Existance Of Jesus (aka Christ) Core of Christianity

truefusion · December 9, 2008

1. It is the sign of atheists... together with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn is the symbol for atheists. [The Invisible Pink Unicorn] [The Flying Spaghetti Monster]

2. Nobody cannot disprove the existence of God for it's existance does not rely on proof. As such it cannot be proved or disproved, you can only do that when you have proof. In science the lack of evidence is a sign (I have to admit - not a conclusive proof) that you theory is false. Basically it has nothing to support it's claims. To make it clear why nobody can dismiss it I'll use something I've read in Dawkin's book... Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot! Bertrand Russell starts with the idea that in orbit of Mars there is a teapot. The teapot so small that no one can see it with any telescope. Since nobody can see it, nobody can prove it - and since nobody has anything that could possibly see it nobody can really disprove it. So what is there to do? Nothing... Nobody can do anything and although the idea is very absurd you can virtually believe in it because nobody can ever prove you wrong. What this does is to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions.

The first thing you have to do to become an atheist is to question. There is nothing above that! Question everything and everytime. For an atheist there is nothing revealed, but discovered, there is no belief, there is proof.

3. When I said live life to it's fullest I meant taking every opportunity, see as many places as possible, get as many experiences as possible, learn as much as possible and help as much as possible. Life means enjoying a baby's smile, it's innocence; life may also mean finding happiness in another persons happiness... it has nothing to do with religion. For religion, like it or not, did not create a better world, even when it was in power. Contrary to that - it brought misery and ignorance - it brought a Dark Age for science and knowledge.

And that is why I think we have to end religion as it is today. For it restricts knowledge. It gives answers for very BIG question. The theologists know all the answers - the scientist is a lot less proud. He knows but very little. Religion kills curiosity and curiosity is what drives progress. If we do not ask "Why?" we will forever be in a Dark Age. Knowledge and religion is like a light in a dark room. The light of knowledge drives darkness away...

And yes I imply that those who are in the "waiting room" cannot cannot be inclined to do their best in building up society. Because this world is only temporary. In the waiting room in the train station or in an airport, do you unpack? Do you feel at home? Doesn't the fact that you only stay for 30 minutes stop you from unpacking, stop from making yourself at home?

But it is nothing general. As they may be atheists committing crimes, so there may be religious people enjoying life and having a positive influence over the world.

4. As said in the beginning of the post... the burden of proof relies on those who make the claim. And besides there is no logic to God. Why is the Prime Mover the Prime Mover? What moved the Prime Mover? God has no logic... I can tell you what God is: The most easiest answer to maybe the most difficult question of them all! What you don't understand you place on God's shoulders. It is the answer to all questions. The is the Jolly Joker of all questions. Atheist take nothing for granted. We know very little, but we want to discover more. That is what brought the world out of the Dark Age.

[1] Yes, i know and have seen those already. But you missed some; the fish with legs and American Atheists, to name a couple.

[2] You say "nobody cannot disprove"—those are two negatives, meaning it is the equivalent of saying: "Anyone can prove the existence of God." This techniqually is enough to refute the remaining portion of number 2, as number 2 in its entirety basically runs off of that, but there are other things i would like to address. Firstly, if lack of evidence is enough to prove that a theory is unsupported and should be discarded (or dismissed), in which case you claim (or imply) that "God exists" is a theory, then "God does not exist" is also a theory, of which, by your own statement, shows that there is no proof for that theory. Therefore by your own statement we can dismiss the atheists' theory "God doesn't exist." Therefore making belief or disbelief in God or a god a matter of choice done out of faith and not reason or evidence. I'm not sure if you were alluding with the teapot analogy that belief in God (or in the analogy's case, the teapot) is absurd, but if you were, i have shown that both theories are equally "absurd." And since i have shown that belief and disbelief (at least for now) in God is a matter of choice in faith, that therefore refutes your ending statement for number 2 where you say that atheism is about evidence (or proof) and not belief.

But to add more to it, questioning doesn't automatically make you an atheist, it may make you a skeptic, but not an atheist, since if an atheist questions everything, they obviously don't, as they don't believe in God or gods—meaning their questioning reaches an end at some point, at least concerning gods.

[3] I'll accept your definition for living life to the fullest, but you haven't convinced me that it has nothing to do with religion, as your reasoning to show such doesn't show that religion is intrinsically evil. Religion is metaphysical, you can't grasp such a thing except within the mind. Therefore you cannot accuse religion of bringing ignorance and misery. Afterall, religion is a known source for wisdom and misery can only be caused by actions, not things metaphysical. What i find most interesting about your statement, however, is that you say religion restricts knowledge yet provides answers to big questions—answers that even science either has trouble answering or cannot answer whatsoever. That is self-contradicting. What makes things even more interesting and more self-contradicting is that the reason why it keeps us from progressing is because it has answered our "Why?" questions, yet you say that though that is the reason why it restricts us from gaining knowledge, we should get rid of those answers to the "Why?" questions and start asking "Why?" all over again. I can't help but react with a: Huh? That would mean when science fills those "Why?" questions, science would then be keeping us from progressing.

To continue this, you say if we don't ask "Why?" we would be in the dark age. Well, according to you, since we have already asked and have answered "Why?", we are no longer in the dark age, therefore we no longer have to worry about getting out of it. Therefore your entire argument goes down the drain, as it is completely unnecessary to even mention such a thing as if it were a problem we are dealing with today, when it has already been done away with thousands of years ago. Do you see how you contradict yourself?

Also, you say religion, as like many atheists, is the reason for evil. You know what i found ironic and slightly comical in a YouTube video concerning the "New Atheism in America"? I saw atheistic bumper stickers that all had statements that attempted to degrade or debunk believers (which many believers would find quite offensive), while one atheist stood next to it in front of the camera saying, "We are good people." The atheist was totally serious, but it seems he didn't notice the object he was standing next to. If you want, i can give you a link to the video.

But let me talk about what you mention about the waiting room; that is, the implication. You say that you mean to imply that those waiting in the waiting room cannot do their best in building up society. Yet, what do we see? Though we know this life is temporary, that there is something more after it, Christians are known to be the ones to be most helpful than any other religion. (This is probably due to how many believers we have. But nevertheless...) There are not only charities ran by Christian organizations, but also hospitals, etc. So, it does not follow that knowledge in a temporary first life leads to apathy for that first life.

[4] It seems we're back to the dark age again. Since i already refuted that, i'll address the rest. For one, you are correct that the one who makes the assertion bears the burden of proof, but i don't recall doing so in this topic. However, that is not to say that atheists are therefore left untouched by the burden of proof when they assert that God doesn't exist. Secondly, it does not follow that by making an illogical assertion, God therefore becomes illogical. That's called a strawman—they don't help anyone. For one, you speak a tautology when you say that the prime mover is the prime mover. Secondly, you imply that there must be a prime mover before the prime mover. You already know how illogical your statement is, so i don't have to tell you that; if you didn't, you wouldn't have used that to support any further statements. But why must there be something before God? If you're looking to prove that God has no logic, it would be better for you if your statements were logical, and didn't build up strawmen.

You are a very intelligent person Truefusion, however I imagine how intelligent you could be without this God and I'm going to say Crap for want of better word. But I respect you because unlike these other "enlightened Christians" you take the time to study it all. Even though you didn't come to the same conslusion as me.

Anyway I'll say no more on this argument, we are too just different people, when it comes to religion at least.

If you're right feel free to laugh at me in heaven, or hell if he really is a bastard to non-believers, you may need to make a tempory trip . If I'm right well, at least I didn't waste my life worshipping a false idol.

God has been very helpful concerning growing in complexity. Ever since i became a believer it has been a wild ride, no doubt. I'll admit i've learned a lot from atheists. Concerning God and intelligence, due to everything i've observed (though i find it a bit unfortunate in its own way), it seems logic can neither prove nor disprove God's or a god's existence. Since i don't want to be limited to this, i have a goal to create an ontological argument that would refute that observation. But concerning us and the afterlife, it is uncertain whether either of us will be in heaven or hell if the world will be judged, especially since there is plenty of time for you to accept the faith.

I would like to remain you that 6 months ago some guy from Russia convinced some neighbors that the end of the world was coming and for them to save themselves they should dig holes in the woods and get shelter there. Meanwhile he was taking refuge in a house where is was warm and dry. That story and other like it (also in Russia I think there was a postman or policeman who said he is Jesus and thousands and thousand came to see him) show how fragile the human mind is especially minds with little knowledge and reason.

Concerning your statement on human fragility with little knowledge or reason, i will agree. After all, Jesus himself said not to listen to anyone who talks about that the messiah is here and that it is the end of the world. If they have had this knowledge, they wouldn't have been convinced.

The same with Jesus... he may have been an ordinary men (with some kind of mental disorder)... It may also be possible that all his claims where invented (or at least exaggerated) later by the church to gain the power that finally did keeping the world in darkness of a thousand years. I fail to see what kind of God would stare while they did countless crimes in his name...

I don't think you can call a man with a mental disorder "ordinary." (I'll skip all the possibility statements; that is, those that ponder the possibility of an event being in a certain way, as what do they prove? Therefore that leaves me with the last statement.) Your last statement assumes God just watches or is impersonal or apathetic. For one, there are many missionaries out there inspired by God trying to convert people out of foolish mentalities. And two, even if those with some authority fall astray, that does not mean God won't do something about it—that is, they would not be able to avoid judgement; judgement can either be in this life or the afterlife. One thing to consider is that people tend to be "microwave people:" they want things done fast.

So I guess what you say is that something to complicated to answer you simply have to call in God. The easy answer to everything. NO! Nobody knows how the Universe was created, but maybe some day, just as we did with other discoveries, we will find out. And on that day people will find something even more complicated and blame it on God because their knowledge does not give them an answer. Just because we don't know (YET) it does not mean God is involved.

Just because we do know doesn't mean God isn't involved.

I've always found it interesting when unbelievers commit the fallacy naturalism of the gaps.

asdftheking · December 9, 2008

Kobra, when you say that the beginning of the universe should probably be something simple it forces me to plant this question: what mechanism or intelligence caused it to arrive to its current (seemingly unfathomable) complexity? It's a very simple question (there's that word "simple" again) but I urge you to investigate. Simple doesn't become complex and intelligent without a mechanism. So where did the mechanism come from? For me there's no way around it - something or Someone intelligent make this universe.

asdftheking · December 9, 2008

Simple research will show that accounts of Jesus Miracles are more numerous than many of the things we all believe about the Roman empire, the ceasars, and any such "fact" of that time period in history. As a matter of fact friend, there are really more evidences of Jesus' life, death and resurrection than there are of your or my existence! On the other hand, marriage with Mary Magdalene is awfully speculative if you're asking me. How many reliable evidences are there of it? I would contend that there are none. (And if there were, that's fine. God created marriage and participating in it is certainly not anything that would cause just to be any less God than He was.)

asdftheking · December 9, 2008

I find it to be a bit of a stretch to think that scholars from the orient came looking for a Messiah who happened to fill all Judaic prophecies against impossible odds and here comes the kicker: a king (namely "Herod") is so frightened by the young couples cover-up that he runs the risk of murdering all of the babies under two years of age in his realm? I think one would be better off either believing in Jesus and serving him with the heart, mind, and soul (Matt. 22:27) or not believing in anything, save maybe a spaghetti creature. There is no suitable middle ground. If you acknowledge that some of the facts of the Bible are true, how do you decide which facts you don't like? "Surely the ones that offend us or our beliefs about science must not be true."As a result of this immature atittude we have scientists running around with billions of taxpayer dollars doctoring data to prove their theories because they are afraid of someone in Whose existence they don't believe. If that doesn't sound like a contributing factor to the next "dark age" I don't know what is!

adriantc · December 9, 2008

You say "nobody cannot disprove"—those are two negatives, meaning it is the equivalent of saying: "Anyone can prove the existence of God." This techniqually is enough to refute the remaining portion of number 2, as number 2 in its entirety basically runs off of that, but there are other things i would like to address. Firstly, if lack of evidence is enough to prove that a theory is unsupported and should be discarded (or dismissed), in which case you claim (or imply) that "God exists" is a theory, then "God does not exist" is also a theory, of which, by your own statement, shows that there is no proof for that theory. Therefore by your own statement we can dismiss the atheists' theory "God doesn't exist." Therefore making belief or disbelief in God or a god a matter of choice done out of faith and not reason or evidence. I'm not sure if you were alluding with the teapot analogy that belief in God (or in the analogy's case, the teapot) is absurd, but if you were, i have shown that both theories are equally "absurd." And since i have shown that belief and disbelief (at least for now) in God is a matter of choice in faith, that therefore refutes your ending statement for number 2 where you say that atheism is about evidence (or proof) and not belief.

