If Jesus would return?
- Thread starter Kal-el
- Start date
-
- Tags
- average biologists dating effective enormous equipment exercise extending extreme fitness gains genetics growing hands hanging homosexual larger loads massive masturbate methodology painful penis posts progress question research results sensitivity sex short shower shrink skin stories stretch support theoretical thick vacuum wide wrap
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 2,151
Arguing over whether a god exists typically ends badly. What is the purpose of science? I don't think it has anything to do with finding or proving a god exists or doesn't. A man of science is bound to the limitations of our collective knowledge and can only work within the ideas that are available to him. But I think Bib would like there to be this given where since you can't actually argue definitively that there is no God you must at least accept the possibility. Considering we don't know everything there is to know there must be room for us to accept that there is still much to understand. Believing in God and not understanding science and believing in god and understanding science are obviously very different. It's like with most anyone else...at the end of life if we're old and of sound mind enough to understand that we have lived our last day we believe in something more than what we can account. Even the most brilliant minds have put an X down for the existence of a higher being before they die.
I didn't know science was supposed to be the key to finding God though. I thought it was supposed to help us understand everything around us and hopefully improve our lives now and later for future generations. It's good excerise for the brain just reading what the two of you have written so far so good luck on persuading each other.
I didn't know science was supposed to be the key to finding God though. I thought it was supposed to help us understand everything around us and hopefully improve our lives now and later for future generations. It's good excerise for the brain just reading what the two of you have written so far so good luck on persuading each other.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2003
- Messages
- 3,707
Kraft said:
Wow, you guys are really going at this, and it's too taxing to read through everything, but I found that dilemma interesting.
The problem is that it is attempting to judge God's actions by human standards. To cut right to the question, no, God would have no obligation to stop such a natural disaster. As Forrest Gump said "shit happens." It is a natural disaster. Of course, God could stop it and God could stop many miserable things from happening to many people. That would put mankind is an existence of suBathmateission via coercion. If you knew for sure there was a God and he told you he would strike you with the most painful afflictions and suffering, at some point you would likely give in to His demands, but only out of coercion. Most religions would say it really doesn't work that way and that one should arrive at a point when he follows his faith more willingly.
Some people believe that God constantly tomments those that disobey Him and constantly blesses those they follow Him. I would never totally deny such a statement, but I think it's probably overstated by some individuals. The reality is that bad things will sometimes happen to good people, and bad people will sometimes receive good things they certainly do not deserve. Much like my lifetime goal of mastering dice setting to bankrupt the craps tables from the Borgata to the Bellagio, there is a real, unseen element at work, but often much of what we see falls into what can only be called randomness.
Me said:
Yea, after stating this, I have been on a mission to search for proof that Jesus did indeed exist. I have found none. If anybody has any real evidence, besides "blind faith" from the Scriptures, I would like to hear it. For what it's worth, I believe he did exist.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2005
- Messages
- 170
Kal-el said:
This is the page I have read in this thread. I kind of stayed out, being a very strong Christian I new I could very easily get caught up here and never get anything done here at work....Besides there are performance car forums too.
Kal or Kal el buddy you are kind of right but check out Josephus .
AlbertaBeef said:
Dude, through my extensive research, the reason why many of the documents of Jesus are unreliable are due to the obvious additions/changes apparent in them. In the writings of the Gospels and Josephus, you have vastly different writing styles stopping and starting. Josephus' supposed description of Jesus was in a totally differernt writing style--totally opposed to how he normally wrote. It's like some guy came along and wrote it in. Have any reliable sources?
Me said:
Well,on my "mission" to search for evidence of Jesus's existance, I found these 5 sources of his "alleged" existance. They are all historians:
http://www.webjesus.co.uk/exist/historical.htm
http://www.webjesus.co.uk/exist/logical.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html
http://www.doesgodexist.org/SeptOct95/WhoWasJesus.html
Kal, let us know what you find (or don't). It has never been a major interest of mine, someone on IG put together a large thread on it. http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopict-5522-An_Examination_of_the_quotEvidencequot_For_Jesus.html
Might give you a few more historians to consider, and some criticism of their use as evidence for Jesus.
Might give you a few more historians to consider, and some criticism of their use as evidence for Jesus.
Well, I have done extensive research for quite some time now, and I came up with no credible proof of his existance, just stupid Christian hearsay, and Jewish passages. (Hence the links I provided earlier) I personally think Jesus existed. I cannot prove he did or didn't exist. That's asking to prove a negative, which is logically impossible. I can merely show evidence on both sides:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm
http://www.bandoli.no/whyjesus.htm
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html
http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jlc/exist.html
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/jesusexist.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm
http://www.bandoli.no/whyjesus.htm
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html
http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jlc/exist.html
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/jesusexist.html
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2003
- Messages
- 162
Actually, it is possible to prove a negative and is done all the time with logic proofs.
Kraft,
Well, I could not get on for a few days, then the forum was down. Sorry for the delay. I will get to your other post.
>If you want to tell me your God is material, then it becomes bound by the same workings as everything else. Gravity, conservation of energy, etc. Creation now becomes naturalistic, like we see. Making of things from preexisting compontents, no creation ex nihlo. Is God alive? Then now he requires a metabolism, sensory apparatus, a material basis for consciousness (brain/CNS), and so on. There are huge problems when you bring this concoction into the natural world.<
And yet, many of the things attributed to God in the Bible, we can do today with our level of technology. Then imagine the possible technology a hundred years in the future. And yet, you refuse to believe that some other being, with obviously greater technology, might exist. That He can do things you currently consider "magic". You also seem to believe we know everything about the physical world, and that the physical world can be explained by the best postulation of the moment, no matter how absurd. I simply have no argument for that point of view. We must disagree.
>If it stays immaterial, how can something immaterial interact with something material?<
Well, I suppose, if it happened, it would be something I could never explain.
>Last I heard dark matter had been discovered and was accounting for it.<
You would be wrong. But first, what do you believe dark matter is? Or rather, what do those in the field say it is? I am not only writing about the lack of matter within the universe, but also the variations in what is expected in almost any physical setting. Energy or matter, high or low. Look at how often things are not as we expect or calculate.
>This reminds me of something Terrible Heresy wrote<
You may attempt to place any point of view upon me you wish. But it is simply a waste of time. Why not just stick to the facts and evidence, and not attempt to try me on false assumptions?
>We've done fine so far without appeal to any sky fairy, why assume one is there? The positions I'm taking are very basic, I'm simply going from what we know, and applying skepticism. Trying to 'reason' from what we don't know to something else we don't know isn't rational.<
What is not rational is that you will not even consider any point of view outside of your notions. I know of no scientist that cannot, at least somewhat, listen and evaluate another point of view, however absurd. These topics have been around a long time. Many thoughts, hypothesis’, theories, etc. have been proven wrong. The Bible is still standing. Only a poor scientist would not at least think on all the options. Further, it must be disconcerting to you concerning the number of scientists who currently believe in a divine creation, or at least intelligent design. I believe the last poll I saw was about 73%. I am surely not alone.
>There is a very reasonable explaination for why we can't measure it that I think you're overlooking. Gods are the invention of man. We made gods, all of them. I covered this earlier about use of analogy to construct anthropomorphic gods. In regards to Odin, Vishnu, and thousands of other gods, I'm sure you're an atheist just as I am<
Well, you are still arrogant. There are so many things, even in the past century, that we have LEARNED to measure. Properties that we did not even know existed. I am sure there will be many more that we discover. That you cannot consider all explanations is sad. You should at least find it interesting that there are no grandiose, obvious errors in the Bible, as with other ancient "religions".
>When you tell me the chrisitian myth is really real, it's about the same as saying batman exists but superman and spiderman are just stories.<
One more time. This is getting old. The Bible has been proven accurate in most, if not all provable instances, especially timing and geography and also political situations. It is not a cartoon. At least be reasonable. If nothing else, it at least has been proven to have historical value.
