Hamlets anger and dementia in terms so absolutely absurd you retch in your seat? He's supposedly interpreting the text, but you know he's wrong.
Well, its the same way for the Bible. There are certain variations that don't change anything to the meaning of the text (eg hamlet was blonde of red headed), and then there are people who say something that goes completely against the real meaning of the text (Hamlet is, in fact, a dog). They are wrong. Yet there are simple minded fools that buy it, and it becomes its own movement. Think scientology: its so obviously full of crap, but people buy it. When it comes to the Bible, there is a core message, and every so often, someone comes along, says the exact opposite, or says the same thing and acts in the completely opposite way, and that becomes labeled as christianity or the message of the Bible.
If you still hold the notion that man is essentially good, then you probably won't understand when i say that it is men that pervert religion and the Bible, not the Bible that leads itself to interpretation to cause harm.
Let us take the example of the crusades: that was not so much christianity and the bible working as it was the European monarchs making a move for control of the middle east, its trade routes, and expanding their region of influence to extend their power. Christinity was used as a catalyst to get the sheep people to follow along blindly. Back then, most were illiterate, they couldn't read the Bible let alone interpret it. They left that up to men who, surprise, were corrupt and manipulative. The peasants already thought the King wa sin effect God on earth, so when the clergy told them this was a war for God, they didn't know any better... Absolute power corrupts absolutely. True Christianity was not at the forefront of the crusades, power lust was. Same for the inquisition, same for the massacres of the protestants.
Men are the ones using religion as a tool for their own schemes, and its a powerful one, because so many people follow blindly.
The Bible was not interpreted to fit the current mood. The Bible was misinterpreted to be used as a weapon for material gain. Ever wonder why indulgences disappeared from the catholic church? People realized it was bullcrap, something pulled out of nowhere by priests to get money for the supposed salvation of the people. Oh, and purgatory was done away with recently...
The problem is, like you said, you haven't read the Bible. Thus, when someone comes out and says what they are doing is justified in the Bible and "God said so nyah", you may very well believe they are right and get a horrendous idea of the theological teaching of the Bible. Some people actually think that the westborough baptist church (the God hates fags people) is ACTUALLY a church, and that what they teach and say is christianity. But, if you'd read the Bible or knew what it said, you'd realize that segregating people and spewing hate is about as far as you can get from the message of Jesus.
When people cite the Bible to back their claim, you better be able to compare their sayings to actual biblical theology, or you're just a sucker. People claiming that something is something in the Bible and other people are saying the exact opposite, well, you can't have that at the same time. Someone has to be right, the other has to be wrong, you can't have both at the same time. Which leads back to my original point on logical thinking. Ah, it all came together.
Now, Rowen, you're wrong in your appreciation that the Bible is merely a book of "guidelines". It states certain things outright that are stated as absolute truth. The Bible claims there is Truth with a capital T, not many different truths for each one to interpret from a single book of morals one can pick and choose from to find what is best. The Bible doesn't give you that choice.
On the matter of women, you're expressed precisely my point. Back in those times, equality of women in society was unheard of, yet women played essential roles in God's Plan. The fact that the Bible was ahead of its time in societal knowledge says something.
About the biblical text and its accuracy... well, if you contest the literary accuracy of the text itself, you basically are contesting all history from that time. The Bible has over 50000 manuscripts and more manuscripts in the original language than any other text from that period. the next best is Homer's Illiad, and that has a paltry 2000 texts, all written some millenia after the fact. If you contest the literary accuracy of the Bible, you might as well contest that Caesar was ever in power, that Gaul was invaded and attacked by the romans, and that the greeks discovered pi. Now, the biblical manuscripts have some variance, but out of all the texts, the errors do not occur in any sort of important doctrinal passage, and all that they change is certain degrees of interpretation. Only a handful of passages are contested, and none in direct opposition to any important theological view. The integrity of the biblical text is very well assured.
If you read the Bible, you will soon realize that it is not a book of moral guidelines. 40 different authors from all classes of society spanning millenia, all agreeing on the nature of God, the world, sin and the Messiah in remarkable fashion... The Bible is not your ordinary book. Even if you don't care about its message, you better get that notion out of your mind...
On the matter of interpreting text the way you want, well, there comes a time when someone will interpret a text and be wrong. Ever been in an english class, and there's one pompous retard who starts bullshitting on the nature of Hamlets anger and dementia in terms so absolutely absurd you retch in your seat? He's supposedly interpreting the text, but you know he's wrong.
Well, its the same way for the Bible. There are certain variations that don't change anything to the meaning of the text (eg hamlet was blonde of red headed), and then there are people who say something that goes completely against the real meaning of the text (Hamlet is, in fact, a dog). They are wrong. Yet there are simple minded fools that buy it, and it becomes its own movement. Think scientology: its so obviously full of crap, but people buy it. When it comes to the Bible, there is a core message, and every so often, someone comes along, says the exact opposite, or says the same thing and acts in the completely opposite way, and that becomes labeled as christianity or the message of the Bible.
If you still hold the notion that man is essentially good, then you probably won't understand when i say that it is men that pervert religion and the Bible, not the Bible that leads itself to interpretation to cause harm.
Let us take the example of the crusades: that was not so much christianity and the bible working as it was the European monarchs making a move for control of the middle east, its trade routes, and expanding their region of influence to extend their power. Christinity was used as a catalyst to get the sheep people to follow along blindly. Back then, most were illiterate, they couldn't read the Bible let alone interpret it. They left that up to men who, surprise, were corrupt and manipulative. The peasants already thought the King wa sin effect God on earth, so when the clergy told them this was a war for God, they didn't know any better... Absolute power corrupts absolutely. True Christianity was not at the forefront of the crusades, power lust was. Same for the inquisition, same for the massacres of the protestants.
Men are the ones using religion as a tool for their own schemes, and its a powerful one, because so many people follow blindly.
The Bible was not interpreted to fit the current mood. The Bible was misinterpreted to be used as a weapon for material gain. Ever wonder why indulgences disappeared from the catholic church? People realized it was bullcrap, something pulled out of nowhere by priests to get money for the supposed salvation of the people. Oh, and purgatory was done away with recently...
The problem is, like you said, you haven't read the Bible. Thus, when someone comes out and says what they are doing is justified in the Bible and "God said so nyah", you may very well believe they are right and get a horrendous idea of the theological teaching of the Bible. Some people actually think that the westborough baptist church (the God hates fags people) is ACTUALLY a church, and that what they teach and say is christianity. But, if you'd read the Bible or knew what it said, you'd realize that segregating people and spewing hate is about as far as you can get from the message of Jesus.
When people cite the Bible to back their claim, you better be able to compare their sayings to actual biblical theology, or you're just a sucker. People claiming that something is something in the Bible and other people are saying the exact opposite, well, you can't have that at the same time. Someone has to be right, the other has to be wrong, you can't have both at the same time. Which leads back to my original point on logical thinking. Ah, it all came together.
peterriley2
Member
okay bible bashers, i ask you this- if god created everything, and there was nothing before god, where did god come from, and who or what what created it (or him, or the spirit, or whatever)???????
its one of my favourite pasttimes when on various drugs- try to imagine what it was like when there was nothing..... no space, no universe, no people no 'god'.
its one of my favourite pasttimes when on various drugs- try to imagine what it was like when there was nothing..... no space, no universe, no people no 'god'.
almostaskier
Active member
im sorry, but you failed.
You wanna know why? because that same argument can be used for every single ultimate origins theory.
No one believes that nothing can come from nothing. Therefore, for there to be something, there has to have been something from the start, something eternal. Big bangists would have mass and energy and other such theories as eternal. Heck, some even talk about an original superstring, quark or atom which must have been eternal (to which i can apply your flawed logic). "Bible bashers" would have God as eternal.