But to add more to it, questioning doesn't automatically make you an atheist, it may make you a skeptic, but not an atheist, since if an atheist questions everything, they obviously don't, as they don't believe in God or gods—meaning their questioning reaches an end at some point, at least concerning gods.

"nobody cannot disprove" != "Anyone can prove the existence of God"

It's simply logic. For example - when you have a car parked in front of you and you say: "nobody can disprove that this car is mine" it doesn't mean "Anyone can prove this car is mine!". What it does mean is that the statement cannot be confirmed or infirmed. Just because nobody knows the car is mine doesn't mean the car is mine. I say "nobody can disprove that he committed a crime" - it doesn't mean "Anyone can prove he committed a crime". I hope that makes it clear.

Both "God does exists" and "God does not exist!" are theories. One is almost impossible. The other is probable. Why is that. Because a theory becomes a fact when you have proof. Of course that is very subjective to what you consider enough proof. The first has little or no proof. Nobody has studied the bones of Jesus or studied his DNA. The religion we have is based on the Bible. And the Bible is just like any other book. What makes it interesting is the fact that millions believe in it. It does not give any proof - it only contains stories which may or may not be true. I can only wonder... What if instead of the Bible there would be Lord Of The Rings. Tolkien made a world very much alive... with a language and a grammar of it's own. What if people though Lord Of The Rings was true.

What I want to imply is that a theory becomes a reality when you have proof. I can say "The Earth is flat!" - it is a theory! But as long as I don't have proof it has 0 probability of being true and such it is considered false. Once you go up it becomes improbable, probable, very probable and (if there are tons of evidence) we can consider it true. By making "God exists" a theory you are sailing in shallow waters. Why? Because making it a theory subjects it to a scientific analysis - an analysis from you can't simply win (unless God shows up tomorrow in front of the White House).

The evolution theory (considered by most still a theory ONLY because it cannot be studied while it happens... that takes millions and millions of years) makes perfect sense logically and has tons of evidence. As much as the church wants to fit Darwin in the creationist picture it cannot. It must not be allowed. Darwin would have gone mad at such a proposal. He based his theory on evidence, on strict and rigorous observations. The church bases it's theory on a book and words said or unsaid (but surely distorted by the passing of time) of someone (Son of God or not). There is no way to compare creationism to evolution. One has hard proof - the other has nothing.

What I wanted to show with the teapot is that I am not in the position of proving you're not right. You have to prove that you are... You can make any claim but it's not my obligation to prove you are wrong. You (as the one who made the claim) have to prove you are right. Do you have any concrete evidence to support your claims?

To go further let's say I think God is a giant talking apple. I have just much proof as you do. What I don't have is millions and millions of followers. But am I right. Could you believe God is a giant talking apple. Of course not! You believe God is a bearded fellow just because you were trained to by society, by your parents - a process which has gone for generations. If your parents would have told you that God was a giant talking apple when you were little you would have taken it for granted and believed in it.

If you have time and you want to laugh I suggest reading this TRUE story http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/people-places/john.html. It will explain what Arthur C. Clarke wanted to say with: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

I'll accept your definition for living life to the fullest, but you haven't convinced me that it has nothing to do with religion, as your reasoning to show such doesn't show that religion is intrinsically evil. Religion is metaphysical, you can't grasp such a thing except within the mind. Therefore you cannot accuse religion of bringing ignorance and misery. Afterall, religion is a known source for wisdom and misery can only be caused by actions, not things metaphysical. What i find most interesting about your statement, however, is that you say religion restricts knowledge yet provides answers to big questions—answers that even science either has trouble answering or cannot answer whatsoever. That is self-contradicting. What makes things even more interesting and more self-contradicting is that the reason why it keeps us from progressing is because it has answered our "Why?" questions, yet you say that though that is the reason why it restricts us from gaining knowledge, we should get rid of those answers to the "Why?" questions and start asking "Why?" all over again. I can't help but react with a: Huh? That would mean when science fills those "Why?" questions, science would then be keeping us from progressing.

To continue this, you say if we don't ask "Why?" we would be in the dark age. Well, according to you, since we have already asked and have answered "Why?", we are no longer in the dark age, therefore we no longer have to worry about getting out of it. Therefore your entire argument goes down the drain, as it is completely unnecessary to even mention such a thing as if it were a problem we are dealing with today, when it has already been done away with thousands of years ago. Do you see how you contradict yourself?

Also, you say religion, as like many atheists, is the reason for evil. You know what i found ironic and slightly comical in a YouTube video concerning the "New Atheism in America"? I saw atheistic bumper stickers that all had statements that attempted to degrade or debunk believers (which many believers would find quite offensive), while one atheist stood next to it in front of the camera saying, "We are good people." The atheist was totally serious, but it seems he didn't notice the object he was standing next to. If you want, i can give you a link to the video.

But let me talk about what you mention about the waiting room; that is, the implication. You say that you mean to imply that those waiting in the waiting room cannot do their best in building up society. Yet, what do we see? Though we know this life is temporary, that there is something more after it, Christians are known to be the ones to be most helpful than any other religion. (This is probably due to how many believers we have. But nevertheless...) There are not only charities ran by Christian organizations, but also hospitals, etc. So, it does not follow that knowledge in a temporary first life leads to apathy for that first life.

It seems we're back to the dark age again. Since i already refuted that, i'll address the rest. For one, you are correct that the one who makes the assertion bears the burden of proof, but i don't recall doing so in this topic. However, that is not to say that atheists are therefore left untouched by the burden of proof when they assert that God doesn't exist. Secondly, it does not follow that by making an illogical assertion, God therefore becomes illogical. That's called a strawman—they don't help anyone. For one, you speak a tautology when you say that the prime mover is the prime mover. Secondly, you imply that there must be a prime mover before the prime mover. You already know how illogical your statement is, so i don't have to tell you that; if you didn't, you wouldn't have used that to support any further statements. But why must there be something before God? If you're looking to prove that God has no logic, it would be better for you if your statements were logical, and didn't build up strawmen.

What the prime mover of the prime mover is supposed to say is that it's only a matter of wish. You make it the prime mover! The theory of the prime mover suggests everything except the prime mover obeys laws. Only he - the prime mover DOES NOT! Isn't that really convenient. Why explain how life appeared when you can simply say God created it and be done with it! Why explain how the Universe was created when you can blame it on the prime mover and be done with it! In that sense it restricts knowledge because it does not arouse our curiosity!

And we are definitely in the Dark Ages. If we were I would have been burn on stake for such abominations... If we were in the Dark Ages the Earth would be the center of the universe. If we were on the Dark Ages the way to help someone ill would be to hope for the best. Reason brings us knowledge. God did not give us medicine or a space suite or a computer. God did not dictate planes for those in his Bible. Men finally understood that he knows nothing and he that he should stop waiting from them to fall from the sky. So he built them all! With his own bare hands and discovered knowledge.

And religion DOES NOT answer any big "why?" questions! It has ready made answers. Please tell me the answer to: "Why is there life?"... You'll say "Because God created it in the x day!". That is an answer. It is just as good as an answer as any. Because is does not have proof. It is just a series of meaningless words as long as it doesn't have facts...

About the waiting room topic. I remaind you that over 90% of the scientist (the kind of people that truly contribute to society) are atheist. I sure haven't heard so much about the theologists. Whats the point in finding out where life came from if you already know the answer... The ones that contribute the most to society are the ones that understand how important it is. Why take medicines when you know there is a better life in heaven? With this kind of thinking medicine would never cure even a toothache. People how believe in this life and not the other will discover things to prolong life, to make it easier, more interesting, more fun. BECAUSE THEY NEED IT. The others don't - because there is a better life just around the corner! You know I am right; you are simply not ready to face that possibility.

PS: My post's quote:

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

Edited December 9, 2008 by adriantc (see edit history)

kobra500 · December 9, 2008

Someone questioned the universe growing more complex, Well yes but not by chance, but by physics and evolution. there would have been a whole lot of dark, some rock maybe and gases etc at the beggining, Star were created there gavity attracted rock, bash bash bash planets, then elements were formed whatever etc, thats the very basic gist of it, Evolution exists, anyway you do God no justice, are you saying god could not of created evolution or is that beyond his reach.

Existance Of Jesus (aka Christ)

back to the question, did Jesus exist: possibly. Was he the son of god, god himself or any of that rubbish. No.

Should we dislike him for bring us christianity: No it would probably spawn someother crappy religion

Do I feel the world would be a MUCH better place without it ... yes.

If someone gave me a mystical button which would remove (not kill the religious) ideas from the world would i press it?.. you'd better believe it.
Edited December 9, 2008 by kobra500 (see edit history)

adriantc · December 9, 2008

I like to ask you, truefusion, if there is a God and his teachings are universal why does the church fear(ed) science. If there is a God and they are sure of it then science can only prove it's existence and such improve the authority of the church. So why did the church block science and reason systematically for a thousand year if they knew all they where going to do is prove what the church said. Doesn't it make you think they fear science because they know ultimately it will unravel the biggest hoax of all time?And why if God is all knowing didn't he put more specific things into the Bible. Something above the knowledge of the time. Why didn't he say anything about the Sun or the planets or the universe. Something to show that he is indeed all powerful. Why is the Bible so general? Is it because it's made up?

Edited December 9, 2008 by adriantc (see edit history)

kobra500 · December 9, 2008

Adriantc makes a good point, the Bible is taken from lots of different books, it's an anthology if you will, its not written or scribed by "God" its written by people, homophobic, racist, and stupid people apparently, in favor of Capital Punishment by stoning for crimes that hardly hurt anyone, usually no one.Todays people are more moral that the bible, the bible is as moral as a fur coat.

Edited December 9, 2008 by kobra500 (see edit history)

truefusion · December 9, 2008

1. "nobody cannot disprove" != "Anyone can prove the existence of God"

It's simply logic. For example - when you have a car parked in front of you and you say: "nobody can disprove that this car is mine" it doesn't mean "Anyone can prove this car is mine!". What it does mean is that the statement cannot be confirmed or infirmed. Just because nobody knows the car is mine doesn't mean the car is mine. I say "nobody can disprove that he committed a crime" - it doesn't mean "Anyone can prove he committed a crime". I hope that makes it clear.

2. Both "God does exists" and "God does not exist!" are theories. One is almost impossible. The other is probable. Why is that. Because a theory becomes a fact when you have proof. Of course that is very subjective to what you consider enough proof. The first has little or no proof. Nobody has studied the bones of Jesus or studied his DNA. The religion we have is based on the Bible. And the Bible is just like any other book. What makes it interesting is the fact that millions believe in it. It does not give any proof - it only contains stories which may or may not be true. I can only wonder... What if instead of the Bible there would be Lord Of The Rings. Tolkien made a world very much alive... with a language and a grammar of it's own. What if people though Lord Of The Rings was true.