>Good, thus you admit the properties placed on your god are unintelligible.<
Considering the state of science currently concerning these topics, yes. But surely not impossible. You have simply picked your own myths, and call it reasonable, when so many similar "myths" within science have been disproved.
>Another argument to ignorance... Please take a course in basic logic, I beg you.<
Hmmm.
>Easier answer, he is made in our image. We made god. That you worship an amoral being kind of scares me. You obviously don't hold that God is all good, or loving. Might makes right, wow. <
I did not say He is immoral, and I do not believe He is. It is not for me to judge the things attributed to Him in the Bible, of a possibly negative connotation. I know that He is described as good and loving when it appears to be called for. But I also know he is a jealous God. I have no problem accepting Him as He is.
>Good, so you've just got rid of the 'need' for a ex nihlo creation event.<
I am surely not positive that there ever was a ‘something created from nothing’ event. The Bible does not say there was. I tend to think not. As I will show, it all depends on what the definition of words mean, and their context. Created is an interesting concept. An artist creates a work of art. Is it something from nothing? Of course not. I will try to explain below.
>I have, it is tough. To answer your later question, yes, I think this is it. Cerebral death is the end of your consciousness, memories and you. Everything goes black and that is it, just like before you were born. Frightening isn't it?<
If that is what I thought, then yes, it would be frightening. I hope you are brave in that hour.
>What a caracture of science, just a source of questions. The questions that arrise are usually reductionist, so say we figure out how some enzyme works, the new question is how did it get into that form, what is it made of? It's not like we're becoming more clueless, it's that we are finding new areas to explore.<
That is exactly what I meant. But also, when things are proven false, new questions arise. Even totally new fields of study from true or false answers. I would say the number of unanswered questions has risen over the last century by many hundreds of times. That is the nature of science.
>You do realize one of the consequences of expansion/contraction theory is that a universe that supports life gets spat out? ie. this one.<
I have read that some opinions might support that postulation. It is not a consequence. It has surely not been proven. In fact, far from it.
> So, you're aren't a young earth creationist, yet believe in the story of Adam and Eve?<
Surely. I just read the Book, add nothing, and take nothing away. All things considered, the time, knowledge, level of technology, I believe it is the most fascinating thing ever written.
>Design argument - I was talking about apologetics, so you talk of hebrew language doesn't apply. This goes that things are way to complex, therefore a designer is required. This designer is god. Apply it to itself, god is exceedingly complex, thus requires a designer.<
Perchance the designer did have a designer. I have not idea. But I do not know of anyone that is arguing God evolved by chance over billions of years either.
> Actually, it goes that any natural explaination is more likely by definition than a miracle (magic).<
Can you please get off the "miracle or magic" thing? It is off topic, and not what I am discussing. I do not disallow something unnatural, but I also am not advocating for it. I do not believe it is necessary. I believe that a material God could be with us. We are simply too ignorant, at least for the moment, to realize or measure Him, on a physical basis. But I also believe, science will not reveal Him before He does so Himself.
>Guilt for sin, need for saving, these things aren't part of my worldview. As I said earlier. Think over the salvation plan. God sent himself to sacifice to himself to change a rule he made. And we need to believe to avoid getting sent to hell, the only way is through belief in jesus. According to the bible who made hell? Jesus the only way? It's similar to someone putting a gun to your head, then praise them for not pulling the trigger.<
I am sorry you feel that way. With that attitude, you may actually have no hope. But then, I believe you are young?
>George Carlin<
Pulling out all the stop, huh?
>I have broken down my worldview on here, I ask that you do the same. Spell it out for me, show how it is consisitent with reality. <
That would take much more than a few posts on a Penis Enlargement forum. I will do what I can as time allows. But it surely will not be complete.
>After that, how about 3 questions of cross-examination each, responses then this ends?<
It can end now. There are not three questions that I would be interested in asking. It is a moot point. But, if you ask nicely, without arrogance, or snide comments, I will answer anything I can.
>Really? God creates the sky and that below it (the earth) first. The stars, sun and moon start appearing around verse 14. This sounds nothing like the big bang. I envision something more like a snowglobe, with pancake earth in the middle of the waters. Fits with what I've heard of babylonian creation myths too. I already covered how that could be shoehorned to fit a static model of the universe, it's just retroactive fitting of myth.<
I thought this would be a good question with which to start explaining my own beliefs.
Man has come a long way in a relatively short time. We transfer information by light, sound, other waves, at high rates. We have voice recognition technology that can cause many acts to be performed. We have made strides in artificial intelligence. We can store huge amounts of information as energy on small bits of silicon, etc. We can operate robots on distant planets. If someone were to come to the current time period, from a couple hundred years ago, they would consider all of us "magicians", at least until they studied, and understood how we do what we do.
I believe their is a higher being, a greater intelligence, that designed our world. He made it happen. I believe this because of the observations I have made. As with everything we create in this time period, we have designers. Our technology does not come about by chance. Compared to God’s creation, ours is a bit rough. His is much better. You do not even have to look closely to see the design in His work, on whatever level you choose. His design displays intelligence, as opposed to the rest of the visible universe, which is void.
So, how did he do it? What form does he take? Along with a bunch of other questions that I cannot answer, except to speculate with broad theories. But as I have said briefly before, we have so much concerning matter and energy that are not accounted for. Or rather, cannot be accounted for at this time.
I hypothesize that:
God can store massive amounts of information, perhaps just as we do, using energy. Perhaps in our observed dimensions, or other dimensions. He can process and utilize this information at a speed, and in ways, that we perhaps cannot ever imagine.
He has the power of cognitive thought, using energy, perhaps much the way our brains use energy. Perhaps he does or does not need a substrate on which to store this information. He also has a personality.
He can cause energy to be transferred, much more efficiently than we can, and in much greater, or smaller, amounts than we can, and with greater accuracy, as He wishes, and on any level that He wishes. These energy transfers can cause actions to occur upon any element, or combination of elements, as He wishes.
Since He can control energy and matter, He can take any "form" He chooses, or possibly no "form" at all. There are numerous references in the Bible of God and/or Jesus taking or using forms of light or heat, energy.
Other than observations within the "natural" world of intelligent design, the only other evidence for God is the Bible. There were witnesses to God and certainly Jesus, including the days after He was killed. So much of the Bible is proven correct. Lord knows, it has been fiercely attacked, and great effort expended in proving it false in any way possible.. So I give great weight to the personal accounts, the interactions with God. Given how it reads, I do not believe a group of authors collaborated over a few millennia to promote a hoax.
I do wonder at times why He has not revealed Himself in the last two thousand years. But to Him, a thousand years is as a day. I am sure He is watching, and also that He has other things to do.
Now, on to Genesis.
I have read a good bit about the "young earth" theory. But, while I cannot conclusively say it is false at this time, I do not believe it. Simply too much evidence for a very old universe. I do not have a problem with that, and I do not believe Genesis does either.
I do not believe there was, or needed to be, an ex nihlo creation event. But I do not dismiss the possibility that it could occur. It may indeed be physically possible to create something from absolutely nothing. I just do not know how it would be done. Further, would something created from only energy be an ex nihlo event in the opinion of some? I don’t think it matters.
Gen 1:1. "In the beginning , God created the heavens and the earth."
A very pointed and abrupt statement from the author. He means to convey that God made all that the reader can see. I believe this is a delineation point within time, specifically the beginning of our known universe. I do not believe this event occurred around the time of the Garden of Eden, nor does the Bible say it does. In fact, it makes it clear that 1:1 was at an earlier time.
What does ‘created’ mean in this context? OT Hebrew has three words used to denote various levels of "creation". The Hebrew word bara is often translated "create", or "create new". The Hebrew word asah is often translated "make". The Hebrew word yasar is often translated "form". All are used to denote various "creations" in Genesis and elsewhere. In the above case, the word bara is used. It is generally reserved in the OT for acts of God. But it surely is not reserved for ex nihlo events, something from nothing. There are instances where it is obviously used to form or fashion.