So there you have it. Multiple concepts and theories, or even parts of atoms being eternal, versus a God being eternal.
Oh NOES! Creationists and Big-Bang theorists at a stalemate from the get go? Why, you may have to rethink your position! gasp!
You wanna know why? because that same argument can be used for every single ultimate origins theory.
No one believes that nothing can come from nothing. Therefore, for there to be something, there has to have been something from the start, something eternal. Big bangists would have mass and energy and other such theories as eternal. Heck, some even talk about an original superstring, quark or atom which must have been eternal (to which i can apply your flawed logic). "Bible bashers" would have God as eternal.
So there you have it. Multiple concepts and theories, or even parts of atoms being eternal, versus a God being eternal.
Oh NOES! Creationists and Big-Bang theorists at a stalemate from the get go? Why, you may have to rethink your position! gasp!
almostaskier
Active member
i thought i might as well answer seriously in case someone had that same question to ask, seriously.
coming from a phil major, i figured you were joking
but, over the internet, you can never be too sure.
coming from a phil major, i figured you were joking
but, over the internet, you can never be too sure.
Notorious_BLT
Active member
evolution? proven... cant believe one part of the bible you cant believe any part of the bible. who knows whats true
Paul-o-Rama
Active member
ok, he said more:
The Torah was given to Moses for humans from God. It does have Laws and
Jewish History, but the most important fact is it was written by humans
who had the words given to them from the Lord. I don't believe God
wants to control you, but he wants you to make the best choices, and
God knows all the best ones. You might want to read your 10
Commandments again they are great. God's charter for his liberated
people (Jews out of Egypt). In the Torah when it says God it says he
afterwards alot. Example, Ge 1:1-28 "God saw everything that he had
made, and behold, it was very good." Humans are made in God's own
likeness and given charge over all the rest. I can preach to you alot
more, but if it's not from the Torah I don't know if you'll listen. As
for Jesus, you know where I stand. I'm praying for you Paul.
The Torah was given to Moses for humans from God. It does have Laws and
Jewish History, but the most important fact is it was written by humans
who had the words given to them from the Lord. I don't believe God
wants to control you, but he wants you to make the best choices, and
God knows all the best ones. You might want to read your 10
Commandments again they are great. God's charter for his liberated
people (Jews out of Egypt). In the Torah when it says God it says he
afterwards alot. Example, Ge 1:1-28 "God saw everything that he had
made, and behold, it was very good." Humans are made in God's own
likeness and given charge over all the rest. I can preach to you alot
more, but if it's not from the Torah I don't know if you'll listen. As
for Jesus, you know where I stand. I'm praying for you Paul.
Paul-o-Rama
Active member
This is very interesting
Paul-o-Rama
Active member
paulorama
You have highly underestimated me if you think that I will only listen
to excerpts from the torah. My mother is Catholic, my father is Jewish,
I attend both church and synagogue regularly. Upon observing both
religions, I feel that the Jewish religion is much more displays my
beliefs. I believe that the bible is a very elaborate and fabricated
story, not to say that the torah is not either, but should be
interpretated to fit the times and not taken literally word for word.
I'm not saying that there was no Jesus. Maybe he did rise from the
cross but remember people back in the day had a strange perception of
things and did not understand things the way we do nowadays. For
example, Moses wandering in the dessert for 400 years. I can see how 40
years would be a more plausable number but even 40 wuold be a long time
considering the life expectance back then was around 40 or so years
old.
I have a few questions for you:
1. Why would God
create sentient beings and then reward some for doing what He/She
"told" them to do in a book that may or may not have been written by
Him/Her, and then punish the ones that didn't?
2. If Got created
us, then He/She could have made us do whatever He /She wanted. So why
give us the "choice" to obey Him/Her or not?
3. Think of a
decision you've made. Think of the factors in your eventual decision.
Did you have control over the factors affecting your decision? Is your
will truly "free" if the decision making faculties of your mind are
influenced by things outside your control?
4. If you believe
that a "man" lived who is supposidly the son of god and, since god is
"infalliable" then his blood line would also be, but as cathloics point
out "people are born sinners" making Yeshua flawed, making god flawed,
making the system break down. What would be your argument against this
logic?
5. What race do you believe Jesus to be?
digitaljosh
1. God wanted to create creatures similar to himself. He wanted to be
with these creatures, but they were too sinful. So He decides to make
them wait until they die, but in the meantime he sends the Law, Holy
Spirit, and Jesus to show them His Will and His Love. God sees
everyone's heart. Sin is Bad. Love your Neighbor like yourself, and
have no other gods before God.
2. God does'nt want robots.
3. Yes
free will exists just as well as sin and good. Other peoples free wills
exist too, and it can enfluence us to do right or wrong. I believe God
gives us more of the want to do right than wrong. God loves us like a
parent. He can be the best Father and Mother and he can be the
scarriest butt spanker.
4. People are not sinners until they sin.
Jesus is the son of God. Mary was filled with the Holy Spirit and
became pregnant. Jesus was tempted by the devil in the desert to sin,
but he resisted and quoted scripture to the devil. He did what we
can't, resist the devil's temptation ALL the time and completely follow
God's teachings to the lower case t (which happened to be the cross).
5.
Jesus was born a Jew. He is God the third part of the trinity, the
capstone, the way, the truth, and the life. He shall be the judge of
every man, and the only Saviour. Every knee shall bow and every tounge
will confess that he is God.
God loves you Paul. I am neither Catholic nor Jew I am a Christian.
Paulorama
You did not answer my questions, you "beat around the bush." Please answer the questions directly.
Paulorama
"he can be the scarriest butt spanker."
Are you calling God a homosexual?
You have highly underestimated me if you think that I will only listen
to excerpts from the torah. My mother is Catholic, my father is Jewish,
I attend both church and synagogue regularly. Upon observing both
religions, I feel that the Jewish religion is much more displays my
beliefs. I believe that the bible is a very elaborate and fabricated
story, not to say that the torah is not either, but should be
interpretated to fit the times and not taken literally word for word.
I'm not saying that there was no Jesus. Maybe he did rise from the
cross but remember people back in the day had a strange perception of
things and did not understand things the way we do nowadays. For
example, Moses wandering in the dessert for 400 years. I can see how 40
years would be a more plausable number but even 40 wuold be a long time
considering the life expectance back then was around 40 or so years
old.
I have a few questions for you:
1. Why would God
create sentient beings and then reward some for doing what He/She
"told" them to do in a book that may or may not have been written by
Him/Her, and then punish the ones that didn't?
2. If Got created
us, then He/She could have made us do whatever He /She wanted. So why
give us the "choice" to obey Him/Her or not?
3. Think of a
decision you've made. Think of the factors in your eventual decision.
Did you have control over the factors affecting your decision? Is your
will truly "free" if the decision making faculties of your mind are
influenced by things outside your control?
4. If you believe
that a "man" lived who is supposidly the son of god and, since god is
"infalliable" then his blood line would also be, but as cathloics point
out "people are born sinners" making Yeshua flawed, making god flawed,
making the system break down. What would be your argument against this
logic?
5. What race do you believe Jesus to be?
digitaljosh
1. God wanted to create creatures similar to himself. He wanted to be
with these creatures, but they were too sinful. So He decides to make
them wait until they die, but in the meantime he sends the Law, Holy
Spirit, and Jesus to show them His Will and His Love. God sees
everyone's heart. Sin is Bad. Love your Neighbor like yourself, and
have no other gods before God.
2. God does'nt want robots.
3. Yes
free will exists just as well as sin and good. Other peoples free wills
exist too, and it can enfluence us to do right or wrong. I believe God
gives us more of the want to do right than wrong. God loves us like a
parent. He can be the best Father and Mother and he can be the
scarriest butt spanker.