3.What I want to imply is that a theory becomes a reality when you have proof. I can say "The Earth is flat!" - it is a theory! But as long as I don't have proof it has 0 probability of being true and such it is considered false. Once you go up it becomes improbable, probable, very probable and (if there are tons of evidence) we can consider it true. By making "God exists" a theory you are sailing in shallow waters. Why? Because making it a theory subjects it to a scientific analysis - an analysis from you can't simply win (unless God shows up tomorrow in front of the White House).

4.The evolution theory (considered by most still a theory ONLY because it cannot be studied while it happens... that takes millions and millions of years) makes perfect sense logically and has tons of evidence. As much as the church wants to fit Darwin in the creationist picture it cannot. It must not be allowed. Darwin would have gone mad at such a proposal. He based his theory on evidence, on strict and rigorous observations. The church bases it's theory on a book and words said or unsaid (but surely distorted by the passing of time) of someone (Son of God or not). There is no way to compare creationism to evolution. One has hard proof - the other has nothing.

5.What I wanted to show with the teapot is that I am not in the position of proving you're not right. You have to prove that you are... You can make any claim but it's not my obligation to prove you are wrong. You (as the one who made the claim) have to prove you are right. Do you have any concrete evidence to support your claims?

6.To go further let's say I think God is a giant talking apple. I have just much proof as you do. What I don't have is millions and millions of followers. But am I right. Could you believe God is a giant talking apple. Of course not! You believe God is a bearded fellow just because you were trained to by society, by your parents - a process which has gone for generations. If your parents would have told you that God was a giant talking apple when you were little you would have taken it for granted and believed in it.

7.If you have time and you want to laugh I suggest reading this TRUE story http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/people-places/john.html. It will explain what Arthur C. Clarke wanted to say with: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

8.What the prime mover of the prime mover is supposed to say is that it's only a matter of wish. You make it the prime mover! The theory of the prime mover suggests everything except the prime mover obeys laws. Only he - the prime mover DOES NOT! Isn't that really convenient. Why explain how life appeared when you can simply say God created it and be done with it! Why explain how the Universe was created when you can blame it on the prime mover and be done with it! In that sense it restricts knowledge because it does not arouse our curiosity!

9.And we are definitely in the Dark Ages. If we were I would have been burn on stake for such abominations... If we were in the Dark Ages the Earth would be the center of the universe. If we were on the Dark Ages the way to help someone ill would be to hope for the best. Reason brings us knowledge. God did not give us medicine or a space suite or a computer. God did not dictate planes for those in his Bible. Men finally understood that he knows nothing and he that he should stop waiting from them to fall from the sky. So he built them all! With his own bare hands and discovered knowledge.

10.And religion DOES NOT answer any big "why?" questions! It has ready made answers. Please tell me the answer to: "Why is there life?"... You'll say "Because God created it in the x day!". That is an answer. It is just as good as an answer as any. Because is does not have proof. It is just a series of meaningless words as long as it doesn't have facts...

11.About the waiting room topic. I remaind you that over 90% of the scientist (the kind of people that truly contribute to society) are atheist. I sure haven't heard so much about the theologists. Whats the point in finding out where life came from if you already know the answer... The ones that contribute the most to society are the ones that understand how important it is. Why take medicines when you know there is a better life in heaven? With this kind of thinking medicine would never cure even a toothache. People how believe in this life and not the other will discover things to prolong life, to make it easier, more interesting, more fun. BECAUSE THEY NEED IT. The others don't - because there is a better life just around the corner! You know I am right; you are simply not ready to face that possibility.

12.PS: My post's quote:

[1] I'll accept that. However, i also want to emphasis how you correct yourself in your own examples: If you will examine all the examples following it, you see that you do not use "nobody cannot disprove" but rather "nobody can disprove."

[2] Almost impossible, i would say, is the same as probable, as it's not necessarily impossible. However, here you are giving the impression that by proving another theory that doesn't mention God, you can disprove one that does. In this case, you seem to be alluding to theories that give no meaning to life. However, the same can be said for theories that mention God—that is, by proving a theory that doesn't mention God, you can prove a theory that does. In this case, i could allude to the Big Bang Theory. The irony is that evolutionists tend to use the Big Bang Theory too.

Concerning Jesus's bones, i would say it is impossible to examine a being who is no longer on earth. So that would explain why no one has been able to examine Jesus.

Concerning what you say about the Bible, that it contains stories without evidence, stories that are probable: I fail to see the difference concerning history books in schools, as far as evidence and probability is concerned.

[3] You keep implying that your theory has proof, but have not shown any. As far as i am concerned, your theory is still equal to mine in probability. Faith is merely being used as a tool to avoid providing evidence.

[4] I've only seen the Catholic chruch try to bring in Darwin into religion. But i agree with you: they shouldn't. However, i am glad you brought up Darwin's theory. I will state something that may surprise you: i believe in a change on a macro level. But don't let that go to your head. I do not believe in what Darwin's theory says about that change: that those changes can be beneficial. And remember what i said about that atheists are not protected against the burden of proof? You say there is plenty of proof, reasoning, etc, for Darwin's theory—but that's all you do, you say there is. You know what i find interesting? I have yet to see any change on a micro level that yielded to a change on a macro level that is beneficial. This is the reason why i believe Darwin's theory is still a theory, not that it has yet to be seen—for we've seen plenty of changes on a micro level that has shown itself on a macro level that were not beneficial in any way. If you can show me that a change on a micro level can create a change on a macro level that is beneficial to the organism, then you would be doing the scientific community a favor.

[5] What is interesting about this part is that you are asking for concrete evidence from me, while you keep avoiding showing evidence for all the statements you've made. Atheists aren't protected against the burden of proof; you may not like that fact, but there's nothing that can be done about it.

[6] The bearded fellow is illogical; i don't believe in it. God is immortal, why should He grow old? Why would He want to even appear old? I could never understand why people can even believe that God has a beard or ages. The reason why i don't believe that God is a giant apple is because the idea of an apple comes from creation, from life itself. God is said to have caused all matter into existence. How is it logical to even believe that He created Himself?

[7] I skimmed through the first page, as i'm not going to read all the pages. You are a person of evidence, right? When you do something that gives you the evidence for something that you didn't have proof for, you start to believe. I would say it's a bit demeaning on your side by implying that those who are limited are simple or foolish, and in turn should be looked down upon for it. As far as i'm concerned, though they believed in supernatural things, they were still acting rational concerning the rich person with the evidence provided.

[8] It is only logical to say that He is the prime mover. It is only logical to say that He is not bound to the laws He created. However, He still sets up standards for Himself which many have been given to the Jews. It's in the Old Testament. If you're going to deny this part, then keep in mind that you also need to deny my statement about history books. Second of all, belief in God causing all matter into existence does not limit knowledge. We don't have to ask "Why?" in order to know how. The Bible does not go into great detail as to how God caused things into existence. This is more than enough to cause curiousity in those who want to know how God did it. So this in no way limits knowledge concerning the universe.

[9] Since you contradict yourself concerning the Dark ages, i'll skip that. And since the burden of proof is on you to prove that God did not create matter, or did not provide us with a mind to manipulate matter to our own advantage, and that man made God up, i'll skip that too. If you have any more assertions, please provide them.

[10] Since you contradict yourself here by saying that religion does not provide answers to the big questions, while at the same time mention that they do, i'll skip this part also. Oh, and before i do, i noticed you make another assertion that needs proving.

[11] You can remind me all you want, but you have to notice that's another assertion that needs proof. Also, the reason why you didn't hear much from theologists is probably because: 1. it's not their field and 2. you could have just stuck to the scientists that are atheists alone—i mean, you do live in the U.K., no? Also, concerning how many polls say how many atheists there are in the world, there must not be a lot of scientists then. Concerning doctors and medicine, even the Bible makes references to doctors. Even Jesus is caught saying that the sick need doctors. By the way, did i face it well?

Someone questioned the universe growing more complex, Well yes but not by chance, but by physics and evolution. there would have been a whole lot of dark, some rock maybe and gases etc at the beggining, Star were created there gavity attracted rock, bash bash bash planets, then elements were formed whatever etc, thats the very basic gist of it, Evolution exists, anyway you do God no justice, are you saying god could not of created evolution or is that beyond his reach.

back to the question, did Jesus exist: possibly. Was he the son of god, god himself or any of that rubbish. No.

I like the "bash bash bash" part.

But concerning evolution, He could have caused evolution. But, then, it is how we define that word. It's not beyond His reach, but that doesn't mean it's the only method of bringing matter into existence. But i've been telling adriantc a lot that atheists aren't protected by the burden of proof. If you admit a lot of what you said was said out of faith, then i won't call you up on it, too.

I like to ask you, truefusion, if there is a God and his teachings are universal why does the church fear(ed) science. If there is a God and they are sure of it then science can only prove it's existence and such improve the authority of the church. So why did the church block science and reason systematically for a thousand year if they knew all they where going to do is prove what the church said. Doesn't it make you think they fear science because they know ultimately it will unravel the biggest hoax of all time?

And why if God is all knowing didn't he put more specific things into the Bible. Something above the knowledge of the time. Why didn't he say anything about the Sun or the planets or the universe. Something to show that he is indeed all powerful. Why is the Bible so general? Is it because it's made up?

I'ma assume you mean the Catholic church again—i notice that atheists like to strike them the most, especially those from the U.K. I don't know why they did. However, that's assuming they even did in the first place. Could you show me that they did?

Concerning on why God didn't put more information in the Bible concerning life itself: i've already addressed this in the other topic you've posted in, where i responded to kobra500. The other topic was the one about scientific facts in the Bible. You can go look it up if you want.

adriantc · December 11, 2008

[1] I'll accept that. However, i also want to emphasis how you correct yourself in your own examples: If you will examine all the examples following it, you see that you do not use "nobody cannot disprove" but rather "nobody can disprove."

[2] Almost impossible, i would say, is the same as probable, as it's not necessarily impossible. However, here you are giving the impression that by proving another theory that doesn't mention God, you can disprove one that does. In this case, you seem to be alluding to theories that give no meaning to life. However, the same can be said for theories that mention God—that is, by proving a theory that doesn't mention God, you can prove a theory that does. In this case, i could allude to the Big Bang Theory. The irony is that evolutionists tend to use the Big Bang Theory too.

Concerning Jesus's bones, i would say it is impossible to examine a being who is no longer on earth. So that would explain why no one has been able to examine Jesus.

Concerning what you say about the Bible, that it contains stories without evidence, stories that are probable: I fail to see the difference concerning history books in schools, as far as evidence and probability is concerned.

[3] You keep implying that your theory has proof, but have not shown any. As far as i am concerned, your theory is still equal to mine in probability. Faith is merely being used as a tool to avoid providing evidence.

[4] I've only seen the Catholic chruch try to bring in Darwin into religion. But i agree with you: they shouldn't. However, i am glad you brought up Darwin's theory. I will state something that may surprise you: i believe in a change on a macro level. But don't let that go to your head. I do not believe in what Darwin's theory says about that change: that those changes can be beneficial. And remember what i said about that atheists are not protected against the burden of proof? You say there is plenty of proof, reasoning, etc, for Darwin's theory—but that's all you do, you say there is. You know what i find interesting? I have yet to see any change on a micro level that yielded to a change on a macro level that is beneficial. This is the reason why i believe Darwin's theory is still a theory, not that it has yet to be seen—for we've seen plenty of changes on a micro level that has shown itself on a macro level that were not beneficial in any way. If you can show me that a change on a micro level can create a change on a macro level that is beneficial to the organism, then you would be doing the scientific community a favor.

[5] What is interesting about this part is that you are asking for concrete evidence from me, while you keep avoiding showing evidence for all the statements you've made. Atheists aren't protected against the burden of proof; you may not like that fact, but there's nothing that can be done about it.

[6] The bearded fellow is illogical; i don't believe in it. God is immortal, why should He grow old? Why would He want to even appear old? I could never understand why people can even believe that God has a beard or ages. The reason why i don't believe that God is a giant apple is because the idea of an apple comes from creation, from life itself. God is said to have caused all matter into existence. How is it logical to even believe that He created Himself?