I think of these "creation" events according to the level of change during the event. Bara denotes a more work intensive act, something created "new", followed by asah, and then yasar.
Bara is used four times in the Genesis creation. In the beginning, the fish, animals, and man. While bara was used to denote the creation of man, God used the dust of the earth to do so, obviously NOT an ex nihlo event. Therefore, since bara denotes the most intensive of creation events, I would say no creation event had to be ex nihlo.
So concerning Gen 1:1, bara is used to denote a great work, obviously the creation of the universe. The rest of the other "creation" events are a brief description of how the world we now live in came to be. Mention of the sum, moon and stars in other verses use asah or yasar, obviously not creations, or something new. Same with the light on the first day.
God makes each "creation" event clear. The first day, he spoke, and a light was created. We can do that by speaking or clapping. Hehe. This was obviously not the sun, moon or stars. They were created in the beginning, the heavens, and were further addressed on the fourth day. I have no idea what this light was which was created, asah, on the first "day". Perhaps it was a fusion reaction within the sun or earth to provide energy. I can assume that is was dark before this light was turned on. Perhaps He simply needed it to see, or for some other reason. Beats me. "And God said….evening and there was morning, the first day. These phrases were not used in Gen 1:1-2.
So the first day there was light. But what was there before the light? Obviously, at some point in time before the "first day" the heavens and earth were created.
"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Gen1:2.
So at some time before the "first day" we had:
The heavens.
The earth, formless and empty (or became formless and empty, NIV note)
The deep.
Waters.
These were not spoken into existence as with the later events, and they were not called "good" as with the other events. In fact, you can surmise they were screwed up.
Interesting the use of the word "Now" at the beginning of the sentence, and after the declaration that God created the heavens and earth. It is used to make a delineation between the original creation of the universe, and the following finishing "creation" or "finishing" of the earth. The author makes clear there were two events which occurred.
Of course, the author was not there at this time. This information had to be passed to him by God. He recorded it correctly, even without any scientific or firsthand knowledge. Remarkable.
I think of these first passages like someone describing rebuilding a classic car. They might start out saying, "this Chevy was built on a Monday in 1957. I started restoring it in ’92." Then, they go on to explain how they restored it. They do not tell exactly how the car was first built.
God made it plain that He was not chuffed about explaining how He did it. As if Job could understand anyway. Job 38-40.
The description of conditions before the first day seem to indicate chaos. Nothing much going on. From the brief description (formless and void), I get the feeling that a great destruction event had occurred within the past. Of course, science has determined the truth of great destruction events, extinction events caused by many different factors, throughout the history of earth. These events are always followed by what appear to be new creation events with new and different species, etc. Punctuated Equilibrium (Gould, et al).
The last ice age came about very near the record of the events recounted in Genesis, as far as I can tell. Further, the earth was covered with water, ice. And bubba, was it cold or what?
What was the earth like during the last ice age and what was it like after the last ice age? Remember, before the last ice age we had a far different population of creatures and vegetation inhabiting the earth including mammoths, mastodons, camalids, saber tooth tigers, and cro-magnon man. Research has shown that temperatures in tropical regions were below zero for a long time. In a presentation given in the Rayburn House Office Building on September 18, 1995, Dr. Lonnie G. Thompson (Ohio St. University) and Dr. Michael Bender (University of Rhode Island) presented some impressive findings.
Dr. Thompson's work focuses on the climate record from tropical and subtropical glaciers. He and his colleagues have drilled and analyzed ice cores from the high mountains of Huascaran, Peru. These cores provide the very first tropical record of global and tropical climate change extending back 20,000 years. Their results show that glacial temperatures at high elevations in the tropics during the peak of the Earth's last ice age were 8o to 12o C. cooler than today. Previously, scientific results, based upon the record of climate change from tropical marine sediment cores, that suggested temperatures in the tropics varied little between an ice age and a period of global warming. However, these new data indicate that the tropical Atlantic was probably 5o to 6o C. cooler during the last ice age.
Converting to the Fahrenheit scale(deg F=9/5 deg C+32); the tropical Atlantic was probably 122-140 degrees F cooler than today. Since the average annual temperature for various parts of Peru range from 65-77 degrees F, the Ice Age conditions must have been uninhabitable. Unless the world shifted on it’s axis, the more temperate areas would have been even colder. Scientists can give no reasonable explanation for why these fluctuations occurred.
Peru: 19.4-25 degrees C. Amount cooler Celcius: -40.06 to –25. Tropical Atlantic, Fahrenheit: -13 to –40.1
Grolier’s The Recent, or Holocene, Epoch is the younger major subdivision of the Quaternary Period. After the last Pleistocene Epoch glaciation, an interglacial interval of warming followed, causing the glaciers to withdraw (see GLACIER AND GLACIATION; ICE AGES). This marked the beginning of the Recent Epoch. The rate of decay shown by radiocarbon (carbon 14) occurring in early Recent wood, peat, shells, and bones indicates that the Recent Epoch began approximately 10,000 years ago.
Some trigger mechanism, most likely from outside the Earth or its atmosphere, affecting the climate seems to be necessary. Solar energy intensities have not yet been found to vary sufficiently to have single-handedly produced an ice age, but solar activity as expressed in sunspots and radio blackouts on an 11-year cycle has been shown to relate to short-term fluctuations in the Earth's climate. Longer cycles are currently being sought by statistical means
As is shown in the Genesis creation event, something was hinky with the light. The Book does not say the sun, moon, and stars were created, new, within the first "week", or six day creation. They were created along with the heavens. But somehow the energy was not reaching earth. They were revealed, asah, on the fourth day.
I have a lot more thoughts on this, and the rest of Genesis. But that is enough for now.
>Oh yes, it's simply the physical size of the evidence that matters. <
Where did I say that? That an observation can be repeated, and verified, is absolutely one of the tenets of science. You say one episode of the creation of organic life, by pure chance, is enough. It is not.
>And what happens if/when life is synthesised in the lab? Where shall god retreat to then?<
That would be an event, if repeatable, where I might possibly have to step into the black void with you.
Now, what occurrence would cause you to believe in a God? I believe he stated directly, that when he comes back, the current deal is off.
>What would have to be violated? Make a case. If I were to conceed it as unlikely, that simply means an unlikely event occured.<
Well, I outlined a couple in a previous post: Amino acids can not join in the presence of oxygen. If there was no oxygen, there would be no ozone layer and UV radiation would kill any life. Further, long chain amino acids cannot be formed in water. Also, specific enzymes are needed in order to replicate DNA. However the instructions for making these enzymes are located on the DNA.
Then, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics comes into play. All things, without an outside source of energy tend toward chaos. The "default" position is Venus, Mars, our Moon. Empty and void. The earth is unique. Just like in the probability calculations for spontaneous generation, the number of things required for the earth to evolve to support life is unimaginable, and appears impossible.
There are many more.
>haha, I was rejection the red herrings. Things that aren't relevant to the discussion. Yeah, you pasted in a bunch of quotes, even the classic out of context darwin quotes.<
Please show me where they are out of context. I will withdraw them if you can. In fact, they are very well known, and apologized for.
>What I mean by quote mining is what you did, ignore all the evidence in favor of evolution, all the papers, studies, etc. confirming it. Instead search for sound bites.<
Please, I am all eyes. I would truly love to see a comprehensive assessment, with evidence, of the current state of evolution. Since you mentioned adaptation, I assume you reject Gould and Eldredge and their punctuated equilibrium theory? You are more of a Dawkins man? Or are you basing your faith on phylogenetics, mDNA, what? Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy reading about all of this, and think it all has merit.