4. People are not sinners until they sin.
Jesus is the son of God. Mary was filled with the Holy Spirit and
became pregnant. Jesus was tempted by the devil in the desert to sin,
but he resisted and quoted scripture to the devil. He did what we
can't, resist the devil's temptation ALL the time and completely follow
God's teachings to the lower case t (which happened to be the cross).
5.
Jesus was born a Jew. He is God the third part of the trinity, the
capstone, the way, the truth, and the life. He shall be the judge of
every man, and the only Saviour. Every knee shall bow and every tounge
will confess that he is God.
God loves you Paul. I am neither Catholic nor Jew I am a Christian.
Paulorama
You did not answer my questions, you "beat around the bush." Please answer the questions directly.
Paulorama
"he can be the scarriest butt spanker."
Are you calling God a homosexual?
TMswitch06
Member
will someone please post that picture of the retarded kid running and it says "Arguing on the Internet is like competing in the special olympics, even if you win you're still retarded!" or somethin like that
almostaskier
Active member
agreed.
two years ago i would have jumped in to prove myself right.
now, i try to help establish correct interpretation of my side, as i understand the other side.
two years ago i would have jumped in to prove myself right.
now, i try to help establish correct interpretation of my side, as i understand the other side.
Love_Wins.
Active member
There is alot in intelligent conversation going on in this thread...I kinda like it. One thing I would like to bring to light through, for the people arguing for the Evolution side, is that Darwin himself said that it was only a theory, and that if any evidence arose to the contrary, he would discount the accuracy of said theory. Simply because it's been adopted as our school text way of explaining the start of live on earth does not mean that it's true, in fact...in all the studies that have been conducted into the theory of Evolution, there has yet to be one result where a cell or organism has ever evolved into one of higher complexity. Something to think about.
TMswitch06
Member
almostaskier
Active member
aaaaaatta boy.
bikerocker
Active member
he never actually did answer the questions...
1. he never said why god would reward people who foloowed the bible, and what about poepl who never see the bible?
2.If god doesn't want robots, then why are people bound by reliigion, and if you can't act without fear of punishment it's not freewill.
3. If god gives us the "want"to do right, that's not free will at all, that's pressure.
4. The bible and every bible banger talks about "orriginal sin" that's why we get "baptized" to wash away this "sin" so people are born sinners according to christian teachings. Sin is also impure thoughts according to the church.
5. Is a Jew a race??? Maybe that's unclear, but i'm pretty sure you asked for a color.
That was a stupid move asking if god was a homosexual on your part... but maybe it'll get him flaming homosexuals in wich case you can really burn him...
1. he never said why god would reward people who foloowed the bible, and what about poepl who never see the bible?
2.If god doesn't want robots, then why are people bound by reliigion, and if you can't act without fear of punishment it's not freewill.
3. If god gives us the "want"to do right, that's not free will at all, that's pressure.
4. The bible and every bible banger talks about "orriginal sin" that's why we get "baptized" to wash away this "sin" so people are born sinners according to christian teachings. Sin is also impure thoughts according to the church.
5. Is a Jew a race??? Maybe that's unclear, but i'm pretty sure you asked for a color.
That was a stupid move asking if god was a homosexual on your part... but maybe it'll get him flaming homosexuals in wich case you can really burn him...
TimothyLord
Active member
scary shirt right there
SilkyJohnson
Member
they have proven gravity it isn't a theory
almostaskier
Active member
yep.
at the same time, parts of theories are more solid than others. i believe you said it yourself, we cannot prove the evolution theory of ultimate origins empirically because it happened only once, and we weren't there to observe it. However, we do observe natural selection. So one part is "proved" scientifically, the other is inferred, but not shown.
at the same time, parts of theories are more solid than others. i believe you said it yourself, we cannot prove the evolution theory of ultimate origins empirically because it happened only once, and we weren't there to observe it. However, we do observe natural selection. So one part is "proved" scientifically, the other is inferred, but not shown.
Love_Wins.
Active member
Gravity can be proven far more than Evolution can though, you can see the effects of gravity. With Evolution all we are doing is looking at fossils and other things and taking a guess, there has never been any 'hard' evidence, like that with gravity...you can't state the theory of Evolution and then just assume that things stopped evolving...why haven't things evolved more since we've been here?
Wow, I've been off NS for the weekend and this thread has actually developed into a worthwhile discussion! I have a lot to say about everyone's comments, so just quoting one thing wont work. Anyways,
Patty, so you say that it is not the Bible that is flawed, its the human element. I agree. We certianly arent under the premise of the Spanish Inquisition where we go executing heretics whenever we dont like someone. It was the human side that misinterpreted the message, true.
But back to this whole thing about womens rights... if the Bible gives women equal standing, have we really all been ignorant for over 2000 years? Moreover, if we've misinterpreted it in the past, whats to say we arent 'glossing over' some part of it that we have yet to realize now? And for your example of the Crusades and how they used religion to further economic means... whats to say that some of the messages and meanings we draw from the Bible arent motivated by the same means? Of course, if you only observe the 'core message' you never run into this problem... but there are a lot of people who draw directly from it.
And as for its degredation over time and through translations, yes it is a historical document or unrivaled complexity. However, history is written by the victors, so like every piece of historical evidence, it must be taken with a grain of salt. There is no other document (that I know of) that supports a lot of what is written in the Bible, and so by itself, its potentially very biased in itself for historical accuracy. However, was Jesus a real person? Probably.
And back to the Miller-Urey experiments: Yes, only basic membranes, proteins and RNA fragments were made. But if you leave all of these factors together long enough, its possible, even probable that you'll get a very redimentary system. RNA can replicate itself very very easily if nucleotides are present.
Also, I read a statistic that said that 40% of Americans believe the world will end in the apocolypse in 2012. Frightening, huh?
Patty, so you say that it is not the Bible that is flawed, its the human element. I agree. We certianly arent under the premise of the Spanish Inquisition where we go executing heretics whenever we dont like someone. It was the human side that misinterpreted the message, true.
But back to this whole thing about womens rights... if the Bible gives women equal standing, have we really all been ignorant for over 2000 years? Moreover, if we've misinterpreted it in the past, whats to say we arent 'glossing over' some part of it that we have yet to realize now? And for your example of the Crusades and how they used religion to further economic means... whats to say that some of the messages and meanings we draw from the Bible arent motivated by the same means? Of course, if you only observe the 'core message' you never run into this problem... but there are a lot of people who draw directly from it.
And as for its degredation over time and through translations, yes it is a historical document or unrivaled complexity. However, history is written by the victors, so like every piece of historical evidence, it must be taken with a grain of salt. There is no other document (that I know of) that supports a lot of what is written in the Bible, and so by itself, its potentially very biased in itself for historical accuracy. However, was Jesus a real person? Probably.
And back to the Miller-Urey experiments: Yes, only basic membranes, proteins and RNA fragments were made. But if you leave all of these factors together long enough, its possible, even probable that you'll get a very redimentary system. RNA can replicate itself very very easily if nucleotides are present.
Also, I read a statistic that said that 40% of Americans believe the world will end in the apocolypse in 2012. Frightening, huh?
Love_Wins.
Active member
I'll agree with you on some of those points, all I'm saying is that I'm not sold on Evolution. Intelligent design points to an intelligent designer...there are just too many things that would've have to come together perfectly, the odds are astronomical. Even under lab controled conditions, there has never been a record of any cell evolving into a more complex one (as I said before)...and if we can't record something as simple as one cell evolving in all the tests and studies on the planet that have been done on the theory of evolution, it's hard for me to picture our whole world, and every creature in it evolving from a single cell that we can't 'prove' (if there is such a thing as proof) has ever evolved at all. I know, I don't have the best argument in here, I'm just throwing things out there.
almostaskier
Active member
Rowen, when it comes to historical and literary accuracy of any text, the Bible is at the top, or very near. there are countless records of a person named Jesus, most notably by a certain Josephus. Roman records of the happenings. Archaeological finds. In text reference to know history. And, besides the fact that it has more original MS written extremely close to the action than any other document, and bound by rules and codes of transcribing that no other book has ever had to go through, you can be assured it is very valid. Just recently, the pools were Jesus supposedly healed the blind man were found, right where the Bible said they were. People had thought that the text was mistaken, because they could find none at the location the text described. Then epople started drilling and digging to put roads there, and lo.... there it was.