[7] I skimmed through the first page, as i'm not going to read all the pages. You are a person of evidence, right? When you do something that gives you the evidence for something that you didn't have proof for, you start to believe. I would say it's a bit demeaning on your side by implying that those who are limited are simple or foolish, and in turn should be looked down upon for it. As far as i'm concerned, though they believed in supernatural things, they were still acting rational concerning the rich person with the evidence provided.

[8] It is only logical to say that He is the prime mover. It is only logical to say that He is not bound to the laws He created. However, He still sets up standards for Himself which many have been given to the Jews. It's in the Old Testament. If you're going to deny this part, then keep in mind that you also need to deny my statement about history books. Second of all, belief in God causing all matter into existence does not limit knowledge. We don't have to ask "Why?" in order to know how. The Bible does not go into great detail as to how God caused things into existence. This is more than enough to cause curiousity in those who want to know how God did it. So this in no way limits knowledge concerning the universe.

[9] Since you contradict yourself concerning the Dark ages, i'll skip that. And since the burden of proof is on you to prove that God did not create matter, or did not provide us with a mind to manipulate matter to our own advantage, and that man made God up, i'll skip that too. If you have any more assertions, please provide them.

[10] Since you contradict yourself here by saying that religion does not provide answers to the big questions, while at the same time mention that they do, i'll skip this part also. Oh, and before i do, i noticed you make another assertion that needs proving.

[11] You can remind me all you want, but you have to notice that's another assertion that needs proof. Also, the reason why you didn't hear much from theologists is probably because: 1. it's not their field and 2. you could have just stuck to the scientists that are atheists alone—i mean, you do live in the U.K., no? Also, concerning how many polls say how many atheists there are in the world, there must not be a lot of scientists then. Concerning doctors and medicine, even the Bible makes references to doctors. Even Jesus is caught saying that the sick need doctors. By the way, did i face it well?

I like the "bash bash bash" part. But concerning evolution, He could have caused evolution. But, then, it is how we define that word. It's not beyond His reach, but that doesn't mean it's the only method of bringing matter into existence. But i've been telling adriantc a lot that atheists aren't protected by the burden of proof. If you admit a lot of what you said was said out of faith, then i won't call you up on it, too.

I'ma assume you mean the Catholic church again—i notice that atheists like to strike them the most, especially those from the U.K. I don't know why they did. However, that's assuming they even did in the first place. Could you show me that they did?

Concerning on why God didn't put more information in the Bible concerning life itself: i've already addressed this in the other topic you've posted in, where i responded to kobra500. The other topic was the one about scientific facts in the Bible. You can go look it up if you want.

[2]. I can do that. It's not like the example I gave you. God exists or not is a 0 or 1 possibility. There is no middle or both combination. It's enough to prove one and you automatically reject the second. It's that easy. If it's not 0 then it's 1. If it's not 1 then it's 0.

You, Christians and theologists alike, are very egocentric. Everything is about us. The Earth was created for us, the Universe was created for us. Everything revolves around us. The truth is that we are insignificant in the scheme of the Universe - our life is but a 100000000000000000th of a second from that of the Universe. Our little planet is but a grain on a beach covered with sand. Chances are the Universe is full of life. You don't want to see that we are not so special - our being is merely the result of a combination of factors. There is nothing special about it. Either we deal with that or we continue to fool ourselves that we are God's pets. I can only wonder what the church will say if one day we will discover life (not necessary intelligent) on other planets? I'm sure that they will start to decode the Bible once more to discover where God created the others.

There may have been a Big Bang or one is a long series of Big Bangs... One that has no beginning and no end. That's another thing theologies find hard to believe. Something endless... infinite! There has to be a beginning and an end. There has to be limits! False! Simply because our minds cannot imagine such a timeline it doesn't mean it's not. Try to picture and infinite Universe... It's really hard for our minds cannot grasp the idea of infinite. Just like we cannot imagine an object in more dimensions then 3 (or 4 if you put time) we cannot imagine infinite. We know the concept, but we cannot put it to practice. It does not mean it's not possible.

It's it convenient that there are no remains to be studied... There is a monster in my room, but no one can see it! Isn't that so convenient...

And we all know who accurate history books are... If Hitler would have won the 2nd World War he would have been a Messiah by now. History is written to serve the one in control. Just like the Bible was written to serve those who needed power... the church.

But what kind of God would let people starve to death, what kind of God would let innocent people die in wars and natural disasters. What if I start playing God... I want take care of my fish or my turtles... Let them take care of themselves. Would you find me a good God once they start dieing from hunger or dirty water? If there is a God he sure doesn't give a dime for a civilization so meaningless in an infinite Universe. Any conceivable pseudo-God only set the things in motion, but he does not care about the outcome. And sure a power cannot be called God, but a mere law or force...

[3], [4] & [5]. Evolution is one proof. In fact it is the cornerstone of the atheist movement since it proves creationism is wrong (the cornerstone of the God theory).

You are so wrong about the micro and macro levels. You have not understood what Darwin said. Let me make it clear for you. The evolution theory DOES NOT state that changes (any, on any level) are beneficial. NO CHANGES (ON ANY LEVEL) ARE BENEFICIAL. THEY ARE ONLY CHANGES Changes (also called mutations) happen pretty often (on a million year timescale). Some are useful, others are not. That is where natural selection comes in. If a specific mutation is good it will help the individual with the mutation have offspring and thus sending it's genes into the future generations. Another individual with a mutation that does not help him (or even proves to be a disadvantage) dies young or does not have offspring; so his gene does not go on. So on a large timescale only those mutations that help the individual survive go on and improve the species. In other words - there are no beneficial mutation. It becomes beneficial when it helps the individual and the species survive.

It's easy, logical, but hard to accept since it's does not require someone polling the strings...

And while we are here how come you don't have human fossils dating 100 million years ago? If only one would be found and confirmed Darwin would be useless. And even though there are thousands trying (hoping) to find it they didn't. There is no CONCRETE evidence to show we all were created in the same timeframe... On the other side there is tons of evidence, not philosophy, that shows that everything that lives today gradually became what it is. It didn't happen over night...

[6] & [8]. I still have to ask you. Who created God? You can't simply say... "Hey, stop! This is the creator" when you find it convenient. I think the existence of God is a psychological issue. Some people refuse to believe that there is no one helping them or st least watching them. Some people need to believe it on order to keep there hopes up. A person with a strong mind does not need God to help him get better when sick, it needs doctors.

[7]. I don't believe in signs or supernatural things. I don't believe 13 is unlucky or that a black cat crossing the street influences my luck. In fact here is NO LUCK there is only mathematical probability. There are chances and coincidences. There is no luck or bad luck. We find all things around us because we mentally need it to be there. Something turns out right and we find a lucky charm. It's all in our mind. 99% of them. There are some things that we call supernatural that are simply natural things, unexplained yet. I have to remained you the quote: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

[10]. Where do I contradict myself? People burning on stakes, the plague, science as heresy, endless religions wars, etc. etc. Was that a Golden Age? An age of prosperity? Maybe the fact that (at least) 1 in 3 people died in Europe because of misery and lack of medicine can be called a Golden Age. Maybe the fact that only theologies (those in control) knew to read and write makes it a Great Age for mankind. I simply cannot understand how you can say it wasn't? For then 10th time I have to tell you - humanity lost a millennium (1000 years) of it's time because it put religion in front of reason, because it put faith in front of proof, because it put the Bible in front of the science book. Because only on his death bed Galileo could say "E pur si muove"! 1000 years lost because of blind belief. I can only imagine where we would be now...

[11] I find it funny that someone that just risen from the dead recommended doctors to sick people. Why can't he just make a miracle and cure us all. And while he does that why doesn't he gives food to those who die daily of hunger. Why doesn't he save people in earthquakes and tsunamis? Because there is no God. Frightening as it may be... we have to take care of ourselves.

To show you I have a religion I shall quote someone:

My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.

Edited December 11, 2008 by adriantc (see edit history)

truefusion · December 13, 2008

1.[2] I can do that. It's not like the example I gave you. God exists or not is a 0 or 1 possibility. There is no middle or both combination. It's enough to prove one and you automatically reject the second. It's that easy. If it's not 0 then it's 1. If it's not 1 then it's 0.

2. You, Christians and theologists alike, are very egocentric. Everything is about us. The Earth was created for us, the Universe was created for us. Everything revolves around us. The truth is that we are insignificant in the scheme of the Universe - our life is but a 100000000000000000th of a second from that of the Universe. Our little planet is but a grain on a beach covered with sand. Chances are the Universe is full of life. You don't want to see that we are not so special - our being is merely the result of a combination of factors. There is nothing special about it. Either we deal with that or we continue to fool ourselves that we are God's pets. I can only wonder what the church will say if one day we will discover life (not necessary intelligent) on other planets? I'm sure that they will start to decode the Bible once more to discover where God created the others.

3. There may have been a Big Bang or one is a long series of Big Bangs... One that has no beginning and no end. That's another thing theologies find hard to believe. Something endless... infinite! There has to be a beginning and an end. There has to be limits! False! Simply because our minds cannot imagine such a timeline it doesn't mean it's not. Try to picture and infinite Universe... It's really hard for our minds cannot grasp the idea of infinite. Just like we cannot imagine an object in more dimensions then 3 (or 4 if you put time) we cannot imagine infinite. We know the concept, but we cannot put it to practice. It does not mean it's not possible.

It's it convenient that there are no remains to be studied... There is a monster in my room, but no one can see it! Isn't that so convenient...

And we all know who accurate history books are... If Hitler would have won the 2nd World War he would have been a Messiah by now. History is written to serve the one in control. Just like the Bible was written to serve those who needed power... the church.

4. But what kind of God would let people starve to death, what kind of God would let innocent people die in wars and natural disasters. What if I start playing God... I want take care of my fish or my turtles... Let them take care of themselves. Would you find me a good God once they start dieing from hunger or dirty water? If there is a God he sure doesn't give a dime for a civilization so meaningless in an infinite Universe. Any conceivable pseudo-God only set the things in motion, but he does not care about the outcome. And sure a power cannot be called God, but a mere law or force...

5. [3], [4] & [5]. Evolution is one proof. In fact it is the cornerstone of the atheist movement since it proves creationism is wrong (the cornerstone of the God theory).

6. You are so wrong about the micro and macro levels. You have not understood what Darwin said. Let me make it clear for you. The evolution theory DOES NOT state that changes (any, on any level) are beneficial. NO CHANGES (ON ANY LEVEL) ARE BENEFICIAL. THEY ARE ONLY CHANGES Changes (also called mutations) happen pretty often (on a million year timescale). Some are useful, others are not. That is where natural selection comes in. If a specific mutation is good it will help the individual with the mutation have offspring and thus sending it's genes into the future generations. Another individual with a mutation that does not help him (or even proves to be a disadvantage) dies young or does not have offspring; so his gene does not go on. So on a large timescale only those mutations that help the individual survive go on and improve the species. In other words - there are no beneficial mutation. It becomes beneficial when it helps the individual and the species survive.

It's easy, logical, but hard to accept since it's does not require someone polling the strings...

7. And while we are here how come you don't have human fossils dating 100 million years ago? If only one would be found and confirmed Darwin would be useless. And even though there are thousands trying (hoping) to find it they didn't. There is no CONCRETE evidence to show we all were created in the same timeframe... On the other side there is tons of evidence, not philosophy, that shows that everything that lives today gradually became what it is. It didn't happen over night...

8. [6] & [8]. I still have to ask you. Who created God? You can't simply say... "Hey, stop! This is the creator" when you find it convenient. I think the existence of God is a psychological issue. Some people refuse to believe that there is no one helping them or st least watching them. Some people need to believe it on order to keep there hopes up. A person with a strong mind does not need God to help him get better when sick, it needs doctors.