>Do you take what I say incorrectly on purpose? This is not a matter of faith, and I was simply giving the best explaination we have at the moment. You don't get it do you, I don't believe in things, I simply endorse certain views that I find reasonable and that have evidence. Naturalism is one of those. Life is around, looking into the past thorough fossils, our model of solar system formation, etc. Life hasn't always been here. Therefore, at some time life arose on earth. My answer, it came about naturally, followling through necessity based off of natural laws. How exactly, we don't know at the moment, and we are working at it. As I said, talkorigins.org is one of the best resources around. Your answer, some mysterious being, using no means, simply its will, made life from non-life. Wow, which is more reasonable? Oh, how about a new scientific method, whenever there is a really hard question, we'll just say it was the work of mysterious agents using magic. Soon we can be back in the dark ages.<
"How exactly, we don't know at the moment, and we are working at it." If you do not know something, but believe it to be true, I believe that is the definition of faith. I believe we have beat that to death.
I understand your point of view. Now, how about looking for causes outside of the box? You are pinning all your hopes on current science, for sciences’ sake, rather than opening your mind to all observations, that may lead you to new conclusions. You appear to be settled that anything that may approach God, or looks funny, or is outside the mainstream, is complete hokum.
>Please read your bible, the exodus occured after abraham. The Exodus (to people that think it happened) is usually dated between the 12th-15th century BCE. <
Man, I am a screw-up. I stand corrected on what I wrote. I simply was typing off the top of my head, and did not even think about it one minute.
My point was, the first Laws given to man were much earlier than Moses. In Genesis 26:5, the Lord compliments Abraham for his faithfulness by saying, "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." So there were laws during the time of Abraham.
Hammurabi was not only king of Babylonia but also of Amurru, land of the Amorites called later Palestine and Western Syria. As is written in Genesis, all of these lands were populated by descendants of Adam and Eve.
In the time of Abraham, one may consider the narratives of Sarah and Hagar Gen 16:1 , and Rachel and Bilhah, Gen 30:1, which show the same juridical principles as the Code. Other narratives of the Old Testament indicate the same customs as the Code does for Babylonia; compare Gen 24.53, where the bridal gifts to Rebekah correspond to the Babylonian terhatu.
I would say the evidence indicates an earlier creation of these laws, and that the Code and Mosaic Law originated in the same place, in Genesis, as you might expect, since the peoples were related.
Further, most archeologists believe that the Code find gives credence to the Mt. Sinai event.
Now, all of that means absolutely nothing concerning my original point, which is that our society is greatly influenced, if not based on the Bible. The Code, although it is similar, surely did not play a part, because it was not known, lost until recently. However, the Bible has lasted through the millenia. Much of our law, traditions, and customs ARE based on the Bible, as it was in Europe. Further, the way you were taught and raised, enveloped many of those principles. To argue differently would refute hundreds of years of confirmed research.
>Part of doing science is using methodological naturalism, I simply found it surprising that someone invoved in it so long hasn't adopted a naturalistic view.<
I suppose that is because I do not stifle myself, nor walk in lockstep, with any ideology, and surely not any methodology. I was always taught to keep my mind open. If all within science thought as you do, within a box, we would make little progress. Those who step outside the box may be proven wrong, but when they succeed, there is progress. Perhaps evolution draws it’s appeal from the methodology of some scientists alone, since it shares these same characteristics.
If I cared, I could take comfort in the majority of other scientists who believe in intelligent design.
>The better question would be, did they come up with them independantly? If someone has no connection to Judaism, if they come up with it afterwards you can't really say it is due to the earlier writing.<
First, there was no "Judaism", per se, at that time. There were people called Semites, the chosen. Even in the Exodus, the people wanted to worship idols. But within Genesis, the people had already been strewn far and wide. The Sun God of Hammurabi, may well have been his interpretation of God, as passed on from earlier generations.
>Since you believe in the accuracy of the gospels, try the easter challenge. Try to make sense of exactly what happened that day. Put the events of the resurrection in order, see any problems?<
I don’t think so, but thanks anyway.
>Tomorrow I have time to type up the evolution/abio stuff. Let me know about my offer in bold. This has really helped me organize many thoughts, I have a presentation to a club on campus on related material this week so it's been good. <
I have enjoyed it also. But you must loosen your mind a bit. It does nothing for your argument when you are condescending. The snide remarks seem to indicate a lack of confidence, or comfort with your position.
Plus, using a bit of "logic", what dog do you have in this fight? Why take it so personally to the point of attack? If you are correct, then when you die, your energy, your memories, personality, your "soul" will fade to black. So who cares if some nut-job has a different opinion from you? We are all going to die anyway, and that will be it.
I like to debate this stuff, because I find it interesting. But I do not intend to be overcome by it. If my views are correct, and I believe they are, then I might be in a better place when I die, depending on if I can ever behave. I may have spent a lot of time on research, study, etc. But I enjoy it. I do not think my life would be a great deal different, whether I believe or not. I would like to think I would still help people, etc. But I surely do not feel my life has suffered in any way as a believer. You may feel confident in leaving me to my ignorance, that no harm will come.
Bigger
Well, I could not get on for a few days, then the forum was down. Sorry for the delay. I will get to your other post.
>If you want to tell me your God is material, then it becomes bound by the same workings as everything else. Gravity, conservation of energy, etc. Creation now becomes naturalistic, like we see. Making of things from preexisting compontents, no creation ex nihlo. Is God alive? Then now he requires a metabolism, sensory apparatus, a material basis for consciousness (brain/CNS), and so on. There are huge problems when you bring this concoction into the natural world.<
And yet, many of the things attributed to God in the Bible, we can do today with our level of technology. Then imagine the possible technology a hundred years in the future. And yet, you refuse to believe that some other being, with obviously greater technology, might exist. That He can do things you currently consider "magic". You also seem to believe we know everything about the physical world, and that the physical world can be explained by the best postulation of the moment, no matter how absurd. I simply have no argument for that point of view. We must disagree.
>If it stays immaterial, how can something immaterial interact with something material?<
Well, I suppose, if it happened, it would be something I could never explain.
>Last I heard dark matter had been discovered and was accounting for it.<
You would be wrong. But first, what do you believe dark matter is? Or rather, what do those in the field say it is? I am not only writing about the lack of matter within the universe, but also the variations in what is expected in almost any physical setting. Energy or matter, high or low. Look at how often things are not as we expect or calculate.
>This reminds me of something Terrible Heresy wrote<
You may attempt to place any point of view upon me you wish. But it is simply a waste of time. Why not just stick to the facts and evidence, and not attempt to try me on false assumptions?
>We've done fine so far without appeal to any sky fairy, why assume one is there? The positions I'm taking are very basic, I'm simply going from what we know, and applying skepticism. Trying to 'reason' from what we don't know to something else we don't know isn't rational.<
What is not rational is that you will not even consider any point of view outside of your notions. I know of no scientist that cannot, at least somewhat, listen and evaluate another point of view, however absurd. These topics have been around a long time. Many thoughts, hypothesis’, theories, etc. have been proven wrong. The Bible is still standing. Only a poor scientist would not at least think on all the options. Further, it must be disconcerting to you concerning the number of scientists who currently believe in a divine creation, or at least intelligent design. I believe the last poll I saw was about 73%. I am surely not alone.
>There is a very reasonable explaination for why we can't measure it that I think you're overlooking. Gods are the invention of man. We made gods, all of them. I covered this earlier about use of analogy to construct anthropomorphic gods. In regards to Odin, Vishnu, and thousands of other gods, I'm sure you're an atheist just as I am<
Well, you are still arrogant. There are so many things, even in the past century, that we have LEARNED to measure. Properties that we did not even know existed. I am sure there will be many more that we discover. That you cannot consider all explanations is sad. You should at least find it interesting that there are no grandiose, obvious errors in the Bible, as with other ancient "religions".
>When you tell me the chrisitian myth is really real, it's about the same as saying batman exists but superman and spiderman are just stories.<
One more time. This is getting old. The Bible has been proven accurate in most, if not all provable instances, especially timing and geography and also political situations. It is not a cartoon. At least be reasonable. If nothing else, it at least has been proven to have historical value.