The Bible is reliable in terms of history and literary accuracy, more reliable than any other text. The miracles, you may your doubts. But the places and people are all accurate.
Although, i enjoy the fact that you say "probably" to Jesus actually existing, when we have less proof that Caesar existed... A certain bias for religious figures vs political ones?
What i think you're getting at is that someone wrote the Bible to gain something from it? Well, allow me to just say that the message of the Bible has never been extraordinarily popular. Let us just take the example of Jesus and his disciples. Jesus was executed. Peter was executed. All the apostles are hunted down and executed. The romans persecuted the christians. If anybody gained any sort of material wealth from writing and promulgating its message, that person isn't very apparent...
You ask the Bible may be biased, well, it obviously says that it believes God exists and states truths about this God and his actions and the origin of life etc etc. Let us remember that the Bible was written over millenia, by 40 different people, from all classes of society, and they all agree on everything, down to every minute detail.
As for cultures, they take time to change. Black people were oppressed for a looooong time, and all the while people knew it was bad and said so, but society as a whole did not change immediately...
an interesting fact about the miller-urey experiemnt is that it gives right sided amino acids (the nitrogenous part of the acid points to the right). However, all amino acids in nature are left handed. An interesting observation. Also, given the fact that RNA replicating in and of itself cannot produce life... DNA stores information that codes for enzymes which allow it to replicate and code for more enzymes. RNA cannot become DNA without certain enzymes, that need to be produced by DNA. Even IF RNA could multiply, all you'd have is replicating RNA. Information of what needs to be coded for when to produce the essential proteins for the primitive membranes does not come from nowhere... its an extremely complex and minute process. If this is our best bet against all things religious, well, we're kinda screwed....
and now, bed.
The Bible is reliable in terms of history and literary accuracy, more reliable than any other text. The miracles, you may your doubts. But the places and people are all accurate.
Although, i enjoy the fact that you say "probably" to Jesus actually existing, when we have less proof that Caesar existed... A certain bias for religious figures vs political ones?
What i think you're getting at is that someone wrote the Bible to gain something from it? Well, allow me to just say that the message of the Bible has never been extraordinarily popular. Let us just take the example of Jesus and his disciples. Jesus was executed. Peter was executed. All the apostles are hunted down and executed. The romans persecuted the christians. If anybody gained any sort of material wealth from writing and promulgating its message, that person isn't very apparent...
You ask the Bible may be biased, well, it obviously says that it believes God exists and states truths about this God and his actions and the origin of life etc etc. Let us remember that the Bible was written over millenia, by 40 different people, from all classes of society, and they all agree on everything, down to every minute detail.
As for cultures, they take time to change. Black people were oppressed for a looooong time, and all the while people knew it was bad and said so, but society as a whole did not change immediately...
an interesting fact about the miller-urey experiemnt is that it gives right sided amino acids (the nitrogenous part of the acid points to the right). However, all amino acids in nature are left handed. An interesting observation. Also, given the fact that RNA replicating in and of itself cannot produce life... DNA stores information that codes for enzymes which allow it to replicate and code for more enzymes. RNA cannot become DNA without certain enzymes, that need to be produced by DNA. Even IF RNA could multiply, all you'd have is replicating RNA. Information of what needs to be coded for when to produce the essential proteins for the primitive membranes does not come from nowhere... its an extremely complex and minute process. If this is our best bet against all things religious, well, we're kinda screwed....
and now, bed.
bikerocker
Active member
it's funny because "amen" although used heavily by the christian religion doesn't necessarily mean it's a religious term, it's just simply means "it is so" or "so be it" and it's also an Egyptian god... So it totally can be used in a non religious fashion
Ha, I made no mention of Caesar for a reason. As I said, history is written by the victors, and the Romans had a large influence on many cultures following it. Who knows if Jesus and Caesar were real people?
Even if you accept that all the people mentioned were real people, some crazy shit happens to them. Walking in the desert for 400 years. Plauges, staffs turing into snakes... they're more reiniscent of myths to me than actual factual stories. Take the Plauges of Egypt for example - while its probable that they happened, I doubt that one single person could unleash it. Honestly, one can believe whatever they wish, but to me, the Bible is a mixture of truth and myth. It embodies a creation story as well as a set of principles, and most cultures, like Nordic, Celtic, Pacific Islander and Aborigional, have stories and sets of principles as well that make this same mixture of truth and myth. So, from my (non-Christian) view, the Bible is just that.
And sure I think someone first wrote down the Bible for gain. Someone thought it would be a good idea to have all these stories in a book rather than having them handed down mouth to mouth. They wanted to have a written text that embodied thier religion. Nobody gained material wealth in my opinion, so I'm not sure what you're getting at...
However, what I'm looking at is the human interpretation that has occured. Its been used as a source of political power, social motivation and as downright law in the past. My point is that different people can come away with slightly different messages. They have over time. How should one know that any one message they get from it is the RIGHT one? While you and I agree there is one prevalent overall message, you could give it to someone to read whos never even heard of Christianity and they would most likely come away with a different view that most Christians today.
Is Christianity really just defined by the Bible? If the text hasnt changed, why has our culture changed? Why are we no longer racist, intolerant of other religion...? To me, this means one thing: Our culture's views effect what message we get out of the Bible. While you may say that message is static, I believe its more dynamic, changing with the times and adapting to the new ideas that drive our society forward. How else can we explain all the change we've observed in humanity over time?
And I'll finish up with more Biology, my passion:
-Right-handed RNA AND Left-handed RNA was made in the experiment, read the whole thing dammit.
-DNA can make RNA
-Its probable that the RNA world was a very dynamic and unstable one until DNA came along. Once DNA was made (off a left handed RNA) then the DNA took off, and all of its ancestors would be left handed as well, explaining why we dont see right handed any more in nature.
Ugh. I think the main difference between some people is that some are ok with the answer "I dont know". Others have to invent something in absence of an explanation.
Even if you accept that all the people mentioned were real people, some crazy shit happens to them. Walking in the desert for 400 years. Plauges, staffs turing into snakes... they're more reiniscent of myths to me than actual factual stories. Take the Plauges of Egypt for example - while its probable that they happened, I doubt that one single person could unleash it. Honestly, one can believe whatever they wish, but to me, the Bible is a mixture of truth and myth. It embodies a creation story as well as a set of principles, and most cultures, like Nordic, Celtic, Pacific Islander and Aborigional, have stories and sets of principles as well that make this same mixture of truth and myth. So, from my (non-Christian) view, the Bible is just that.
And sure I think someone first wrote down the Bible for gain. Someone thought it would be a good idea to have all these stories in a book rather than having them handed down mouth to mouth. They wanted to have a written text that embodied thier religion. Nobody gained material wealth in my opinion, so I'm not sure what you're getting at...
However, what I'm looking at is the human interpretation that has occured. Its been used as a source of political power, social motivation and as downright law in the past. My point is that different people can come away with slightly different messages. They have over time. How should one know that any one message they get from it is the RIGHT one? While you and I agree there is one prevalent overall message, you could give it to someone to read whos never even heard of Christianity and they would most likely come away with a different view that most Christians today.