9. [7]. I don't believe in signs or supernatural things. I don't believe 13 is unlucky or that a black cat crossing the street influences my luck. In fact here is NO LUCK there is only mathematical probability. There are chances and coincidences. There is no luck or bad luck. We find all things around us because we mentally need it to be there. Something turns out right and we find a lucky charm. It's all in our mind. 99% of them. There are some things that we call supernatural that are simply natural things, unexplained yet. I have to remained you the quote: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

[10]. Where do I contradict myself? People burning on stakes, the plague, science as heresy, endless religions wars, etc. etc. Was that a Golden Age? An age of prosperity? Maybe the fact that (at least) 1 in 3 people died in Europe because of misery and lack of medicine can be called a Golden Age. Maybe the fact that only theologies (those in control) knew to read and write makes it a Great Age for mankind. I simply cannot understand how you can say it wasn't? For then 10th time I have to tell you - humanity lost a millennium (1000 years) of it's time because it put religion in front of reason, because it put faith in front of proof, because it put the Bible in front of the science book. Because only on his death bed Galileo could say "E pur si muove"! 1000 years lost because of blind belief. I can only imagine where we would be now...

[11] I find it funny that someone that just risen from the dead recommended doctors to sick people. Why can't he just make a miracle and cure us all. And while he does that why doesn't he gives food to those who die daily of hunger. Why doesn't he save people in earthquakes and tsunamis? Because there is no God. Frightening as it may be... we have to take care of ourselves.

To show you I have a religion I shall quote someone:

[1] You address my number two here, but i don't see where i requested in my number two to prove the inexistence of God. Regardless, if you're trying to do so there, then you didn't really prove anything, as you didn't do away with the middle. The middle doesn't need to be a mixture of the two, it is just merely the undecided. They are undecided because nothing has given way for either in this ontological dilemma.

[2] What did i do to show egotism? Even though i didn't say everything is about us, i don't see the difference between humanists, then, or other individuals who seek to benefit society or other individuals. Yet, if we are insignificant, why should we care about any of us? I don't think it matters how big the universe is; if you haven't noticed, Christianity is about denying yourself, admitting that you are not perfect, and that you require a savior. I fail to see the egotism in that. Also, life outside the earth is not in contradiction of Biblical knowledge or scripture. After all, what are angels? And what is God? Also, Genesis, nor the rest of the Bible, from my knowledge, doesn't do away with life outside the earth. Probably due to the reasons i gave, about angels and God. It would be self-contradictory if it denied life outside of earth. The church won't have any problem accepting life outside the earth, 'cause it already does. Therefore, there would be no need to "decode the Bible again."

[3] Where did you get the idea that theologians, at least the Christian ones, can't accept something infinite? Last i checked, the afterlife is infinite in time; that many accept God as infinite. I have no trouble picturing an infinite universe. Only science seems to have that trouble, in that is says the universe is either constantly expanding or is already contracting. How can something infinite expand or contract? Therefore, in order to even make sense of that, you'd have to play around with the definition of the universe until it makes sense.

Concerning the monster, i wouldn't say it's necessarily convenient for the one who yells, "Monster!"

Concerning your statement about history books, what was the purpose of that statement? If to deny or prove against something, then you'll have to try again.

[4] There are two ways to feed a person: spiritually and physically. God provides for both. He set up the plants and animals as a source of food. It is also written that God doesn't let His faithful ones go hungry. You say innocent people. I suppose that is due to your faith that there is no God—where there is no God, everything is permissible, no? When a being is omniscient, who would be able to hide their evil deeds? Can you objectively prove that Christians, when they go out to feed the hungry, give toys to poor children, build missionary hospitals, etc, aren't inspired by God to do so? After all, it is their faith that moves them.

[5] I wouldn't necessarily say it proves it false.

[6] You seem to be prone to statements that say one thing is not something, only to go on to say that it is. If you read the Origin of Species, chapter 4, it explains everything of what Darwin thought about beneficial and non-beneficial change and about natural selection. (The book is within the public domain.) Darwin's explanation is a bit interesting in that it talks about mother nature, which is paganistic in its speech. I find it interesting that a person who argues from naturalism would even include metaphysical things like natural selection into their description. He basically explains just how random the universe is, where out of pure misfortune, you can die just because mother nature made a mistake in selecting the proper mutation for you. I'll pick intelligent design over that any day. But to add to this, on GodTube, i saw a debate once—two atheists versus two christians. One of the atheists asked one of the christians, "How can you walk a mile without taking one step at a time?" This is basically similar to what you said but in the form of a question. But my question to you is: How can you walk a mile without anyone bearing witness of it—not even your own kind (after all, animals have their own societies too, so to speak)?

[7] Why limit living fossils to humans? Yes, that's what you're asking for: living fossils. There are plenty of living fossils today. The quote of Darwin on that Wikipedia article isn't sufficient enough for me to explain why these living organisms didn't evolve even in the slightest, for Darwin says that they were still exposed to competition, even if it is by a small amount, and because not all those living fossils, if any, came from fresh water.

[8] It is only convenient 'cause it is logical and in my favor. I don't see how, logically, a creator can have a creator. That would make the created a false creator, bringing it down to our level. So then we are left with the one who created. If you ask, "Who created that one then?" and continue down that path, then you must admit that there is no endless line of creators, due to it being illogical, therefore the only remaining and logical solution is: the creator was not created. Earlier in your post you talked about things infinite, saying that it is false to assume that all things are limited. Therefore God is unlimited, in that He is eternal, never having a beginning, nor ever coming to an end. Atheists tend to ask, if you can consider God to be infinite, why not the universe? Though the answer is obvious from our faith, i shall ask you: If you can consider the universe infinite, why not God? The answer to that is as obvious as the answer to the question i said atheists tend to ask: it is because you believe God doesn't exist. You not believing does not mean others should follow in your steps and that because you don't believe, everything concerning God is illogical.

To add to this, even if people refuse to believe, or even if people believe for security reasons, it does not follow that God therefore does not exist.

[9] You don't have to believe in those things, but that doesn't make those people irrational when they receive evidence for their actions. Rather than trying to prove something with your quotes, why not realize the evil that that John person committed by taking advantage of those people on some level, by placing himself up as if he were a god. Rather than just being helpful without being egotistic, he goes on to tell those people to pray to him if they want him to bring them stuff. In the end of your post you try to prove that you have a religion, which concerns doing good. How is it good to allow or accept non-sense like the kind committed by that John person all because you don't believe in the supernatural? Also, it's "remind," not "remained."

Concerning the rest of what i mark as number 9, an explanation from a naturalist's perspective doesn't necessarily do away with the supernatural. It does not follow that because there is a natural explanation to things that there was no supernatural being behind it all.

[10] I already mentioned how you contradicted yourself; i don't have to repeat myself. But how did you manage to pull off everything after that first question from my number 10 in my previous post? You talked about how religion doesn't answer the big why-questions (even though you ended up concluding that they do regardless). So how did you manage to dive into all that other stuff? Those have nothing to do with the big why-questions. I know you've been doing a lot of reading concerning things atheism, but that doesn't mean you should commit red herrings just to mention them.

[11] Actually, he said that before he was crucified. And according to scripture he did go around healing the sick, performing miracles. One of them was feeding around 5,000 people with just a few fish and pieces of bread. Also, it doesn't follow that because there are natural annoyances and disasters that there is no God. All those things you mention happened in the Bible. So, no, it's not safe to conclude that there is no God because of which.

adriantc · December 19, 2008

[1] You address my number two here, but i don't see where i requested in my number two to prove the inexistence of God. Regardless, if you're trying to do so there, then you didn't really prove anything, as you didn't do away with the middle. The middle doesn't need to be a mixture of the two, it is just merely the undecided. They are undecided because nothing has given way for either in this ontological dilemma.

[2] What did i do to show egotism? Even though i didn't say everything is about us, i don't see the difference between humanists, then, or other individuals who seek to benefit society or other individuals. Yet, if we are insignificant, why should we care about any of us? I don't think it matters how big the universe is; if you haven't noticed, Christianity is about denying yourself, admitting that you are not perfect, and that you require a savior. I fail to see the egotism in that. Also, life outside the earth is not in contradiction of Biblical knowledge or scripture. After all, what are angels? And what is God? Also, Genesis, nor the rest of the Bible, from my knowledge, doesn't do away with life outside the earth. Probably due to the reasons i gave, about angels and God. It would be self-contradictory if it denied life outside of earth. The church won't have any problem accepting life outside the earth, 'cause it already does. Therefore, there would be no need to "decode the Bible again."

[3] Where did you get the idea that theologians, at least the Christian ones, can't accept something infinite? Last i checked, the afterlife is infinite in time; that many accept God as infinite. I have no trouble picturing an infinite universe. Only science seems to have that trouble, in that is says the universe is either constantly expanding or is already contracting. How can something infinite expand or contract? Therefore, in order to even make sense of that, you'd have to play around with the definition of the universe until it makes sense.

Concerning the monster, i wouldn't say it's necessarily convenient for the one who yells, "Monster!"

Concerning your statement about history books, what was the purpose of that statement? If to deny or prove against something, then you'll have to try again.

[4] There are two ways to feed a person: spiritually and physically. God provides for both. He set up the plants and animals as a source of food. It is also written that God doesn't let His faithful ones go hungry. You say innocent people. I suppose that is due to your faith that there is no God—where there is no God, everything is permissible, no? When a being is omniscient, who would be able to hide their evil deeds? Can you objectively prove that Christians, when they go out to feed the hungry, give toys to poor children, build missionary hospitals, etc, aren't inspired by God to do so? After all, it is their faith that moves them.

[5] I wouldn't necessarily say it proves it false.

[6] You seem to be prone to statements that say one thing is not something, only to go on to say that it is. If you read the Origin of Species, chapter 4, it explains everything of what Darwin thought about beneficial and non-beneficial change and about natural selection. (The book is within the public domain.) Darwin's explanation is a bit interesting in that it talks about mother nature, which is paganistic in its speech. I find it interesting that a person who argues from naturalism would even include metaphysical things like natural selection into their description. He basically explains just how random the universe is, where out of pure misfortune, you can die just because mother nature made a mistake in selecting the proper mutation for you. I'll pick intelligent design over that any day. But to add to this, on GodTube, i saw a debate once—two atheists versus two christians. One of the atheists asked one of the christians, "How can you walk a mile without taking one step at a time?" This is basically similar to what you said but in the form of a question. But my question to you is: How can you walk a mile without anyone bearing witness of it—not even your own kind (after all, animals have their own societies too, so to speak)?

[7] Why limit living fossils to humans? Yes, that's what you're asking for: living fossils. There are plenty of living fossils today. The quote of Darwin on that Wikipedia article isn't sufficient enough for me to explain why these living organisms didn't evolve even in the slightest, for Darwin says that they were still exposed to competition, even if it is by a small amount, and because not all those living fossils, if any, came from fresh water.

[8] It is only convenient 'cause it is logical and in my favor. I don't see how, logically, a creator can have a creator. That would make the created a false creator, bringing it down to our level. So then we are left with the one who created. If you ask, "Who created that one then?" and continue down that path, then you must admit that there is no endless line of creators, due to it being illogical, therefore the only remaining and logical solution is: the creator was not created. Earlier in your post you talked about things infinite, saying that it is false to assume that all things are limited. Therefore God is unlimited, in that He is eternal, never having a beginning, nor ever coming to an end. Atheists tend to ask, if you can consider God to be infinite, why not the universe? Though the answer is obvious from our faith, i shall ask you: If you can consider the universe infinite, why not God? The answer to that is as obvious as the answer to the question i said atheists tend to ask: it is because you believe God doesn't exist. You not believing does not mean others should follow in your steps and that because you don't believe, everything concerning God is illogical.

To add to this, even if people refuse to believe, or even if people believe for security reasons, it does not follow that God therefore does not exist.