>Good, thus you admit the properties placed on your god are unintelligible.<
Considering the state of science currently concerning these topics, yes. But surely not impossible. You have simply picked your own myths, and call it reasonable, when so many similar "myths" within science have been disproved.
>Another argument to ignorance... Please take a course in basic logic, I beg you.<
Hmmm.
>Easier answer, he is made in our image. We made god. That you worship an amoral being kind of scares me. You obviously don't hold that God is all good, or loving. Might makes right, wow. <
I did not say He is immoral, and I do not believe He is. It is not for me to judge the things attributed to Him in the Bible, of a possibly negative connotation. I know that He is described as good and loving when it appears to be called for. But I also know he is a jealous God. I have no problem accepting Him as He is.
>Good, so you've just got rid of the 'need' for a ex nihlo creation event.<
I am surely not positive that there ever was a ‘something created from nothing’ event. The Bible does not say there was. I tend to think not. As I will show, it all depends on what the definition of words mean, and their context. Created is an interesting concept. An artist creates a work of art. Is it something from nothing? Of course not. I will try to explain below.
>I have, it is tough. To answer your later question, yes, I think this is it. Cerebral death is the end of your consciousness, memories and you. Everything goes black and that is it, just like before you were born. Frightening isn't it?<
If that is what I thought, then yes, it would be frightening. I hope you are brave in that hour.
>What a caracture of science, just a source of questions. The questions that arrise are usually reductionist, so say we figure out how some enzyme works, the new question is how did it get into that form, what is it made of? It's not like we're becoming more clueless, it's that we are finding new areas to explore.<
That is exactly what I meant. But also, when things are proven false, new questions arise. Even totally new fields of study from true or false answers. I would say the number of unanswered questions has risen over the last century by many hundreds of times. That is the nature of science.
>You do realize one of the consequences of expansion/contraction theory is that a universe that supports life gets spat out? ie. this one.<
I have read that some opinions might support that postulation. It is not a consequence. It has surely not been proven. In fact, far from it.
> So, you're aren't a young earth creationist, yet believe in the story of Adam and Eve?<
Surely. I just read the Book, add nothing, and take nothing away. All things considered, the time, knowledge, level of technology, I believe it is the most fascinating thing ever written.
>Design argument - I was talking about apologetics, so you talk of hebrew language doesn't apply. This goes that things are way to complex, therefore a designer is required. This designer is god. Apply it to itself, god is exceedingly complex, thus requires a designer.<
Perchance the designer did have a designer. I have not idea. But I do not know of anyone that is arguing God evolved by chance over billions of years either.
> Actually, it goes that any natural explaination is more likely by definition than a miracle (magic).<
Can you please get off the "miracle or magic" thing? It is off topic, and not what I am discussing. I do not disallow something unnatural, but I also am not advocating for it. I do not believe it is necessary. I believe that a material God could be with us. We are simply too ignorant, at least for the moment, to realize or measure Him, on a physical basis. But I also believe, science will not reveal Him before He does so Himself.
>Guilt for sin, need for saving, these things aren't part of my worldview. As I said earlier. Think over the salvation plan. God sent himself to sacifice to himself to change a rule he made. And we need to believe to avoid getting sent to hell, the only way is through belief in jesus. According to the bible who made hell? Jesus the only way? It's similar to someone putting a gun to your head, then praise them for not pulling the trigger.<
I am sorry you feel that way. With that attitude, you may actually have no hope. But then, I believe you are young?
>George Carlin<
Pulling out all the stop, huh?
>I have broken down my worldview on here, I ask that you do the same. Spell it out for me, show how it is consisitent with reality. <
That would take much more than a few posts on a Penis Enlargement forum. I will do what I can as time allows. But it surely will not be complete.
>After that, how about 3 questions of cross-examination each, responses then this ends?<
It can end now. There are not three questions that I would be interested in asking. It is a moot point. But, if you ask nicely, without arrogance, or snide comments, I will answer anything I can.
>Really? God creates the sky and that below it (the earth) first. The stars, sun and moon start appearing around verse 14. This sounds nothing like the big bang. I envision something more like a snowglobe, with pancake earth in the middle of the waters. Fits with what I've heard of babylonian creation myths too. I already covered how that could be shoehorned to fit a static model of the universe, it's just retroactive fitting of myth.<
I thought this would be a good question with which to start explaining my own beliefs.
Man has come a long way in a relatively short time. We transfer information by light, sound, other waves, at high rates. We have voice recognition technology that can cause many acts to be performed. We have made strides in artificial intelligence. We can store huge amounts of information as energy on small bits of silicon, etc. We can operate robots on distant planets. If someone were to come to the current time period, from a couple hundred years ago, they would consider all of us "magicians", at least until they studied, and understood how we do what we do.
I believe their is a higher being, a greater intelligence, that designed our world. He made it happen. I believe this because of the observations I have made. As with everything we create in this time period, we have designers. Our technology does not come about by chance. Compared to God’s creation, ours is a bit rough. His is much better. You do not even have to look closely to see the design in His work, on whatever level you choose. His design displays intelligence, as opposed to the rest of the visible universe, which is void.
So, how did he do it? What form does he take? Along with a bunch of other questions that I cannot answer, except to speculate with broad theories. But as I have said briefly before, we have so much concerning matter and energy that are not accounted for. Or rather, cannot be accounted for at this time.
I hypothesize that:
God can store massive amounts of information, perhaps just as we do, using energy. Perhaps in our observed dimensions, or other dimensions. He can process and utilize this information at a speed, and in ways, that we perhaps cannot ever imagine.
He has the power of cognitive thought, using energy, perhaps much the way our brains use energy. Perhaps he does or does not need a substrate on which to store this information. He also has a personality.
He can cause energy to be transferred, much more efficiently than we can, and in much greater, or smaller, amounts than we can, and with greater accuracy, as He wishes, and on any level that He wishes. These energy transfers can cause actions to occur upon any element, or combination of elements, as He wishes.
Since He can control energy and matter, He can take any "form" He chooses, or possibly no "form" at all. There are numerous references in the Bible of God and/or Jesus taking or using forms of light or heat, energy.
Other than observations within the "natural" world of intelligent design, the only other evidence for God is the Bible. There were witnesses to God and certainly Jesus, including the days after He was killed. So much of the Bible is proven correct. Lord knows, it has been fiercely attacked, and great effort expended in proving it false in any way possible.. So I give great weight to the personal accounts, the interactions with God. Given how it reads, I do not believe a group of authors collaborated over a few millennia to promote a hoax.
I do wonder at times why He has not revealed Himself in the last two thousand years. But to Him, a thousand years is as a day. I am sure He is watching, and also that He has other things to do.
Now, on to Genesis.
I have read a good bit about the "young earth" theory. But, while I cannot conclusively say it is false at this time, I do not believe it. Simply too much evidence for a very old universe. I do not have a problem with that, and I do not believe Genesis does either.
I do not believe there was, or needed to be, an ex nihlo creation event. But I do not dismiss the possibility that it could occur. It may indeed be physically possible to create something from absolutely nothing. I just do not know how it would be done. Further, would something created from only energy be an ex nihlo event in the opinion of some? I don’t think it matters.
Gen 1:1. "In the beginning , God created the heavens and the earth."
A very pointed and abrupt statement from the author. He means to convey that God made all that the reader can see. I believe this is a delineation point within time, specifically the beginning of our known universe. I do not believe this event occurred around the time of the Garden of Eden, nor does the Bible say it does. In fact, it makes it clear that 1:1 was at an earlier time.
What does ‘created’ mean in this context? OT Hebrew has three words used to denote various levels of "creation". The Hebrew word bara is often translated "create", or "create new". The Hebrew word asah is often translated "make". The Hebrew word yasar is often translated "form". All are used to denote various "creations" in Genesis and elsewhere. In the above case, the word bara is used. It is generally reserved in the OT for acts of God. But it surely is not reserved for ex nihlo events, something from nothing. There are instances where it is obviously used to form or fashion.