Is Christianity really just defined by the Bible? If the text hasnt changed, why has our culture changed? Why are we no longer racist, intolerant of other religion...? To me, this means one thing: Our culture's views effect what message we get out of the Bible. While you may say that message is static, I believe its more dynamic, changing with the times and adapting to the new ideas that drive our society forward. How else can we explain all the change we've observed in humanity over time?
And I'll finish up with more Biology, my passion:
-Right-handed RNA AND Left-handed RNA was made in the experiment, read the whole thing dammit.
-DNA can make RNA
-Its probable that the RNA world was a very dynamic and unstable one until DNA came along. Once DNA was made (off a left handed RNA) then the DNA took off, and all of its ancestors would be left handed as well, explaining why we dont see right handed any more in nature.
Ugh. I think the main difference between some people is that some are ok with the answer "I dont know". Others have to invent something in absence of an explanation.
Paul-o-Rama
Active member
ok, so i took a lot of what you all said, sometimes word for word
Digitaljosh
Paul you know God's totally against homosexuality. What's your problem
Paul? You know what I meant by that too. His wrath is Eternal Damnation
in Hell. He will punish the bad. Paul you knew what I was saying! I was
comparing him to a Father. Paul are you really 30? I'm 25. Be mature
Paul, act your age.
Paulorama
First of all, there is nothing wrong with being homosexual. I myself am not, but I have quite a few friends who are. Homosexuality is not a choice. Honestly, who would chose a life of your so called "Eternal Damnation in Hell?" Who would to be ridiculed and hated? Not I.
Furthermore, you still never answered my questions. I will respond to your answers, and don't worry, I shall put them in Laymen's terms for you:
1. You never said why god would reward people who followed the bible, and what about people who never have the opportunity to view the bible or hear of its teachings? Are these people damned to hell?
2.If god doesn't want robots, then why are people bound by religion, and if you can't act without fear of punishment it's not freewill.
3. If god gives us the "want" to do right, that's not free will at all, that's pressure.
4. The bible and everyone who closely follows its teachings talks about "original sin." Thats why many people get "baptized" to wash away this "sin" so people are born sinners according to christian teachings. Sin is also impure thoughts according to the church.
5. Is a Judism a race? If that is so, I am of the same race as the black and asian members of my temple who became a Bar Mitzvah.
Digitaljosh
Paul you know God's totally against homosexuality. What's your problem
Paul? You know what I meant by that too. His wrath is Eternal Damnation
in Hell. He will punish the bad. Paul you knew what I was saying! I was
comparing him to a Father. Paul are you really 30? I'm 25. Be mature
Paul, act your age.
Paulorama
First of all, there is nothing wrong with being homosexual. I myself am not, but I have quite a few friends who are. Homosexuality is not a choice. Honestly, who would chose a life of your so called "Eternal Damnation in Hell?" Who would to be ridiculed and hated? Not I.
Furthermore, you still never answered my questions. I will respond to your answers, and don't worry, I shall put them in Laymen's terms for you:
1. You never said why god would reward people who followed the bible, and what about people who never have the opportunity to view the bible or hear of its teachings? Are these people damned to hell?
2.If god doesn't want robots, then why are people bound by religion, and if you can't act without fear of punishment it's not freewill.
3. If god gives us the "want" to do right, that's not free will at all, that's pressure.
4. The bible and everyone who closely follows its teachings talks about "original sin." Thats why many people get "baptized" to wash away this "sin" so people are born sinners according to christian teachings. Sin is also impure thoughts according to the church.
5. Is a Judism a race? If that is so, I am of the same race as the black and asian members of my temple who became a Bar Mitzvah.
Paul-o-Rama
Active member
Paulorama
And my God is not against homosexuality, at my synagague, we have a rabbi who is lesbian. Her partner and their two children regularly attend temple
And my God is not against homosexuality, at my synagague, we have a rabbi who is lesbian. Her partner and their two children regularly attend temple
bikerocker
Active member
yeah that was my post you quoted, but it's all good, keep on keepin on man fight the good fight
squeakywaffle
Active member
Yes, he did fail...
The point is, though, that physics looks for an explanation that is:
A) Plausible.
B) As simple as possible.
C) Consistent with our concrete knowledge of the universe, and subject to constant review and modification as new facts and ideas become available.
Creationists, on the other hand, present a view that is:
A) Seemingly unlikely (omnipotent sentient beings are not a dime-a-dozen kind of thing).
B) Extremely complicated. A sentient being is a very complex mechanism, no matter how you want to explain its inner workings.
C) Based on absolutely nothing more than words in a book of uncertain origin. Or, as I might say, based on Nothing.
To claim that it is "just as" likely for a sentient being to pop into existence as it is for a simple set of physical laws and/or matter to pop into existence seems to be a bit of a strange idea, when you stop and think about it. And if you claim God is "eternal" (IE his "timeline," and I use that word in the loosest sense, is somehow static or cyclic), well, it's much more likely that instead of God, there exists outside of our universe a material, physical universe that is similarly static or cyclic, which could explain the "something from nothing" paradox of our universe's existence in a much more plausible and simplistic manner.
Sitting in a plane, I can't prove that there is a steady laminar flow of air over the wings that is holding me up in the air according to the principles of fluid dynamics (which were developed into theory from repeated observation and measurement). It could be millions of tiny lasso'd hummingbirds above the plane, out of my range of vision. Or it could be magic. All these are "possible" to me because I can't prove or disprove any of them from my seat in the plane. If a creationist sat down beside me, using his own logic, he would be forced to admit that hummingbirds could very well be responsible for our apparent altitude and airspeed.
I, on the other hand, would say that the hummingbird explanation is possible, but so unlikely that considering it seriously would be a waste of time. This is known in some circles as common sense.
What would you say, if you were the creationist sitting beside me?
P.S. I respect anyone who can discuss this in a civil and intelligent manner. Also, I will read your lengthier post up there when I have time, but I have an exam tomorrow and can't right now.
The point is, though, that physics looks for an explanation that is:
A) Plausible.
B) As simple as possible.
C) Consistent with our concrete knowledge of the universe, and subject to constant review and modification as new facts and ideas become available.
Creationists, on the other hand, present a view that is:
A) Seemingly unlikely (omnipotent sentient beings are not a dime-a-dozen kind of thing).
B) Extremely complicated. A sentient being is a very complex mechanism, no matter how you want to explain its inner workings.
C) Based on absolutely nothing more than words in a book of uncertain origin. Or, as I might say, based on Nothing.
To claim that it is "just as" likely for a sentient being to pop into existence as it is for a simple set of physical laws and/or matter to pop into existence seems to be a bit of a strange idea, when you stop and think about it. And if you claim God is "eternal" (IE his "timeline," and I use that word in the loosest sense, is somehow static or cyclic), well, it's much more likely that instead of God, there exists outside of our universe a material, physical universe that is similarly static or cyclic, which could explain the "something from nothing" paradox of our universe's existence in a much more plausible and simplistic manner.
Sitting in a plane, I can't prove that there is a steady laminar flow of air over the wings that is holding me up in the air according to the principles of fluid dynamics (which were developed into theory from repeated observation and measurement). It could be millions of tiny lasso'd hummingbirds above the plane, out of my range of vision. Or it could be magic. All these are "possible" to me because I can't prove or disprove any of them from my seat in the plane. If a creationist sat down beside me, using his own logic, he would be forced to admit that hummingbirds could very well be responsible for our apparent altitude and airspeed.
I, on the other hand, would say that the hummingbird explanation is possible, but so unlikely that considering it seriously would be a waste of time. This is known in some circles as common sense.
What would you say, if you were the creationist sitting beside me?