[9] You don't have to believe in those things, but that doesn't make those people irrational when they receive evidence for their actions. Rather than trying to prove something with your quotes, why not realize the evil that that John person committed by taking advantage of those people on some level, by placing himself up as if he were a god. Rather than just being helpful without being egotistic, he goes on to tell those people to pray to him if they want him to bring them stuff. In the end of your post you try to prove that you have a religion, which concerns doing good. How is it good to allow or accept non-sense like the kind committed by that John person all because you don't believe in the supernatural? Also, it's "remind," not "remained."

Concerning the rest of what i mark as number 9, an explanation from a naturalist's perspective doesn't necessarily do away with the supernatural. It does not follow that because there is a natural explanation to things that there was no supernatural being behind it all.

[10] I already mentioned how you contradicted yourself; i don't have to repeat myself. But how did you manage to pull off everything after that first question from my number 10 in my previous post? You talked about how religion doesn't answer the big why-questions (even though you ended up concluding that they do regardless). So how did you manage to dive into all that other stuff? Those have nothing to do with the big why-questions. I know you've been doing a lot of reading concerning things atheism, but that doesn't mean you should commit red herrings just to mention them.

[11] Actually, he said that before he was crucified. And according to scripture he did go around healing the sick, performing miracles. One of them was feeding around 5,000 people with just a few fish and pieces of bread. Also, it doesn't follow that because there are natural annoyances and disasters that there is no God. All those things you mention happened in the Bible. So, no, it's not safe to conclude that there is no God because of which.

[1] I don't want to prove anything with that... I merely what to show that one of us is right. There is no middle. What we see in society is a pseudo-middle. The middle is composed of those who know there is no God, but are afraid to admit it (for some reason or another). Afraid of the others that may consider them weird, or even afraid of that "eternal damnation". Just like children are afraid of the dark some people are afraid of the idea of hell. Once again I can only marvel of how earthly this punishment seems to be. The carrot or the stick. Everything is so down to Earth, there is nothing divine in that...

Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man - living in the sky - who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you!

He loves you, and He needs money!

And since I have quoted that... You haven't answered why your God enjoys useless suffering so much. If I didn't know any better I could say he is the biggest sadist (force or whatever you want to call him) of the universe. He does enjoy suffering, especially on those innocent and not able to protect themselves. Yeah... what a wonderful God that is! I sure do what to believe in someone with such low morals. If you ask me He is in no place to teach us anything. Unlimited power and still no intervention. I'm sure that the bearded fellow is on a giant cloud watching a giant plasma TV with non-stop transmission of suffering. I'm sure up there he has Hunger TV, War Channel, Disease TV... and they all have non stop coverage. Painting that picture I could start blaming you for believing in such a horrible, horrible God.

I've begun worshipping the Sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the Sun. It's there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There's no mystery, no one asks for money, I don't have to dress up, and there's no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to God are all answered at about the same 50-percent rate.

[2] Yeah... sure! The Bible clearly states about life in the Universe. That's next to the chapter... "what to do if the others find out something not written here!". The church hasn't admitted anything... they are opened to the possibility. They are always open to possibilities as their knowledge is not given by a All-Knowing God. And who could blame them... The Bible doesn't help anyone discover anything about the world. It may be a moral guide (another discussion required), but it doesn't contain any scientific stuff in it. What a church does is something like this: "Evolution! Wow! That might be true. I'm sure on page 254 God said something about that... What? Also life on other planets? How probable is that? So probable! Wow. I remember reading about that somewhere in here!" If you put it like that the Bible is never wrong for it adapts to the current knowledge.

[3] & [8] If theologists can accept infinite why do they have to enter God in the Universe equation. It is the main "proof" (if it can be called that). Why do they need the Prime Mover? Why can't the Universe just be, why can't it be infinite in both space and time. You wouldn't need a Prime Mover then would you? And so goes all their authority!

There is no shame in questioning everything! I can only be proud. Questioning everything is a thing theologists never do because they know everything. I'm proud to be one of those realizing we know very little!

[4] So I guess the people in Africa are starving because they don't believe in the bearded fellow. The millions dying there, the children, they are all atheists or satanists. They sure they don't deserve food for they don't believe:

Posted Image

If he gives food and help only to those how believe he is even worse then I thought. That's one evil God! People are bad, and they are not bad because they don't believe! It's their nature - our animal side (just as it is expected as a result of evolution). Give me God's power for a day, for an hour, for a minute and the world will be a better place... But there is no power, we can only help ourselves. We don't need no God to give them food. The billions of dollars spend on useless stuff could be just the power needed. And the Pope could live in less luxury just to help those in need. Why spend money on useless ceremonies when you could use those money to do good. But no one cares... believer or not we are just the same. You just like to advertise one side.

[5] Of course not! Religion adapts to anything and everything. Just like a virus adapts to medicine...

[6] & [7] What's metaphysical about natural selection? There is no one pulling the strings... some bad mutations happen; individuals die. But on the long run the species adapts and survives, getting better and better. The mile you are talking about means 50 or 100 million years. You are welcome to stay to watch evolution as it happens. We can only study the remains... And still we have a lot more proof then theologists have...

[10] You keep telling me I contradict myself... Please do explain where I contradict myself? From what I understand you are trying to say the Dark Age were not so Dark. That's what I understand. Am I right?

[11] It's needless to remind (I'm sorry for my previous mistake... I relay on the spell checker too much for all my typos) you that God created this world with all this "small" "natural" problems. So he can be blamed for what happens. Anyway... he can also be blamed for not doing anything! Read [1] for details!

And since you are such a believer I'd like to ask you something. If God appeared in front of the White House and made snow in the middle of the summer I would be forced to believe - and I will believe. So I have a hypothetical situation where I would believe. There is certain situation where I could be shown wrong. But is there a situation where you could be shown wrong? Can you imagine a situation/discovery/anything that can make you change your mind regarding the existence of God. Because as I see it the God hypothesis does not require proof and such is permanently true, regardless of real life. I fail to see a situation where you could be convinced there is no God. And while you can prove me wrong, I can't. As such, your theory, becomes a lot less plausible. I'm sure you will say... God does not subject Himself to human laws...

Here comes my quote for this post:

We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.

Edited December 19, 2008 by adriantc (see edit history)

truefusion · December 20, 2008

1. [...] And since I have quoted that... You haven't answered why your God enjoys useless suffering so much. If I didn't know any better I could say he is the biggest sadist (force or whatever you want to call him) of the universe. He does enjoy suffering, especially on those innocent and not able to protect themselves. Yeah... what a wonderful God that is! I sure do what to believe in someone with such low morals. If you ask me He is in no place to teach us anything. Unlimited power and still no intervention. I'm sure that the bearded fellow is on a giant cloud watching a giant plasma TV with non-stop transmission of suffering. I'm sure up there he has Hunger TV, War Channel, Disease TV... and they all have non stop coverage. Painting that picture I could start blaming you for believing in such a horrible, horrible God.

2. Yeah... sure! The Bible clearly states about life in the Universe. That's next to the chapter... "what to do if the others find out something not written here!". The church hasn't admitted anything... they are opened to the possibility. They are always open to possibilities as their knowledge is not given by a All-Knowing God. And who could blame them... The Bible doesn't help anyone discover anything about the world. It may be a moral guide (another discussion required), but it doesn't contain any scientific stuff in it. What a church does is something like this: "Evolution! Wow! That might be true. I'm sure on page 254 God said something about that... What? Also life on other planets? How probable is that? So probable! Wow. I remember reading about that somewhere in here!" If you put it like that the Bible is never wrong for it adapts to the current knowledge.

3. If theologists can accept infinite why do they have to enter God in the Universe equation. It is the main "proof" (if it can be called that). Why do they need the Prime Mover? Why can't the Universe just be, why can't it be infinite in both space and time. You wouldn't need a Prime Mover then would you? And so goes all their authority!

4. There is no shame in questioning everything! I can only be proud. Questioning everything is a thing theologists never do because they know everything. I'm proud to be one of those realizing we know very little!

5. So I guess the people in Africa are starving because they don't believe in the bearded fellow. The millions dying there, the children, they are all atheists or satanists. They sure they don't deserve food for they don't believe:

If he gives food and help only to those how believe he is even worse then I thought. That's one evil God! People are bad, and they are not bad because they don't believe! It's their nature - our animal side (just as it is expected as a result of evolution). Give me God's power for a day, for an hour, for a minute and the world will be a better place... But there is no power, we can only help ourselves. We don't need no God to give them food. The billions of dollars spend on useless stuff could be just the power needed. And the Pope could live in less luxury just to help those in need. Why spend money on useless ceremonies when you could use those money to do good. But no one cares... believer or not we are just the same. You just like to advertise one side.

[...]

6. What's metaphysical about natural selection? There is no one pulling the strings... some bad mutations happen; individuals die. But on the long run the species adapts and survives, getting better and better. The mile you are talking about means 50 or 100 million years. You are welcome to stay to watch evolution as it happens. We can only study the remains... And still we have a lot more proof then theologists have...

7. You keep telling me I contradict myself... Please do explain where I contradict myself? From what I understand you are trying to say the Dark Age were not so Dark. That's what I understand. Am I right?

8. It's needless to remind (I'm sorry for my previous mistake... I relay on the spell checker too much for all my typos) you that God created this world with all this "small" "natural" problems. So he can be blamed for what happens. Anyway... he can also be blamed for not doing anything! Read [1] for details!

9. And since you are such a believer I'd like to ask you something. If God appeared in front of the White House and made snow in the middle of the summer I would be forced to believe - and I will believe. So I have a hypothetical situation where I would believe. There is certain situation where I could be shown wrong. But is there a situation where you could be shown wrong? Can you imagine a situation/discovery/anything that can make you change your mind regarding the existence of God. Because as I see it the God hypothesis does not require proof and such is permanently true, regardless of real life. I fail to see a situation where you could be convinced there is no God. And while you can prove me wrong, I can't. As such, your theory, becomes a lot less plausible. I'm sure you will say... God does not subject Himself to human laws...

10. Here comes my quote for this post:

[1][8] You still have to prove that He enjoys it. So to you there "appears" to be "nothing" being done instantly about "any" annoyances and inconveniences. That doesn't prove that He enjoys it. So we simply love it when things that are in our favor happen quickly and instantly. Your entire statement begs the question in that it assumes God is a sadist and runs with it. I've already said that Christians gain their inspiration from God—and them apparently being the ones moving around the most. I do not know why things don't happen instantly, but at least things are done about them. There have been times where i've acted like a "microwave" person and regretted it later, seeing how foolish it was to want things to happen instantly or quick. You can't blame God for doing nothing if He isn't doing nothing. It is, also, unjust to blame God for the actions of the people; there are still millions of people out there who do nothing, not even donate though bearing more than enough money, to prevent such things. In a world seeking separation from God (i.e. a godless world), who wants to be moved? Or, rather, who is there to move? If existence was limited to how evil a being appears to another being, then millions of people (if not all) don't exist. The Biblical account, though mentioning that our design is not perfect, alludes that the Garden of Eve was a safe haven, where imperfections were not active.

[2]Strange, i thought you posted in this topic. How'd you miss all of those facts? But to imply that the Bible excludes life outside the earth is obviously false. Like i mentioned before, that is to deny the existence of not only angels, demons, but God Himself. Second of all, there is no explicit statement in the Bible that excludes other physical beings outside the earth; even Genesis 1 gives enough room for other, physical beings outside the earth. "The church" does not have to admit to anything, nor does the Bible magically get its text rewritten for "new" knowledge.

