 |
| |
|
|
ckweb
|
|
Woah!
I wrote a post on page 5 just yesterday and suddenly boom 4 pages of posts! Yikes. The funny thing is that only one person commented on my post. Oh well.
Hey Ethel and Jack -- nice to see you guys again ( I assume your male  ). You stopped posting to the other thread we had going so I thought you lost the appetite for religious discussions. Oh well, it was for the best . . . I was spending way too much time posting anyways and needed to stop.
Ethel, it's kind of weird agreeing on something here.
But, I did want to point something out. Within orthodox Christianity, the present day purpose of the Ten Commandments is not to prescribe good Christian living as you suggested a couple posts back (although, true, they are not totally irrelevant to this aim). The Ten Commandments are an indictment that holiness and righteousness are beyond the human grasp apart from faith and due to sin. In the NT, Jesus makes this point in his Sermon on the Mount. The Pharisees believed that through their legalistic adherence to the laws of the OT they made themselves righteous before God and hence were deserving of their place in his kingdom. Jesus points out that while they do practice the letter of the law, they do not practice its spirit. In fact, Jesus goes on to use hyperbole to reveal the extent to which they would have to go to follow the law perfectly, i.e. with the command of adultery, Jesus points out that they would have to cut out their eyes in order to avoid even lustful thoughts of adultery. Of course, God's message through Jesus is that salvation is not based on successful adherence to a set of moral principles, which are otherwise impossible for humans to follow perfectly. Rather, salvation is based on true faith in Jesus, whose righteousness then becomes our righteousness through Christ's substitionary sacrifice. Even in the OT it was recognized that salvation came not through adherence to the law but through faith. The purpose of the OT sacrificial system was to provide a outward ritual that reflected this inward reality. Anyways, just a point of clarification. No biggie.
Jack: The majority of the Bible was not written after or around 200 B.C.E. You are stating a minority opinion as fact. There are only a select group of minimalist scholars, i.e. Lemche, Van Seters, who adhere to such an outlandish theory. While they make some important contributions to our understanding of history and the biblical text, their theories simply cannot explain how the body of literature in the OT reflects on itself as if for centuries or what purpose would have existed around 200 B.C.E. to lead someone to write certain books. Only a few OT books could have been written after or around 200 B.C.E. Books such as Daniel and maybe Chronicles (though I'd date the latter around 300-400 B.C.E.). There are a few others to which an argument might be made. Anyways, not really relevant to the broader discussion but I can't help but pine away . . .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ckweb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
The Judeo-Christian perception of God likely doesn't exist. But nobody can say God doesn't or does exist. IMO, you shouldn't believe in anything you don't know is true (or a theory/idea that doesn't have loads of evidence supporting it). The only things I believe as truth is that "I exist", "I don't know why I exist", "I don't know the nature of my existence, i.e. if I was created by a being, or if I'm just a random occurance". It is foolish to believe in any religion as truth. I don't need a god to teach me morals, and I think its sad that god is the reason people defend their morals. |
Sava, what if through personal experience I knew God existed? Would it be foolish to believe in God? Would it be foolish to seek out his/her/its guidance?
You may not have experienced God and so you refuse to believe. I have experienced God and so I believe. Why should your experiences take precedence over mine? Why should your experiences and consequently your beliefs serve as my guide? Why should I trust your interpretation of my experiences rather than my own interpretation?
BTW, it is not as foolish as you suggest, even if God does not exist, to use religion as one source of truth. Religion as it has been institutionalized is built, at least in part, on the attempts of successive generations to perceive certain truths about human conduct. Anyone seeking morality would do well to study and consider how others have defined it, don't you think? I think its foolish to rely only on yourself for guidance in morals, especially when the world consists of so many other people with minds and actions superior to our own. It seems only natural to consult others. Its like anything in life: seek out authorities on a subject if you really want to know something. I'd say Buddha, having studied and examined morality all his life, had some very important insights that are worth your consideration. Not having this humility to seek help only means you worship at the shrine of Sava, which is as sad or moreso than the thing you condemn.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gary
|
 |
London
Apr 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
You DID make an assumption about before. You assumed the Universe needed a cause. |
That depends whether you believe the cause is before, or at the same time. Given time starts at the birth of the universe it isn't before. Now if you were concerned about things being outside time, that's a different matter, but how the cause came about is not particularly relevant. the important thing is that it's there.
quote:
No. That was reducio ad absurdum not proof of a god. If your assumption leeds to an infinite regression you most likely have a bad assumption. |
My assumptions didn't, your's did. (But who says something is absurd anyway, when considering things outside of this universe and time ? Not sure you can apply the same rules there.) Anyway, like I said, it isn't relevant. One God will do, your many are just a bonus. Just don't expect me to agree with your "Many Gods" theory.
quote:
I didn't lose a cause. I gave up an unjustifiable assumption. Your assumption results in an infinite regression unless you put a wholely arbritary stop on it. I just put the stop in earlier which is simpler. One less turn of the assumption machine. |
The assumption was that there was a cause. Which I don't see how you can suggest is unjustifiable. If it is, show how a universe comes into existence without a cause. I can only say again that the infinite regression comes from your assumptions, not mine.