P.S. I respect anyone who can discuss this in a civil and intelligent manner. Also, I will read your lengthier post up there when I have time, but I have an exam tomorrow and can't right now.
squeakywaffle
Active member
I should add that the reason I would scoff at the hummingbird "theory" is that it involves a level of complexity several orders of magnitude larger than that required by the comparatively simple explanation fluid dynamics presents.
This is analogous to the "God" vs. "Materialism" debate... can anyone tell me how?
This is analogous to the "God" vs. "Materialism" debate... can anyone tell me how?
Paul-o-Rama
Active member
Digitaljosh
They're not obeying the Torah, and not obeying God.
Read Genesis 13 to 20.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22
Also read Romans 1:24-27, 32 &
1 Corinthians 6:9, 10
God loves you Paul.
Paulorama
You keep answering me with a completely irrelavent bible or torah excerpt. Please talk to me man to man and stop hiding behind your bible as I have not yet to glance upon your true self, only your bible.
They're not obeying the Torah, and not obeying God.
Read Genesis 13 to 20.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22
Also read Romans 1:24-27, 32 &
1 Corinthians 6:9, 10
God loves you Paul.
Paulorama
You keep answering me with a completely irrelavent bible or torah excerpt. Please talk to me man to man and stop hiding behind your bible as I have not yet to glance upon your true self, only your bible.
Holte
Active member
Playing the devil's advocate: the hummingbird theory seems a lot more plausible to me. Oooh suuuure, a giant metal bus with wings that don't move can fly...yeaahhhh. Realllly plausible.
And to represent the liberal Christian viewpoint: Christianity does not (necessarily) equal Creationism.
Thirdly, the Bible never says anything about homosexuality causing eternal damnation.
What denomination is your facebook guy?
And to represent the liberal Christian viewpoint: Christianity does not (necessarily) equal Creationism.
Thirdly, the Bible never says anything about homosexuality causing eternal damnation.
What denomination is your facebook guy?
squeakywaffle
Active member
But how do hummingbirds fly? We have to use similar principles arising from the same branch of science to describe and model their flight, except there are millions of them. Not to mention the fact that they all have to avoid each other's strings... 
Maybe you prefer the "magic" explanation... but I could make a paper airplane right in front of you, and you would have to then accept the claim that I'm a wizard.
That's an unnecessarily complex situation if I ever saw one, anyway.
Also, how does christianity not equal creationism? The way I see it, creationism does not equal christianity, but christianity is definitely a subset of creationism because they believe in a creator...?
Maybe you prefer the "magic" explanation... but I could make a paper airplane right in front of you, and you would have to then accept the claim that I'm a wizard.
That's an unnecessarily complex situation if I ever saw one, anyway.
Also, how does christianity not equal creationism? The way I see it, creationism does not equal christianity, but christianity is definitely a subset of creationism because they believe in a creator...?
Holte
Active member
I was referring to creationism as a literal interpretation of the Bible: the idea that God created everything in six days, the idea that evolution and adaptation does not exist, and the idea that much of science is fake.
The alternative definition -that creationism is a belief in a creator- is far too vague. If I believe that I was created by the union of an egg and a sperm, does that make me a creationist?
But I know that's not what you mean. The real problem with the alternative definition is: if I believe that God created everything at the Big Bang, there's no way to prove me wrong. It makes as much sense to think that some being created everything as it is to think that everything suddenly appeared out of nothing. Either way, we eventually get back to the impossible question where did the creator come from/where did the creation come from?
The alternative definition -that creationism is a belief in a creator- is far too vague. If I believe that I was created by the union of an egg and a sperm, does that make me a creationist?
But I know that's not what you mean. The real problem with the alternative definition is: if I believe that God created everything at the Big Bang, there's no way to prove me wrong. It makes as much sense to think that some being created everything as it is to think that everything suddenly appeared out of nothing. Either way, we eventually get back to the impossible question where did the creator come from/where did the creation come from?
squeakywaffle
Active member
haha, I tend to go with the wikipedia definition of things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
You're right about the impossible question, but let me break it down for you the way I see it:
First, A) we know something had to come out of nothing or B) something had to have been there all along. I refer to this something as the fundamental nature of reality, since all of existence must be derived from it.
The question is, what could that something have been? Some people seem to think that a sentient being (God) is the fundamental nature of reality. That implies that God either A) came out of nothing or B) was there all along.
My problem with that is that God would be an extremely complex system, whatever His true nature happens to be. At this point, I can use the argument of "Intelligent Design" theorists... it's extremely improbable that this being (God) appeared in all his complexity at the genesis of the cosmos, so perhaps someone must have created Him.
Now you see the absurdity in the ID argument... it doesn't prove anything because it's circular. I propose the alternate solution to this problem (the sheer unlikeliness of God): the first "stuff" to exist (or maybe it always existed and always will) was a set of physical laws and some matter, and though the nature of these things must be utterly alien to us as they are of a different universe, they are still material. From this simplicity, complexity arose gradually according to patterns inherent to that universe, much like the way planets, stars, galaxies, life (unless you're an ID believer), etc. formed out of near-uniformity in our own universe.
Perhaps a "God" did arise in that first universe, and created us, but in that case, we could have just as much right to call ourselves gods as He would (as He would not be truly supernatural or omnipotent, bound by the laws of his universe just as we are). Or, perhaps non-intelligent processes eventually led to our existence.
The point is, my scenario is seeded in the simplest material explanation I can think of, while the God explanation is complicated, convoluted, and seems to me to be a whole lot of unnecessary complexity. I don't make any claims that our scientific principles would hold any sway outside our own universe, but I do claim that complexity and simplicity are "universal," in the broadest possible sense.
You're right about the impossible question, but let me break it down for you the way I see it:
First, A) we know something had to come out of nothing or B) something had to have been there all along. I refer to this something as the fundamental nature of reality, since all of existence must be derived from it.
The question is, what could that something have been? Some people seem to think that a sentient being (God) is the fundamental nature of reality. That implies that God either A) came out of nothing or B) was there all along.
My problem with that is that God would be an extremely complex system, whatever His true nature happens to be. At this point, I can use the argument of "Intelligent Design" theorists... it's extremely improbable that this being (God) appeared in all his complexity at the genesis of the cosmos, so perhaps someone must have created Him.
Now you see the absurdity in the ID argument... it doesn't prove anything because it's circular. I propose the alternate solution to this problem (the sheer unlikeliness of God): the first "stuff" to exist (or maybe it always existed and always will) was a set of physical laws and some matter, and though the nature of these things must be utterly alien to us as they are of a different universe, they are still material. From this simplicity, complexity arose gradually according to patterns inherent to that universe, much like the way planets, stars, galaxies, life (unless you're an ID believer), etc. formed out of near-uniformity in our own universe.
Perhaps a "God" did arise in that first universe, and created us, but in that case, we could have just as much right to call ourselves gods as He would (as He would not be truly supernatural or omnipotent, bound by the laws of his universe just as we are). Or, perhaps non-intelligent processes eventually led to our existence.
The point is, my scenario is seeded in the simplest material explanation I can think of, while the God explanation is complicated, convoluted, and seems to me to be a whole lot of unnecessary complexity. I don't make any claims that our scientific principles would hold any sway outside our own universe, but I do claim that complexity and simplicity are "universal," in the broadest possible sense.
almostaskier
Active member
Rowen, a few things and i think we've about wrapped up our own discussion.
Firstly, no one person sat down and wrote the Bible down. It was compiled from religious texts that followed the jewish people. The stories were written down as the divine inspired word of God, nothing less. Not someone thinking "ah, well, ill just write down my creed". I mention material gain, because that's why i thought you had meant when you said someone wrote it down for a reaosn. I figured you meant political, hence my explaining there not being any direct beneficiary in the writers. That people then used it for their own personal gain, yes, but after the fact.