I think of these "creation" events according to the level of change during the event. Bara denotes a more work intensive act, something created "new", followed by asah, and then yasar.
Bara is used four times in the Genesis creation. In the beginning, the fish, animals, and man. While bara was used to denote the creation of man, God used the dust of the earth to do so, obviously NOT an ex nihlo event. Therefore, since bara denotes the most intensive of creation events, I would say no creation event had to be ex nihlo.
So concerning Gen 1:1, bara is used to denote a great work, obviously the creation of the universe. The rest of the other "creation" events are a brief description of how the world we now live in came to be. Mention of the sum, moon and stars in other verses use asah or yasar, obviously not creations, or something new. Same with the light on the first day.
God makes each "creation" event clear. The first day, he spoke, and a light was created. We can do that by speaking or clapping. Hehe. This was obviously not the sun, moon or stars. They were created in the beginning, the heavens, and were further addressed on the fourth day. I have no idea what this light was which was created, asah, on the first "day". Perhaps it was a fusion reaction within the sun or earth to provide energy. I can assume that is was dark before this light was turned on. Perhaps He simply needed it to see, or for some other reason. Beats me. "And God said….evening and there was morning, the first day. These phrases were not used in Gen 1:1-2.
So the first day there was light. But what was there before the light? Obviously, at some point in time before the "first day" the heavens and earth were created.
"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Gen1:2.
So at some time before the "first day" we had:
The heavens.
The earth, formless and empty (or became formless and empty, NIV note)
The deep.
Waters.
These were not spoken into existence as with the later events, and they were not called "good" as with the other events. In fact, you can surmise they were screwed up.
Interesting the use of the word "Now" at the beginning of the sentence, and after the declaration that God created the heavens and earth. It is used to make a delineation between the original creation of the universe, and the following finishing "creation" or "finishing" of the earth. The author makes clear there were two events which occurred.
Of course, the author was not there at this time. This information had to be passed to him by God. He recorded it correctly, even without any scientific or firsthand knowledge. Remarkable.
I think of these first passages like someone describing rebuilding a classic car. They might start out saying, "this Chevy was built on a Monday in 1957. I started restoring it in ’92." Then, they go on to explain how they restored it. They do not tell exactly how the car was first built.
God made it plain that He was not chuffed about explaining how He did it. As if Job could understand anyway. Job 38-40.
The description of conditions before the first day seem to indicate chaos. Nothing much going on. From the brief description (formless and void), I get the feeling that a great destruction event had occurred within the past. Of course, science has determined the truth of great destruction events, extinction events caused by many different factors, throughout the history of earth. These events are always followed by what appear to be new creation events with new and different species, etc. Punctuated Equilibrium (Gould, et al).
The last ice age came about very near the record of the events recounted in Genesis, as far as I can tell. Further, the earth was covered with water, ice. And bubba, was it cold or what?
What was the earth like during the last ice age and what was it like after the last ice age? Remember, before the last ice age we had a far different population of creatures and vegetation inhabiting the earth including mammoths, mastodons, camalids, saber tooth tigers, and cro-magnon man. Research has shown that temperatures in tropical regions were below zero for a long time. In a presentation given in the Rayburn House Office Building on September 18, 1995, Dr. Lonnie G. Thompson (Ohio St. University) and Dr. Michael Bender (University of Rhode Island) presented some impressive findings.
Dr. Thompson's work focuses on the climate record from tropical and subtropical glaciers. He and his colleagues have drilled and analyzed ice cores from the high mountains of Huascaran, Peru. These cores provide the very first tropical record of global and tropical climate change extending back 20,000 years. Their results show that glacial temperatures at high elevations in the tropics during the peak of the Earth's last ice age were 8o to 12o C. cooler than today. Previously, scientific results, based upon the record of climate change from tropical marine sediment cores, that suggested temperatures in the tropics varied little between an ice age and a period of global warming. However, these new data indicate that the tropical Atlantic was probably 5o to 6o C. cooler during the last ice age.
Converting to the Fahrenheit scale(deg F=9/5 deg C+32); the tropical Atlantic was probably 122-140 degrees F cooler than today. Since the average annual temperature for various parts of Peru range from 65-77 degrees F, the Ice Age conditions must have been uninhabitable. Unless the world shifted on it’s axis, the more temperate areas would have been even colder. Scientists can give no reasonable explanation for why these fluctuations occurred.
Peru: 19.4-25 degrees C. Amount cooler Celcius: -40.06 to –25. Tropical Atlantic, Fahrenheit: -13 to –40.1
Grolier’s The Recent, or Holocene, Epoch is the younger major subdivision of the Quaternary Period. After the last Pleistocene Epoch glaciation, an interglacial interval of warming followed, causing the glaciers to withdraw (see GLACIER AND GLACIATION; ICE AGES). This marked the beginning of the Recent Epoch. The rate of decay shown by radiocarbon (carbon 14) occurring in early Recent wood, peat, shells, and bones indicates that the Recent Epoch began approximately 10,000 years ago.
Some trigger mechanism, most likely from outside the Earth or its atmosphere, affecting the climate seems to be necessary. Solar energy intensities have not yet been found to vary sufficiently to have single-handedly produced an ice age, but solar activity as expressed in sunspots and radio blackouts on an 11-year cycle has been shown to relate to short-term fluctuations in the Earth's climate. Longer cycles are currently being sought by statistical means
As is shown in the Genesis creation event, something was hinky with the light. The Book does not say the sun, moon, and stars were created, new, within the first "week", or six day creation. They were created along with the heavens. But somehow the energy was not reaching earth. They were revealed, asah, on the fourth day.
I have a lot more thoughts on this, and the rest of Genesis. But that is enough for now.
>Oh yes, it's simply the physical size of the evidence that matters. <
Where did I say that? That an observation can be repeated, and verified, is absolutely one of the tenets of science. You say one episode of the creation of organic life, by pure chance, is enough. It is not.
>And what happens if/when life is synthesised in the lab? Where shall god retreat to then?<
That would be an event, if repeatable, where I might possibly have to step into the black void with you.
Now, what occurrence would cause you to believe in a God? I believe he stated directly, that when he comes back, the current deal is off.
>What would have to be violated? Make a case. If I were to conceed it as unlikely, that simply means an unlikely event occured.<
Well, I outlined a couple in a previous post: Amino acids can not join in the presence of oxygen. If there was no oxygen, there would be no ozone layer and UV radiation would kill any life. Further, long chain amino acids cannot be formed in water. Also, specific enzymes are needed in order to replicate DNA. However the instructions for making these enzymes are located on the DNA.
Then, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics comes into play. All things, without an outside source of energy tend toward chaos. The "default" position is Venus, Mars, our Moon. Empty and void. The earth is unique. Just like in the probability calculations for spontaneous generation, the number of things required for the earth to evolve to support life is unimaginable, and appears impossible.
There are many more.
>haha, I was rejection the red herrings. Things that aren't relevant to the discussion. Yeah, you pasted in a bunch of quotes, even the classic out of context darwin quotes.<
Please show me where they are out of context. I will withdraw them if you can. In fact, they are very well known, and apologized for.
>What I mean by quote mining is what you did, ignore all the evidence in favor of evolution, all the papers, studies, etc. confirming it. Instead search for sound bites.<
Please, I am all eyes. I would truly love to see a comprehensive assessment, with evidence, of the current state of evolution. Since you mentioned adaptation, I assume you reject Gould and Eldredge and their punctuated equilibrium theory? You are more of a Dawkins man? Or are you basing your faith on phylogenetics, mDNA, what? Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy reading about all of this, and think it all has merit.