To add to this, i'll take you through a part in Genesis 1 to show just how open Genesis 1 is to even dinosaurs. Gen. 1:1, the age-old saying, introducing what God created after bringing time into existence. Gen. 1:2 states a water world but does not state that God created the earth right then and there, but alludes that the earth existed for some time before God decided to start forming creation as we know it today. Because of this opening, we can obtain a glimpse as to how the dinosaurs became extinct besides the theory of evolution; that is, an actual world-wide flooding (unlike Noah's time, as the flood in Noah's time wasn't world-wide in that same sense). That means the dinosaurs were drowned. Those in the air had no place to land except the vast ocean; those in the water were alive till their food supply ran out. Then in Gen. 1:9-10, God causes land to rise from under the water. Earthquakes caused by this could be the reason why dinosaurs were under ground. I'm not sure if cold water, where the pressure at that low level is really tight, can help in the fossilizing of bones, but there's another task for scientists to enjoy themselves with. That ends my tour; so you can't say the Bible has nothing to offer whatsoever for the scientific community.

[3] We can accept an infinitely big universe (that's why the context on my other post talks about the expansion and contractions of the "universe," since it is about the size of the universe), but since nothing cannot logically output something, it becomes quite difficult to accept the opposite, that nothing can output something, without a god. It could be infinite in space and time, but the Big Bang theory is showing otherwise. Also, even if it was shown to be infinite in space and time, it does not follow that there is no god; but it would be reasonable to say that that god does not create (i.e. is not a "mover" at all) if it was shown that the universe is infinite in time and space.

[4] Though i may not be a theologist, if what makes them appear like they know everything can be applied to me, then i am proud that i know everything.

[5] (I had to check the image in Firefox as for some reason it wouldn't show up in Opera.) Not necessarily, i only responsded according to what you had presented. The Bible gives at least 5 reasons as to why situations like that exist (i am not sure of any others, though). These reasons were taken from Genesis, Exodus, the book of Job, etc, but i don't remember them all. But your beginning statement presumes that not believing is the cause of condemnation; it's in a way begging the question. This presupposition is common among atheists, and is due to atheists trying to interpret certain statements from the Gospel of John without taking into consideration basic Biblical principles; that is, when atheists try to be theologists. The two main statements can be found in the Gospel of John, chapters 3 and 5. But rather than taking you through another tour of the OT for its basic principles, i'll merely show you verse John 8:24 which summarizes everything down to a sentence.

As for the part below the picture: Actually, the Bible says God sends rain on everyone (Matthew 5:45) (rain back then was very important, as it helped their farms produce, since there was no plumbing like today) and that the unbelievers' prosperity is not necessarily theirs (Job 21:16). Sure, the Vatican can donate more, but i don't think handing over God's power over to a human would be such a good idea, even if there is some good intentions in the human. But i'm not sure what you mean about me advertising. But since we don't need God to provide for these people, i guess complaining about God doing anything is pointless then, huh?

[6] By talking about mother nature in his book, he implies a conscious that doesn't exist (where he obviously believes doesn't exist even though he mentions it). Darwin's speech, though in the beginning of chapter 4 defines natural selection, makes mother nature appear like "she's" the one doing the selecting, even though "selection" doesn't bear it's practical definition; that is, where one chooses something. But, yes, it is that "long run" where, through natural selection, all things that aren't beneficial are tossed out. So the only way to even explain how there can still be life-threatening mutations is to say that the environment changes just as much as the organism itself. Meaning the environment is always one step ahead of the creation. But if the environment changes, what causes it to change? If the reason why organisms change is due to complications in the environment, then what complication is there that would cause the environment to change?

i don't think i'd live long enough to view even one person take one step for that mile. In fact, i don't even think since humans (i.e. homosapien-sapiens) have existed anyone has even taken that first step yet. But i noticed a lot of that "proof" has been mostly appeal to probability and begging the question.

[7] Yes, my statement can be summarized to: Since the reason why you say we lived in the dark ages was due to our knowing, our not asking, "Why?" you say things concerning the Bible made us know everything, and that by asking, "Why?" again, we'll get out of the dark ages. That is, with knowledge we obtain light and therefore come out of the dark ages. Yet you admit we had knowledge during such dark age but want it to go away by asking, "Why?" again. Basically you want us to start all over again from the beginning so that we can leave the dark age which we should have already had left due to having knowledge in the first place. Following this logic means that knowledge brings us into a dark age. That's counter-intuitive, since you want people to obtain knowledge all over again. Meaning, regardless of what science has to offer, science would place us into a dark age.

[9] Ah, yes, logic does seem to neither be able to prove nor disprove, eh? For in the end, even if it is not the case of the Biblical God, it does not follow that there therefore cannot be any god. But you're basically saying that the God hypothesis is a tautology. But i do not see how such hypothesis becomes less reasonable due to it being a tautology, for that would make math itself less plausible. But i can't think of anything that would make me drop my belief in a god either. However, i am unsure what i can prove you wrong in. And i am unsure why God not being bound to (assuming) physical laws has to do with it. And though i wouldn't necessarily say it is a law He is bound to concerning (assuming) moral laws, nevertheless He probably used His characteristics for bringing about many moral laws to the Jews.

[10] Seen that quote before; i've seen plenty, mostly from the religous tolerance website (which i find to be oxymoronic in its ways). But the ones from George Carlin i have not seen.

adriantc · December 20, 2008

[1][8] You still have to prove that He enjoys it. So to you there "appears" to be "nothing" being done instantly about "any" annoyances and inconveniences. That doesn't prove that He enjoys it. So we simply love it when things that are in our favor happen quickly and instantly. Your entire statement begs the question in that it assumes God is a sadist and runs with it. I've already said that Christians gain their inspiration from God—and them apparently being the ones moving around the most. I do not know why things don't happen instantly, but at least things are done about them. There have been times where i've acted like a "microwave" person and regretted it later, seeing how foolish it was to want things to happen instantly or quick. You can't blame God for doing nothing if He isn't doing nothing. It is, also, unjust to blame God for the actions of the people; there are still millions of people out there who do nothing, not even donate though bearing more than enough money, to prevent such things. In a world seeking separation from God (i.e. a godless world), who wants to be moved? Or, rather, who is there to move? If existence was limited to how evil a being appears to another being, then millions of people (if not all) don't exist. The Biblical account, though mentioning that our design is not perfect, alludes that the Garden of Eve was a safe haven, where imperfections were not active.

[2]Strange, i thought you posted in this topic. How'd you miss all of those facts? But to imply that the Bible excludes life outside the earth is obviously false. Like i mentioned before, that is to deny the existence of not only angels, demons, but God Himself. Second of all, there is no explicit statement in the Bible that excludes other physical beings outside the earth; even Genesis 1 gives enough room for other, physical beings outside the earth. "The church" does not have to admit to anything, nor does the Bible magically get its text rewritten for "new" knowledge.

To add to this, i'll take you through a part in Genesis 1 to show just how open Genesis 1 is to even dinosaurs. Gen. 1:1, the age-old saying, introducing what God created after bringing time into existence. Gen. 1:2 states a water world but does not state that God created the earth right then and there, but alludes that the earth existed for some time before God decided to start forming creation as we know it today. Because of this opening, we can obtain a glimpse as to how the dinosaurs became extinct besides the theory of evolution; that is, an actual world-wide flooding (unlike Noah's time, as the flood in Noah's time wasn't world-wide in that same sense). That means the dinosaurs were drowned. Those in the air had no place to land except the vast ocean; those in the water were alive till their food supply ran out. Then in Gen. 1:9-10, God causes land to rise from under the water. Earthquakes caused by this could be the reason why dinosaurs were under ground. I'm not sure if cold water, where the pressure at that low level is really tight, can help in the fossilizing of bones, but there's another task for scientists to enjoy themselves with. That ends my tour; so you can't say the Bible has nothing to offer whatsoever for the scientific community.

[3] We can accept an infinitely big universe (that's why the context on my other post talks about the expansion and contractions of the "universe," since it is about the size of the universe), but since nothing cannot logically output something, it becomes quite difficult to accept the opposite, that nothing can output something, without a god. It could be infinite in space and time, but the Big Bang theory is showing otherwise. Also, even if it was shown to be infinite in space and time, it does not follow that there is no god; but it would be reasonable to say that that god does not create (i.e. is not a "mover" at all) if it was shown that the universe is infinite in time and space.

[4] Though i may not be a theologist, if what makes them appear like they know everything can be applied to me, then i am proud that i know everything.

[5] (I had to check the image in Firefox as for some reason it wouldn't show up in Opera.) Not necessarily, i only responsded according to what you had presented. The Bible gives at least 5 reasons as to why situations like that exist (i am not sure of any others, though). These reasons were taken from Genesis, Exodus, the book of Job, etc, but i don't remember them all. But your beginning statement presumes that not believing is the cause of condemnation; it's in a way begging the question. This presupposition is common among atheists, and is due to atheists trying to interpret certain statements from the Gospel of John without taking into consideration basic Biblical principles; that is, when atheists try to be theologists. The two main statements can be found in the Gospel of John, chapters 3 and 5. But rather than taking you through another tour of the OT for its basic principles, i'll merely show you verse John 8:24 which summarizes everything down to a sentence.

As for the part below the picture: Actually, the Bible says God sends rain on everyone (Matthew 5:45) (rain back then was very important, as it helped their farms produce, since there was no plumbing like today) and that the unbelievers' prosperity is not necessarily theirs (Job 21:16). Sure, the Vatican can donate more, but i don't think handing over God's power over to a human would be such a good idea, even if there is some good intentions in the human. But i'm not sure what you mean about me advertising. But since we don't need God to provide for these people, i guess complaining about God doing anything is pointless then, huh?

[6] By talking about mother nature in his book, he implies a conscious that doesn't exist (where he obviously believes doesn't exist even though he mentions it). Darwin's speech, though in the beginning of chapter 4 defines natural selection, makes mother nature appear like "she's" the one doing the selecting, even though "selection" doesn't bear it's practical definition; that is, where one chooses something. But, yes, it is that "long run" where, through natural selection, all things that aren't beneficial are tossed out. So the only way to even explain how there can still be life-threatening mutations is to say that the environment changes just as much as the organism itself. Meaning the environment is always one step ahead of the creation. But if the environment changes, what causes it to change? If the reason why organisms change is due to complications in the environment, then what complication is there that would cause the environment to change?

i don't think i'd live long enough to view even one person take one step for that mile. In fact, i don't even think since humans (i.e. homosapien-sapiens) have existed anyone has even taken that first step yet. But i noticed a lot of that "proof" has been mostly appeal to probability and begging the question.

[7] Yes, my statement can be summarized to: Since the reason why you say we lived in the dark ages was due to our knowing, our not asking, "Why?" you say things concerning the Bible made us know everything, and that by asking, "Why?" again, we'll get out of the dark ages. That is, with knowledge we obtain light and therefore come out of the dark ages. Yet you admit we had knowledge during such dark age but want it to go away by asking, "Why?" again. Basically you want us to start all over again from the beginning so that we can leave the dark age which we should have already had left due to having knowledge in the first place. Following this logic means that knowledge brings us into a dark age. That's counter-intuitive, since you want people to obtain knowledge all over again. Meaning, regardless of what science has to offer, science would place us into a dark age.

[9] Ah, yes, logic does seem to neither be able to prove nor disprove, eh? For in the end, even if it is not the case of the Biblical God, it does not follow that there therefore cannot be any god. But you're basically saying that the God hypothesis is a tautology. But i do not see how such hypothesis becomes less reasonable due to it being a tautology, for that would make math itself less plausible. But i can't think of anything that would make me drop my belief in a god either. However, i am unsure what i can prove you wrong in. And i am unsure why God not being bound to (assuming) physical laws has to do with it. And though i wouldn't necessarily say it is a law He is bound to concerning (assuming) moral laws, nevertheless He probably used His characteristics for bringing about many moral laws to the Jews.

[10] Seen that quote before; i've seen plenty, mostly from the religous tolerance website (which i find to be oxymoronic in its ways). But the ones from George Carlin i have not seen.