Secondly, that's just the thing i was mentionning. The Biblical text has not changed, neither has its message. Society has changed and adapted, the Bible has remained constant. The fact that tolerance is now the word of the day resonates with the message of Jesus... Nowhere in the Bible, save in the Old Testament (which was aimed at a certain people in a certain time in a certain place) do epople preach racism and intolreance. You're confusing the text and the people again.
Now, that you know whther or not someone is right in their interpretation comes back to my idiot in english class analogy. he may sound smart, and sound liek he knows what he's talking about, but the fact remains that he is wrong based on the evidence given in the text. The message of the Bible is constant throughout. When people offer a conclsuiont hat is in direct contradiction with the rest of the text, then one has a problem. Then, logic, reason and knowledge take over. Many people ahve interpretted the Bible in many different ways. Sometimes it plain doesn't matter. But sometimes people are wrong. It doesn't mean that people are all wrong or all right in interpretting the text, but there are times when someone is right, and others are wrong.
Let us take, for example, claims that Jesus never said he was the Son of God, and that he was just another prophet (the view of the Jews ont he matter). Well, either Jesus did or didn't say he was. So you look at the text. And he does, in fact, say he is the Son of God explicitly. I forget the exact passage, but take up any of the Gospels. So, someone was right, the other wrong. Not all utteranbces on christianity are correct, you must examine each based on the textual evidence.
The Bible is the book that defines christianity because, unlike other religions, there is not any esoteric side to it, in that everything about the origin of God and what he is and how he communicates with us is clearly stated. Now, prayer and other such practices tie in to personal devotion with God, but the Bible claims to be the end all, be all of Christian faith. Other religions, such as buddhism and hinduism, have an enormous amount of esoteric faith to it, where it is each follower who discovers the way and the nature of God on his/her own. Not for the Bible.
In fact, the fact that the Bible does not lead itself to be reinterpretted for the times is why such a heated debate on creation and human life is still going on. The Biblical text says it is THE Truth. Not an ever changing tot he culture truth. Hence the struggles.
On Miller-Urey, hmm, my bad. The clay model still erks me. Im love biology aswell, which is why such things as the clay theory erk me. It isn't proven beyond speculation, so the fact that it is still in the timeline of the rest of the fact bothers me.
Now, Waffle, ill adress your humingbird thing. The problem with your analogy is that we are dealing in two entirely different realms. One, with the plane, there ahve been scientific observations, calculations, reproductions. If you were to argue that the humingbirds are the ones flying the plane or that it's magic, the burden of proof would fall on your self to prove your point. Your point is of course that the argument "well, you can't prove me wrong" doesn't hold any ground. And in this case, you'd be correct.
However, on the matter of ultimate origins, we both cannot validate our argument with any sort of evidence empirically. So then, it's what makes most sense given our observed data here on earth. the trouble is that you have to infer. So we're at a stelemate, the both of us.
I was not entirely able to focus on your entire post, but if i understand correctly, you feel that God is an unecessarily complicated explanation to an otherwise simple material origin.
Well, i would like to say that God is not necessarily an entirely complicated manner. Any manner of sentient being here on earth is, but, God is not said to be a man, but a spirit. I do not exactly knwo what that implies, but i do know this: it means that God is not bound to rules of complexity that we expereince. Thus, God could, feasibly, be the most simple explanation, becvause he is outside all rules we have for things. However, i realize this argument is flawed, because i myself cannot prove this in any way shape or form, or i would be disproving myself. It is a musing, if you will.
I did gather whether or not you actually believed that things appeared from nothing, or that certain things must have been everpresent. I do know, that the probability of nothing coming out of nothing is 0, and so for all eternity. My guess is on everlasting elements.
For me, it makes more sense that God is the fundamental existance to all reality, because of our own philosophical musings at the very moment, and the intrinsic complexity of nature. That's me. I would not believe that certain physical rules are the fundamental nature of all things, because in the beginnings, conservation of energy and other such "constants" would have been rejected. However, i suppose you can use the same explanation as i did and say they mustn't always have been constant.
I believe the main "weakness" of my position is that if i am right, i couldn't prove it to you, and you could if you were right, because that is the premise of your position. However, i feel that you could never prove scientifically what you advance for the simple lack of possibility in doing so brought on by the situation: it happended, we weren't there to observe it, scientific method disintegrates.
So i hope you got that... It's been a busy morning and my fingers suck at following orders.
Firstly, no one person sat down and wrote the Bible down. It was compiled from religious texts that followed the jewish people. The stories were written down as the divine inspired word of God, nothing less. Not someone thinking "ah, well, ill just write down my creed". I mention material gain, because that's why i thought you had meant when you said someone wrote it down for a reaosn. I figured you meant political, hence my explaining there not being any direct beneficiary in the writers. That people then used it for their own personal gain, yes, but after the fact.
Secondly, that's just the thing i was mentionning. The Biblical text has not changed, neither has its message. Society has changed and adapted, the Bible has remained constant. The fact that tolerance is now the word of the day resonates with the message of Jesus... Nowhere in the Bible, save in the Old Testament (which was aimed at a certain people in a certain time in a certain place) do epople preach racism and intolreance. You're confusing the text and the people again.
Now, that you know whther or not someone is right in their interpretation comes back to my idiot in english class analogy. he may sound smart, and sound liek he knows what he's talking about, but the fact remains that he is wrong based on the evidence given in the text. The message of the Bible is constant throughout. When people offer a conclsuiont hat is in direct contradiction with the rest of the text, then one has a problem. Then, logic, reason and knowledge take over. Many people ahve interpretted the Bible in many different ways. Sometimes it plain doesn't matter. But sometimes people are wrong. It doesn't mean that people are all wrong or all right in interpretting the text, but there are times when someone is right, and others are wrong.
Let us take, for example, claims that Jesus never said he was the Son of God, and that he was just another prophet (the view of the Jews ont he matter). Well, either Jesus did or didn't say he was. So you look at the text. And he does, in fact, say he is the Son of God explicitly. I forget the exact passage, but take up any of the Gospels. So, someone was right, the other wrong. Not all utteranbces on christianity are correct, you must examine each based on the textual evidence.
The Bible is the book that defines christianity because, unlike other religions, there is not any esoteric side to it, in that everything about the origin of God and what he is and how he communicates with us is clearly stated. Now, prayer and other such practices tie in to personal devotion with God, but the Bible claims to be the end all, be all of Christian faith. Other religions, such as buddhism and hinduism, have an enormous amount of esoteric faith to it, where it is each follower who discovers the way and the nature of God on his/her own. Not for the Bible.
In fact, the fact that the Bible does not lead itself to be reinterpretted for the times is why such a heated debate on creation and human life is still going on. The Biblical text says it is THE Truth. Not an ever changing tot he culture truth. Hence the struggles.
On Miller-Urey, hmm, my bad. The clay model still erks me. Im love biology aswell, which is why such things as the clay theory erk me. It isn't proven beyond speculation, so the fact that it is still in the timeline of the rest of the fact bothers me.
Now, Waffle, ill adress your humingbird thing. The problem with your analogy is that we are dealing in two entirely different realms. One, with the plane, there ahve been scientific observations, calculations, reproductions. If you were to argue that the humingbirds are the ones flying the plane or that it's magic, the burden of proof would fall on your self to prove your point. Your point is of course that the argument "well, you can't prove me wrong" doesn't hold any ground. And in this case, you'd be correct.
However, on the matter of ultimate origins, we both cannot validate our argument with any sort of evidence empirically. So then, it's what makes most sense given our observed data here on earth. the trouble is that you have to infer. So we're at a stelemate, the both of us.
I was not entirely able to focus on your entire post, but if i understand correctly, you feel that God is an unecessarily complicated explanation to an otherwise simple material origin.