>Do you take what I say incorrectly on purpose? This is not a matter of faith, and I was simply giving the best explaination we have at the moment. You don't get it do you, I don't believe in things, I simply endorse certain views that I find reasonable and that have evidence. Naturalism is one of those. Life is around, looking into the past thorough fossils, our model of solar system formation, etc. Life hasn't always been here. Therefore, at some time life arose on earth. My answer, it came about naturally, followling through necessity based off of natural laws. How exactly, we don't know at the moment, and we are working at it. As I said, talkorigins.org is one of the best resources around. Your answer, some mysterious being, using no means, simply its will, made life from non-life. Wow, which is more reasonable? Oh, how about a new scientific method, whenever there is a really hard question, we'll just say it was the work of mysterious agents using magic. Soon we can be back in the dark ages.<
"How exactly, we don't know at the moment, and we are working at it." If you do not know something, but believe it to be true, I believe that is the definition of faith. I believe we have beat that to death.
I understand your point of view. Now, how about looking for causes outside of the box? You are pinning all your hopes on current science, for sciences’ sake, rather than opening your mind to all observations, that may lead you to new conclusions. You appear to be settled that anything that may approach God, or looks funny, or is outside the mainstream, is complete hokum.
>Please read your bible, the exodus occured after abraham. The Exodus (to people that think it happened) is usually dated between the 12th-15th century BCE. <
Man, I am a screw-up. I stand corrected on what I wrote. I simply was typing off the top of my head, and did not even think about it one minute.
My point was, the first Laws given to man were much earlier than Moses. In Genesis 26:5, the Lord compliments Abraham for his faithfulness by saying, "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." So there were laws during the time of Abraham.
Hammurabi was not only king of Babylonia but also of Amurru, land of the Amorites called later Palestine and Western Syria. As is written in Genesis, all of these lands were populated by descendants of Adam and Eve.
In the time of Abraham, one may consider the narratives of Sarah and Hagar Gen 16:1 , and Rachel and Bilhah, Gen 30:1, which show the same juridical principles as the Code. Other narratives of the Old Testament indicate the same customs as the Code does for Babylonia; compare Gen 24.53, where the bridal gifts to Rebekah correspond to the Babylonian terhatu.
I would say the evidence indicates an earlier creation of these laws, and that the Code and Mosaic Law originated in the same place, in Genesis, as you might expect, since the peoples were related.
Further, most archeologists believe that the Code find gives credence to the Mt. Sinai event.
Now, all of that means absolutely nothing concerning my original point, which is that our society is greatly influenced, if not based on the Bible. The Code, although it is similar, surely did not play a part, because it was not known, lost until recently. However, the Bible has lasted through the millenia. Much of our law, traditions, and customs ARE based on the Bible, as it was in Europe. Further, the way you were taught and raised, enveloped many of those principles. To argue differently would refute hundreds of years of confirmed research.
>Part of doing science is using methodological naturalism, I simply found it surprising that someone invoved in it so long hasn't adopted a naturalistic view.<
I suppose that is because I do not stifle myself, nor walk in lockstep, with any ideology, and surely not any methodology. I was always taught to keep my mind open. If all within science thought as you do, within a box, we would make little progress. Those who step outside the box may be proven wrong, but when they succeed, there is progress. Perhaps evolution draws it’s appeal from the methodology of some scientists alone, since it shares these same characteristics.
If I cared, I could take comfort in the majority of other scientists who believe in intelligent design.
>The better question would be, did they come up with them independantly? If someone has no connection to Judaism, if they come up with it afterwards you can't really say it is due to the earlier writing.<
First, there was no "Judaism", per se, at that time. There were people called Semites, the chosen. Even in the Exodus, the people wanted to worship idols. But within Genesis, the people had already been strewn far and wide. The Sun God of Hammurabi, may well have been his interpretation of God, as passed on from earlier generations.
>Since you believe in the accuracy of the gospels, try the easter challenge. Try to make sense of exactly what happened that day. Put the events of the resurrection in order, see any problems?<
I don’t think so, but thanks anyway.
>Tomorrow I have time to type up the evolution/abio stuff. Let me know about my offer in bold. This has really helped me organize many thoughts, I have a presentation to a club on campus on related material this week so it's been good. <
I have enjoyed it also. But you must loosen your mind a bit. It does nothing for your argument when you are condescending. The snide remarks seem to indicate a lack of confidence, or comfort with your position.
Plus, using a bit of "logic", what dog do you have in this fight? Why take it so personally to the point of attack? If you are correct, then when you die, your energy, your memories, personality, your "soul" will fade to black. So who cares if some nut-job has a different opinion from you? We are all going to die anyway, and that will be it.
I like to debate this stuff, because I find it interesting. But I do not intend to be overcome by it. If my views are correct, and I believe they are, then I might be in a better place when I die, depending on if I can ever behave. I may have spent a lot of time on research, study, etc. But I enjoy it. I do not think my life would be a great deal different, whether I believe or not. I would like to think I would still help people, etc. But I surely do not feel my life has suffered in any way as a believer. You may feel confident in leaving me to my ignorance, that no harm will come.
Bigger
Well BIB, let us consider the argument ended then. Thank you for your last post, and sharing your views. We disagree on many things, and I doubt a resolution would have occured.
You're correct that I'm young, so I still have much to explore. You've continually commented on my lack of creativity here, as I'm trying to defend rationalism, naturalism and science the views that I can endorse are in many ways limited. As well, my rejection of many of the things you've said is not definitive, it is that they should be rejected until such time there is reason and evidence to consider them (I mentioned the problem of skepticism rejecting truths earilier). If someone holds something based on faith, then say it's faith, don't pretend it's rational. That is why I got into this thing. Thought I do have things against faith in principle as well.
I decided to ridicule as it often knocks things home much better than a long breakdown, guess it just came off as insult in your case.
I do have a couple questions, answer if you like:
1. What makes your god any different than an advanced alien?
2. What do you consider open minded to mean?
Thanks,
Kraft
You're correct that I'm young, so I still have much to explore. You've continually commented on my lack of creativity here, as I'm trying to defend rationalism, naturalism and science the views that I can endorse are in many ways limited. As well, my rejection of many of the things you've said is not definitive, it is that they should be rejected until such time there is reason and evidence to consider them (I mentioned the problem of skepticism rejecting truths earilier). If someone holds something based on faith, then say it's faith, don't pretend it's rational. That is why I got into this thing. Thought I do have things against faith in principle as well.
I decided to ridicule as it often knocks things home much better than a long breakdown, guess it just came off as insult in your case.
I do have a couple questions, answer if you like:
1. What makes your god any different than an advanced alien?
2. What do you consider open minded to mean?
Thanks,
Kraft
Kraft, I liked your arguement, you had alot of interesting points. But anyway, if Jesus did indeed return, I'd say he better be a damn good carpenter, because he has to make a living somewhow!
As to your questions, I don't mean to step on Bib's feet here, but I can't help but answer. Alot of people believe that we are the only ones in this vast universe. They can't possibly except that there could be infinitely more intelligence out there, and IMO that ties in with being open-minded as well. I think we need to challenge our belief systems. Think a different way. Years ago, everyone's minds settled into the belief of "God" who was responsible for everything, and they became hostile to new ideas, thankfully, more and more people are starting to question things and search for answers, instead of dumbly beleiving a supernatural entity is responsible.
As to your questions, I don't mean to step on Bib's feet here, but I can't help but answer. Alot of people believe that we are the only ones in this vast universe. They can't possibly except that there could be infinitely more intelligence out there, and IMO that ties in with being open-minded as well. I think we need to challenge our belief systems. Think a different way. Years ago, everyone's minds settled into the belief of "God" who was responsible for everything, and they became hostile to new ideas, thankfully, more and more people are starting to question things and search for answers, instead of dumbly beleiving a supernatural entity is responsible.
Kraft,
>You're correct that I'm young, so I still have much to explore.<
Well, I am somewhat old, and still have much to explore, God willing. That you are able and willing to explore, is a great asset.