But in a nutshell, I can't see how you can argue with the idea that, assuming a cause, it can be called God and thus God exists. If you don't like the initial assumption, suggest an alternative, i.e. how a universe (or anything) comes into being without a cause. That would convince the gallery 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
 |
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:21
|
|
Ethelred:
quote:
However considering that the Bible is often alleged to be at least be inspired by god in a somewhat direct manner the Bible should be quite a bit more accurate than it is. |
I can see your point, but I think you mix 'inspired by God' and 'dictated by God' up too much. The bible is inspired in such a way that the message it brings to us is right. Just a silly example: "Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins under Pilatus." What if appears that Pilatus was not the ruler in those days, but he just changed position with "Hiromus" (all made up by me) and Marcus was wrong on that..... no problem. The message is "Jesus died for our sins"
Besides that, the bible is not dated. It doesn't try to bring over dated science or cultural morals. It does happen in these circumstanses indeed, but it stays away from it though so it's still of great use in the 21st century. The creation story does not even make any scientific statements. All it says is that God created it all in 6 steps. Not how he did it, why he did it or whatever. About all other creation stories come with strange god stories, trowing stones that become humans before they hit the ground, in example.
quote:
Its not written by one person. |
big mistake by me. I don't know why I typed that. I meant 'by human'.
quote:
as can be seen in the many paired stories and in the two versions of creation at the very beginning of Genesis. |
I don't see how they conflict. It's an old dated argument and it makes no sence.
They're two descriptions of the same event told from a different position. One is chronoligal, the other isn't.
But if you want to use the argument, go deeper into it, and explain why they contradict.
quote:
This no different than the Bible. The humans should pray. The humans should obey. |
The bible compares the relation between humans and himself with a bride and her husband.
It does compare it between a father and his children (you're not slaves, you're children)
Do you know the story of the lost son? Do you see how the father waits for his son, how he welcomes him with open arms?
quote:
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. |
this is mankind before the fall.
quote:
Thats pretty clear that humans are in charge of the whole of life on Earth. |
No, we're not in charge, we are representatives and we get the responsibility to upkeep it.
Thus, not the way we do it in the 21st century.
quote:
As Jack pointed out allready the Jews got their asses kicked an awful lot for the Chosen People of God. |
because the jews did not listen to God and questioned his authority.
Not because God forgot to protect them or something.
quote:
Budism is about as from pride in oneself as it is possible to be. |
I'm sorry, I don't get this. might be a language thing.
quote:
Make enough predictions and some will come true. Eventually some downtrodden group was bound to achieve their prediction of regaining what they claim they once had. It happened to be the Jews. |
How many other 'downtrodden groups' that are scattered around the earth that still exist have these claims right now?
How many groups were actually scattered around the earth unvoluntairy?
How many groups actually prophecied about themselves that they would be scattered around the earth?
What about detail prophecies that forsee troubles with jews returning from the North (Russia) and from the south (ethyopia) while jews from the east and the west come easily?
What about Jerusalem prophecied to be a worldwide problem, about which all kings of the world have an opinion?
What about prophecies by Jesus about 135 AD, when the romans destroyed Jerusalem completely, and took every stone from the other stone of the temple (because the golden roof of the temple melted, and they wanted to scrap the gold from between the stones)
Those are not 'happy to be' prophecies either.
quote:
However it has many other parts that prove it wrong. |
ok, let's get deeper into this, which parts? (I'm serious, let's discuss them.)
quote:
Only in the case of Persia and even that ignores the fact that the Persians are not quite the same as those of the Biblical times even without being Islamic these days.
Neither are the Jews for that matter. European Jews often are indistinguishable from other Europeans unlike full Semites who are very clearly not Europeans. |
that's right, but I don't think it does matter.
quote:
That may change as well. Saddam Hussein will not live forever. |
You expect the ME arabic countries to become friendly to israel soon? (or visa versa)
quote:
So does the Bible. That is what the Ten Commandments were for. YOU must obey them. |
the 10 commandments (and the rest of moses' laws) are set by God as a standard for those who want to live a rightious life without the help of God.
It's like "Ok, you can have it the way you want it, try it yourself if you don't need me"
But with the coming of Jesus this all changes.
People who want to follow him are free from laws, but morely open their hearts to God's Spirit. They live through the love-law. Love God above all, and all people like you would love yourself.
Much christians want to make christianity a law-and-ritual religion as well. In fact that's what we, humans, like. rituals and laws. (not the western humans though)
quote:
And the Universe we see today does not have to follow the same rules of the Universe of the past. Indeed we have good reason to think that it did not. Its true that physics assume the laws of the universe are the same everywhere but there is ample evidence that the early universe had different rules. |
rules for mass like gravity, appearance, for atoms electrons and all that might have been different in the past? Why?
quote:
Matter CAN pop into existence according to quantum theory and experiments. |
these experiments offer a cause to this to happen.