Well, i would like to say that God is not necessarily an entirely complicated manner. Any manner of sentient being here on earth is, but, God is not said to be a man, but a spirit. I do not exactly knwo what that implies, but i do know this: it means that God is not bound to rules of complexity that we expereince. Thus, God could, feasibly, be the most simple explanation, becvause he is outside all rules we have for things. However, i realize this argument is flawed, because i myself cannot prove this in any way shape or form, or i would be disproving myself. It is a musing, if you will.
I did gather whether or not you actually believed that things appeared from nothing, or that certain things must have been everpresent. I do know, that the probability of nothing coming out of nothing is 0, and so for all eternity. My guess is on everlasting elements.
For me, it makes more sense that God is the fundamental existance to all reality, because of our own philosophical musings at the very moment, and the intrinsic complexity of nature. That's me. I would not believe that certain physical rules are the fundamental nature of all things, because in the beginnings, conservation of energy and other such "constants" would have been rejected. However, i suppose you can use the same explanation as i did and say they mustn't always have been constant.
I believe the main "weakness" of my position is that if i am right, i couldn't prove it to you, and you could if you were right, because that is the premise of your position. However, i feel that you could never prove scientifically what you advance for the simple lack of possibility in doing so brought on by the situation: it happended, we weren't there to observe it, scientific method disintegrates.
So i hope you got that... It's been a busy morning and my fingers suck at following orders.
Ha, not bad for an early morning post, I'm incoherent for the first two hours after I get up. Clearly, its an interesting topic, and I feel that we've all somehwat reached a stalemate of understanding of each others views. Therefor, with nothing else I feel I can contribute to this thread, I'll leave it up to Patty and Squeaky unless someone posts something idiotic and unthoughtful.
And I have to say, the hummingbird theory needs to be copyrighted.
And I have to say, the hummingbird theory needs to be copyrighted.
squeakywaffle
Active member
"However, on the matter of ultimate origins, we both cannot validate our argument with any sort of evidence empirically. So then, it's what makes most sense given our observed data here on earth. the trouble is that you have to infer. So we're at a stelemate, the both of us."
You're right about the hummingbirds... we do have a lot of scientific evidence that suggests that the plane flies via its own wing and not hummingbirds. However, we also have a lot of scientific evidence that lends support to the big bang theory, like the microwave background radiation, red shift, etc. It's the same deal... we haven't directly observed a big bang, no, but science continues to find new evidence supporting it, while religion continues to be based on faith- which is, to me, about equal to nothing.
"I did gather whether or not you actually believed that things appeared from nothing, or that certain things must have been everpresent. I do know, that the probability of nothing coming out of nothing is 0, and so for all eternity. My guess is on everlasting elements."
I don't believe one way or the other... I can't really claim to have any knowledge that would help me answer that question. I simply think those are the two possibilities...
Regarding the probability thing, though... Complexity in the physical world can be defined as a measure of the probability of the state of any given system. Therefore, if you are applying our laws of probability to the genesis of the cosmos (when you say the probability of something coming out of nothing is zero), then God can't escape from the fact that He is, without a doubt, an incredibly complex system and is therefore much less likely to exist than is a simple space containing material governed by certain laws.
If God were to live in a bizzaro world where our likely is their unlikely and our complex is their simple, then yes, a complex God would be more likely to exist than a "simpler" state. However, it's also much more likely that he would have come out of nothing than not (since you consider that to be the most UNlikely scenario, and, in fact, if the chance of that happening in our universe is zero then it is infinitely likely in the bizzaro world) and therefore he owes his existence to the nothing he came out of and is not truly omnipotent.
If you want to do away with the laws of complexity and probability altogether, then say what you want, but I would contend that a God who wasn't subject to those laws would be so utterly bizzare and alien to us that he couldn't possibly have created us, much less "in his image."
In this way, denying every single facet of the reality we know and love is indeed a great way of believing in God, but if you take this stance then you can't talk about God and probability. You can't talk about God and likely, or unlikely, or simple, or complex, or good, or evil, and in fact you can't say anything about God at all because he will be completely and utterly incomprehensible to us. I don't mean, like, he is so great we can't comprehend how totally awesome he is. What I mean is that ANY statement you make about God is inherently false. And I really don't see the point of believing in that God.
"For me, it makes more sense that God is the fundamental existance to all reality, because of our own philosophical musings at the very moment, and the intrinsic complexity of nature. That's me. I would not believe that certain physical rules are the fundamental nature of all things, because in the beginnings, conservation of energy and other such "constants" would have been rejected. However, i suppose you can use the same explanation as i did and say they mustn't always have been constant."
I don't make any claim that complex laws like conservation of energy or constants inherent to our universe (like the speed of light) are valid anywhere but here. All I claim is that complexity and probability are constant everywhere.
I hope all that is readable... I think this might be the most enjoyable debate I have had online to date.
You're right about the hummingbirds... we do have a lot of scientific evidence that suggests that the plane flies via its own wing and not hummingbirds. However, we also have a lot of scientific evidence that lends support to the big bang theory, like the microwave background radiation, red shift, etc. It's the same deal... we haven't directly observed a big bang, no, but science continues to find new evidence supporting it, while religion continues to be based on faith- which is, to me, about equal to nothing.
"I did gather whether or not you actually believed that things appeared from nothing, or that certain things must have been everpresent. I do know, that the probability of nothing coming out of nothing is 0, and so for all eternity. My guess is on everlasting elements."
I don't believe one way or the other... I can't really claim to have any knowledge that would help me answer that question. I simply think those are the two possibilities...
Regarding the probability thing, though... Complexity in the physical world can be defined as a measure of the probability of the state of any given system. Therefore, if you are applying our laws of probability to the genesis of the cosmos (when you say the probability of something coming out of nothing is zero), then God can't escape from the fact that He is, without a doubt, an incredibly complex system and is therefore much less likely to exist than is a simple space containing material governed by certain laws.
If God were to live in a bizzaro world where our likely is their unlikely and our complex is their simple, then yes, a complex God would be more likely to exist than a "simpler" state. However, it's also much more likely that he would have come out of nothing than not (since you consider that to be the most UNlikely scenario, and, in fact, if the chance of that happening in our universe is zero then it is infinitely likely in the bizzaro world) and therefore he owes his existence to the nothing he came out of and is not truly omnipotent.
If you want to do away with the laws of complexity and probability altogether, then say what you want, but I would contend that a God who wasn't subject to those laws would be so utterly bizzare and alien to us that he couldn't possibly have created us, much less "in his image."
In this way, denying every single facet of the reality we know and love is indeed a great way of believing in God, but if you take this stance then you can't talk about God and probability. You can't talk about God and likely, or unlikely, or simple, or complex, or good, or evil, and in fact you can't say anything about God at all because he will be completely and utterly incomprehensible to us. I don't mean, like, he is so great we can't comprehend how totally awesome he is. What I mean is that ANY statement you make about God is inherently false. And I really don't see the point of believing in that God.
"For me, it makes more sense that God is the fundamental existance to all reality, because of our own philosophical musings at the very moment, and the intrinsic complexity of nature. That's me. I would not believe that certain physical rules are the fundamental nature of all things, because in the beginnings, conservation of energy and other such "constants" would have been rejected. However, i suppose you can use the same explanation as i did and say they mustn't always have been constant."
I don't make any claim that complex laws like conservation of energy or constants inherent to our universe (like the speed of light) are valid anywhere but here. All I claim is that complexity and probability are constant everywhere.
I hope all that is readable... I think this might be the most enjoyable debate I have had online to date.
squeakywaffle
Active member
One more thing... we are, like you said, at a stalemate with regard to what DID happen.
However, I think what we're arguing about here is what COULD have happened, and also maybe what "probably" did or didn't happen.
However, I think what we're arguing about here is what COULD have happened, and also maybe what "probably" did or didn't happen.