>You've continually commented on my lack of creativity here, as I'm trying to defend rationalism, naturalism and science the views that I can endorse are in many ways limited.<
That was one of my earlier points. You seem to think that your methodology alone precludes you from exploring other options. It only does if you allow it to. As you will see in my upcoming post, there are different, and possibly better ways of interpreting evidence. One size evidence does not fit all. How could it? When you read or listen to someone’s conclusions based on evidence, you should not only question the evidence, but the conclusions also.
>As well, my rejection of many of the things you've said is not definitive, it is that they should be rejected until such time there is reason and evidence to consider them (I mentioned the problem of skepticism rejecting truths earilier).<
I would counter that much of the evidence is already there, provided by science, for intelligent design events. I believe there is more credible evidence provided by science, for creation, than evolution. Surely, the paleontological record does so. The problem is, the ones interpreting the evidence, are evolutionists. They put out their conclusions, and many jump on the bandwagon.
>If someone holds something based on faith, then say it's faith, don't pretend it's rational. That is why I got into this thing. Thought I do have things against faith in principle as well.<
As I have shown over and over, a macroevolution position requires as much or more faith than a creation position. If you do not "believe" in macroevolution, then say so. If you do, you make great assumptions, that require faith to "believe". I will provide more information in the next reply to your previous post above.
>I decided to ridicule as it often knocks things home much better than a long breakdown, guess it just came off as insult in your case.<
Actually, it comes off as arrogance. Considering the quality of your sitings, it is a false arrogance. I expected something new or intriguing. It was not there. It is not your fault. It is simply the current state of evolution.
Further, you seemed to want to cast me in the same light as with all "creationists", when I have stated I do not believe in much of what they state. The reason being, neither science nor the Bible agree with what they are saying.
>1. What makes your god any different than an advanced alien?<
I do not know if anything does. It depends on your definition of "alien" I suppose. Or, which side exactly is the alien? The one who has always been, or the "progeny".
>2. What do you consider open minded to mean?<
Willing to consider interpretations of evidence or points-of-view different from ones own. Willing to step out of the mainstream for explanations.
Bigger
>You're correct that I'm young, so I still have much to explore.<
Well, I am somewhat old, and still have much to explore, God willing. That you are able and willing to explore, is a great asset.
>You've continually commented on my lack of creativity here, as I'm trying to defend rationalism, naturalism and science the views that I can endorse are in many ways limited.<
That was one of my earlier points. You seem to think that your methodology alone precludes you from exploring other options. It only does if you allow it to. As you will see in my upcoming post, there are different, and possibly better ways of interpreting evidence. One size evidence does not fit all. How could it? When you read or listen to someone’s conclusions based on evidence, you should not only question the evidence, but the conclusions also.
>As well, my rejection of many of the things you've said is not definitive, it is that they should be rejected until such time there is reason and evidence to consider them (I mentioned the problem of skepticism rejecting truths earilier).<
I would counter that much of the evidence is already there, provided by science, for intelligent design events. I believe there is more credible evidence provided by science, for creation, than evolution. Surely, the paleontological record does so. The problem is, the ones interpreting the evidence, are evolutionists. They put out their conclusions, and many jump on the bandwagon.
>If someone holds something based on faith, then say it's faith, don't pretend it's rational. That is why I got into this thing. Thought I do have things against faith in principle as well.<
As I have shown over and over, a macroevolution position requires as much or more faith than a creation position. If you do not "believe" in macroevolution, then say so. If you do, you make great assumptions, that require faith to "believe". I will provide more information in the next reply to your previous post above.
>I decided to ridicule as it often knocks things home much better than a long breakdown, guess it just came off as insult in your case.<
Actually, it comes off as arrogance. Considering the quality of your sitings, it is a false arrogance. I expected something new or intriguing. It was not there. It is not your fault. It is simply the current state of evolution.
Further, you seemed to want to cast me in the same light as with all "creationists", when I have stated I do not believe in much of what they state. The reason being, neither science nor the Bible agree with what they are saying.
>1. What makes your god any different than an advanced alien?<
I do not know if anything does. It depends on your definition of "alien" I suppose. Or, which side exactly is the alien? The one who has always been, or the "progeny".
>2. What do you consider open minded to mean?<
Willing to consider interpretations of evidence or points-of-view different from ones own. Willing to step out of the mainstream for explanations.
Bigger
>As I have shown over and over, a macroevolution position requires as much or more faith than a creation position. If you do not "believe" in macroevolution, then say so. If you do, you make great assumptions, that require faith to "believe"<
It must be really getting to you that you can't bring me down to your level, that of faith and beliefs. I've explained many times why your conception of faith doesn't work, but you keep repeating it. Are you being disingenuous, or maybe just closed to the thought that your conception of faith/belief/knowledge could be in error?
>I expected something new or intriguing. It was not there.<
What were you expecting, something like Hovind wants of a dog giving birth to a pinecone?
It must be really getting to you that you can't bring me down to your level, that of faith and beliefs. I've explained many times why your conception of faith doesn't work, but you keep repeating it. Are you being disingenuous, or maybe just closed to the thought that your conception of faith/belief/knowledge could be in error?
>I expected something new or intriguing. It was not there.<
What were you expecting, something like Hovind wants of a dog giving birth to a pinecone?
Kraft,
>It must be really getting to you that you can't bring me down to your level, that of faith and beliefs.<
"Down to my level"? I admit readily that what I believe requires faith. I am honest about it. You appear to be dishonest. If you are claiming macro-evolution requires no faith on your part to believe, that is absurd. If you are claiming you have the evidence to prove macro-evolution, then provide it.
>I've explained many times why your conception of faith doesn't work, but you keep repeating it.<
I am sorry, but I must have missed it.
>Are you being disingenuous, or maybe just closed to the thought that your conception of faith/belief/knowledge could be in error?<
As you know, I have admitted that what I believe could be in error. Often in fact. You have admitted that what you believe could change, as more evidence emerges. Since you believe what you believe, subject to change, which occurs often in evolution, you must have a degree of faith.
>What were you expecting, something like Hovind wants of a dog giving birth to a pinecone?<
Anything which might give some evidence of macro-evolution.
Bigger
>It must be really getting to you that you can't bring me down to your level, that of faith and beliefs.<
"Down to my level"? I admit readily that what I believe requires faith. I am honest about it. You appear to be dishonest. If you are claiming macro-evolution requires no faith on your part to believe, that is absurd. If you are claiming you have the evidence to prove macro-evolution, then provide it.
>I've explained many times why your conception of faith doesn't work, but you keep repeating it.<
I am sorry, but I must have missed it.
>Are you being disingenuous, or maybe just closed to the thought that your conception of faith/belief/knowledge could be in error?<
As you know, I have admitted that what I believe could be in error. Often in fact. You have admitted that what you believe could change, as more evidence emerges. Since you believe what you believe, subject to change, which occurs often in evolution, you must have a degree of faith.
>What were you expecting, something like Hovind wants of a dog giving birth to a pinecone?<
Anything which might give some evidence of macro-evolution.
Bigger
Bib said:
Faith? Dude, faith is just the absence of facts my friend. Saying evolution is a theory is like saying gravity is a theory. While technically true, the evidence for it is so great as to render it fact. That life evolves over time is an undeniable, observable fact. How that process works is where the debate lies. There are competing theories to explain how evolution unfolds. But insisting that evolution is a theory is rather naive. And it gives ammunition to the anti-intellectual forces of ignorance who are for teaching “creationism” along side evolution.
“Creationism” could be taught in school---in a mythology class along with all the other creation myths: Hindu, Greek, Muslim, Buddhist, Navajo, et al. But it has absolutely no place in a science class.
Essentially, it’s like saying, Santa Claus lives in the North Pole, and on Christmas eve he rides in a sleigh pulled by magical flying reindeer to every house in the world delivering presents. There is also a competing theory that says it’s your parents who place the gifts under the tree. It’s just a theory, though. Even though I personally believe in Theistic evolution, I can see the basis for evolution everyday.
Similar threads