[1]. Is he can see the suffering and still doesn't do anything he is not a good God! You are trying to excuse him by saying that if he does nothing he is not necessarily a bad God. But I have to ask you... If you see a hungry child and you have the ability to feed him and you don't do anything can you be considered a good person? Or if you see somebody innocent being threatened with a gun and you simply watch as he gets killed even though you have the power to stop the bullet. Are you a good person? Are the millionaires that enjoy a life of luxury and never did anything to help the world around them good persons? Of course not! Why is God not subjected to this reasoning? Why is He permitted to stay there and enjoy the freak show? You will say He tries to teach us to be good, but at what expense... It seems that life has no meaning for your God and isn't that the main point of Christianity? There is no way you can excuse his no-intervention policy.

Or maybe He is the God the deists say... A God who does not care who lives or dies - He is just the Prime Mover. He put everything in motion and doesn't give a damn for the Universe or it's outcome. If there is a God I'm sure this is the kind of God - a God who only created the Universe and then watches his cosmic show.

[2]. You do realize that the Bible is an easily interpretable book. If you wish to find something in there you will find it. Why does God speak in riddles and metaphors? Why doesn't he say.... I created the Universe, billions and billions of years later I created the planets and a few more billion years later I created planets and animals - after which by evolution man appeared. Why doesn't he just teach us that. Why does he use the days of the week to tell us of such a magnificent achievement. Wouldn't a fact based story convince us that the one dictating it would be a God or at least somebody possessing the knowledge of one. Wouldn't such an account amaze us so much that we would obey the word of the Bible a lot more?

On the other hand wouldn't somebody inventing the Bible choose to make it easily interpretable? If he would say something that would later prove false it would weaken the words of that book. So of course he would choose something so general that would really include all (later) possibilities - so that even in a thousand years it would be just as true as it was in the day it was written. Doesn't it make a lot more sense? Isn't that theory a lot more logical?

How can I prove the Bible is easily interpretable? Because from one line you can easily make a whole story. From the few pages of the Genesis you can explain the story of the Universe, but with different words. None of the words from the Bible are used in their usual way. Once you twist every word you get what you want. And that's exactly what you do! Take a series of words from the Bible and understand what you wish from them - and you twist the meaning of the words until they become useful to explain what you need. If you take the Bible seriously, not figuratively, if you do not twist the words and their meanings it won't be such a powerful book anymore... it will simply be just like any other good book.

[3]. I can accept the fact that an endless Universe in time and space does not necessarily mean there is no God. What is does is to make it a less plausible theory. As for the Big Bang and (a possible) Bug Crunch they are all still work-in-progress theories. There are still a lot of things to be discovered (the key word is "discovery" not "revelation").

[4]. Such a way of thinking does not lead to progress. We know everything... why bother?!?

[5]. Should I remind you that God created us just as faulty as we are? Greedy, insensible, etc. Inaction makes him just as guilty as the ones with tons of money not doing anything. What is the difference between your God with unlimited power and Bill Gates with unlimited financial power. With his 50 billion $ did he fix the problems of the world. Did any of the billionaires of the world really make a difference. Do you blame them? Wouldn't you blame him as well? Yet they still suffer no matter how cares or not.

I think, I hope, that with God's power I would be better then God himself....

[6]. So you question why the environment changes? What determines that change? You think behind the change there is the hand of God? No - there is no hand of God. There is only randomness. Besides the environment of (on) Earth is determined by the position on Earth in space. In other words a giant billiard game influences the environment. A meteor is not the hand of God, merely a giant rock traveling through space... it can change the environment so much as to extinct species while giving opportunities to others waiting in the shadows. Isn't this story familiar? Couldn't our existence be merely the chance that a piece of rock was in the right place on the right time? Is it that hard to believe?

[7]. I didn't say we had knowledge during the Dark Ages. They were Dark because there was no knowledge. Because the church did not want to discover things, it did not want for science to grow. A bunch of ignorant people was (is) much easier to control and rule. Do you think that if people knew there is no such thing as magic they would still burn witches on stakes? Do you think it is because we had too much knowledge that the best cure to the plaque was to burn the bodies? Religion has power as long as people remain ignorant, ready to believe what the Pope, the church tells them... It has been shown over and over again what a great tool it is if you want to control lots and lots of ignorant people.

[9]. So basically - no matter what I say and do, whatever science discovers in our life time you will still believe in your God. He is above everything we do so there is no way we can ever disprove it. Unfortunately there is not much I can do to change that...

I can only wonder why a God existing on a such superior plane of existence, a plane which we cannot even perceive trouble his cosmic existence with building this world, this Universe, running it like a movie (without intervention) and then handing our punishments or rewards.

As I closing I will use Plato's allegory of the cave from The Republic: (from Wikipedia)

Plato imagines a group of people who have lived chained in a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of the cave entrance, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows. According to Plato, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to seeing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall are not constitutive of reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.

Also in relation to point [9] my usual quote:

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe.

Edited December 20, 2008 by adriantc (see edit history)

truefusion · December 22, 2008

1. Is he can see the suffering and still doesn't do anything he is not a good God! You are trying to excuse him by saying that if he does nothing he is not necessarily a bad God. But I have to ask you... If you see a hungry child and you have the ability to feed him and you don't do anything can you be considered a good person? Or if you see somebody innocent being threatened with a gun and you simply watch as he gets killed even though you have the power to stop the bullet. Are you a good person? Are the millionaires that enjoy a life of luxury and never did anything to help the world around them good persons? Of course not! Why is God not subjected to this reasoning? Why is He permitted to stay there and enjoy the freak show? You will say He tries to teach us to be good, but at what expense... It seems that life has no meaning for your God and isn't that the main point of Christianity? There is no way you can excuse his no-intervention policy.

Or maybe He is the God the deists say... A God who does not care who lives or dies - He is just the Prime Mover. He put everything in motion and doesn't give a damn for the Universe or it's outcome. If there is a God I'm sure this is the kind of God - a God who only created the Universe and then watches his cosmic show.

2. You do realize that the Bible is an easily interpretable book. If you wish to find something in there you will find it. Why does God speak in riddles and metaphors? Why doesn't he say.... I created the Universe, billions and billions of years later I created the planets and a few more billion years later I created planets and animals - after which by evolution man appeared. Why doesn't he just teach us that. Why does he use the days of the week to tell us of such a magnificent achievement. Wouldn't a fact based story convince us that the one dictating it would be a God or at least somebody possessing the knowledge of one. Wouldn't such an account amaze us so much that we would obey the word of the Bible a lot more?

On the other hand wouldn't somebody inventing the Bible choose to make it easily interpretable? If he would say something that would later prove false it would weaken the words of that book. So of course he would choose something so general that would really include all (later) possibilities - so that even in a thousand years it would be just as true as it was in the day it was written. Doesn't it make a lot more sense? Isn't that theory a lot more logical?

How can I prove the Bible is easily interpretable? Because from one line you can easily make a whole story. From the few pages of the Genesis you can explain the story of the Universe, but with different words. None of the words from the Bible are used in their usual way. Once you twist every word you get what you want. And that's exactly what you do! Take a series of words from the Bible and understand what you wish from them - and you twist the meaning of the words until they become useful to explain what you need. If you take the Bible seriously, not figuratively, if you do not twist the words and their meanings it won't be such a powerful book anymore... it will simply be just like any other good book.

[...]

3. Such a way of thinking does not lead to progress. We know everything... why bother?!?

4. Should I remind you that God created us just as faulty as we are? Greedy, insensible, etc. Inaction makes him just as guilty as the ones with tons of money not doing anything. What is the difference between your God with unlimited power and Bill Gates with unlimited financial power. With his 50 billion $ did he fix the problems of the world. Did any of the billionaires of the world really make a difference. Do you blame them? Wouldn't you blame him as well? Yet they still suffer no matter how cares or not.

I think, I hope, that with God's power I would be better then God himself....

5. So you question why the environment changes? What determines that change? You think behind the change there is the hand of God? No - there is no hand of God. There is only randomness. Besides the environment of (on) Earth is determined by the position on Earth in space. In other words a giant billiard game influences the environment. A meteor is not the hand of God, merely a giant rock traveling through space... it can change the environment so much as to extinct species while giving opportunities to others waiting in the shadows. Isn't this story familiar? Couldn't our existence be merely the chance that a piece of rock was in the right place on the right time? Is it that hard to believe?

6. I didn't say we had knowledge during the Dark Ages. They were Dark because there was no knowledge. Because the church did not want to discover things, it did not want for science to grow. A bunch of ignorant people was (is) much easier to control and rule. Do you think that if people knew there is no such thing as magic they would still burn witches on stakes? Do you think it is because we had too much knowledge that the best cure to the plaque was to burn the bodies? Religion has power as long as people remain ignorant, ready to believe what the Pope, the church tells them... It has been shown over and over again what a great tool it is if you want to control lots and lots of ignorant people.

7. So basically - no matter what I say and do, whatever science discovers in our life time you will still believe in your God. He is above everything we do so there is no way we can ever disprove it. Unfortunately there is not much I can do to change that...

I can only wonder why a God existing on a such superior plane of existence, a plane which we cannot even perceive trouble his cosmic existence with building this world, this Universe, running it like a movie (without intervention) and then handing our punishments or rewards.

8. As I closing I will use Plato's allegory of the cave from The Republic: (from Wikipedia)

9. Also in relation to point [9] my usual quote:

[1] You're still begging the question: you have yet to show that He isn't doing anything, even in the least. You might be able to show that He's not doing anything according to "your" standards (though standards can wave), but it doesn't follow that He's not doing anything.

[2] It may have a lot of metaphoric parts, and even what is literal can be taken metaphorically (though frowned upon Biblically), but that doesn't mean all those statements you saw in that other topic have no literal bearing on reality and therefore should be considered fully (or any amount) metaphoric.

[3] Though it is perfectly logical to stop asking questions when you have all knowledge of the universe (and things beyond it), i don't recall any believer proclaiming, "I know everything." Even one of the early church fathers, St. Augustine, said that interpretations should change when new knowledge is discovered if they contradict each other. Note that he did not say that what is written should change. And if you're going to bring up how "ambiguous the Bible is" from this, do keep in mind that science does the same thing when new knowledge is found that contradicts a previous interpretation. After all, all evidence is interpreted.

[4] Genesis only mentions physical imperfections, not metaphysical ones. God created Adam and Eve pure and without sin, just like every other being that followed. All those metaphysical things came after the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. But why would i blame a rich person for trying? And if you're indirectly accusing God, again, you would be begging the question again.

[5] To answer your question on if the story is familiar, i thought you would conclude something else rather than some rock being at the right place at the right time. Personally it sounded it was along the lines of the paradoxical question, "Who (or what) created God?" Why did i think that? Because we were backtracing how things are affected by each other. To put it in a visual way: we <- environment <- universe <- ???.

Concerning your other question about the rock at the right place and right time: Yes, it is hard to believe in that, because how would a mere rock not only be able to split itself to cause other rocks into existence, melt itself, but also form an atmosphere around itself for life to even have a chance at survival?—that is, at least without divine intervention.

[6] Sure ignorant people are easier to influence, but you do realize you are begging the question again (though it started way back though i didn't say much about it) by claiming the church hated (scientific) knowledge, right? Just so that the burden of proof may weigh more on you so that you may see clearly my accusation, i'll give you a site that quotes St. Augustine, an early church father, on the exact thing you're talking about: http://www.pibburns.com/augustin.htm

[7] I too do not know why God caused existence into being, but i shall ask you (an objective) question: What book or site implanted the idea in you that God is impersonal? If no book or site, then how can you, a person who seems to be just like those in the "Unholy Trinity," trying to abolish faith (or religion itself) for the "sake of knowledge," convince yourself (through logical means) that God does not intervene even in the least?

[8] That basically says don't rely fully on what is seen but consider what is unseen. I already read that allegory, though; still find it interesting. And if you quoted that for proving or supporting ideas that you've been mentioning, then it is a bit counter-intuitive.

[9]Ah, but that follows for unbelievers as well. (I can't remember if i've seen that one before, though.)

Sign In

Existance Of Jesus (aka Christ) Core of Christianity

Recommended Posts

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Important Information