These experiments do not take place under the same circumstanses as the very first beginning. It's impossible to reconstruct a complete empty space, and observe it at the same moment. Pherhaps right now particles and virtual-particles will pop out of nothing (or out of each other) and indeed, the theories about that if you combine all negative energy with positive energy it wil be exact nothing are good an nice. (thus: there is still nothing)
but than we still have the question left open: "What or who splitted all this energy up into positive and negative energy. positive mass and negative mass"
In fact it only brings more proof for creation ex nihilo, only with the same question left open: "What has the power to do it at the complete zero point"
Take in mind that this 'what' cannot be positive or negative mass or energy itself. It must be completely different.
I think the logical answer can only be desribed as "something completely different"
That doesn't mean I can give the logical answer, I can only desribe what it must be like more or less. I have faith that God is the answer.
quote:
Mathematics or at least the principles behind it would exist wether the Universe existed or not. |
If there's nothing to add to something else, there's no mathematics.
For 1+1=2 you need at least '1'.
If there's no '1' there is no sum.
Like a 'year', what is a year? It is the time the planet earth needs to go around the sun. Without the earth or the sun, the 'year' would have had a complete different meaning.
quote:
You were the one that brought up monkeys earlier. Thats why I mentioned it. |
that's right. I did that. I thought you refered to my last message.
I think the money-example is a valid one.
typing monkeys can be compared with evolution, BUT you need to put a 'human' with the monkeys who 'selects' the wrong parts they type and trow it away.
Is the example ok this way to you?
things you did not reply to:
quote:
CyberShy: it does, it says that if man and woman have sex and have sex with someone else after that, they commit adultery.
I agree again on the evidence thing. But I think I have a point that most ancient men would rather chose polygamy to be an option. It might mean that it has been written by gays or women as well indeed. |
it would be nice for a healthy discussion if you would say "you're right" if you think I am. I think I do that all the time as well.
It will provide a more friendly atmosphere. To 'agree' with a counter-argument like this will not make your position less stable.
others:
quote:
Ethelred: Is that why Solomon was the blessed of Jehovah? Because he didn't really have hundreds of wives. So the Bible lied about that huh? |
quote:
CS: the bible says that all man are sinners. So was Solomon, so was David. The bible is clear about that. |
quote:
CS: Much parts of revelation might be about modern warfire, about globalisation and all that.
So far revelation is not an argument to use by me against others, for the simple reason that it didn't come true yet. But I can imagine it to come true though.
If you compare it to the middle ages, revelations couldn't become true in those days, simple for the fact that the world lacked globalisation. Globalisation was even beyond their imagination. |
quote:
CS: Like I have said before,
a painter does not have to obey the same rules as a painting.
A baker does not need to same ingredients as a bread, and neiter does a god need to obey to the same rules of his creation.
I know the rules of the 'creation'. I agree that it's hard to imagine god according to these rules, but again, these rules don't have to apply. |
your last comment was that you 'had raised the question' about 'the creation of god' before but I ignore it. I can't understand that you ignore my answer to the question, while you were that specific about me ignoring the question........
read the next quotes about that:
quote:
You: What would be good would be for you to stop repeating things like the Universe can't come from nothing when that clearly must also apply to any god. |
quote:
Me: same counts for you. I do not repeat more or less than you do. I can't remember you every rebutted my former argument.
pherhaps you think my answer is a cheap answer.
I can see your point on that, but I can't give any better, and this answer will do. |
I think that's it.
greetings,
CyberShy
Ps. to Jack theB, UR, again you guys left the discussion with my last arguments and answered unanswerd. Next time you guys will start again like I never came with those answers. It's getting boring.
Lemmy, will you answers?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SlowwHand
You're as full of crap as Fez is, Big E.
We argued this subject extensively.
[QUOTE]
Usually after I accused you of trying to make another hit and run. You often anounce that you aren't going to respond after all.
[QUOTE]
This was my fault, for even posting in the thread.
All you and Fez like to do is bait, not discuss.
So shove your opinion of me right up your anal orifice.
Fez, you watch how it's done and do the same. |
You bait, just as you did this time. I discuss. You have only trolled on this thread so far. Just because Fez is an easy mark that doesn't make me one.
I will call you on those hit and runs. You tried another. So I called you on it. If you don't like the results of your tactics then perhaps you should think about changing them.
That last goes for Fez as well. He is really lousy at debate and he is not an authoritarian, he is simply inept.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lemmy
|
 |
Bubblewrap
Dec 2000
time: 06:21
|
|
me anwsering?
anything specific, i haven't really been following discussion lately...
but let's get to the evolution thingie, i like that
quote:
typing monkeys can be compared with evolution, BUT you need to put a 'human' with the monkeys who 'selects' the wrong parts they type and trow it away. |
Do you believe in genetics, and that your genes define your physical properties (strength, length, intelligence etc..), and maybe even part of your personality? And that your genes are passed to you from your parents?
Then assume you got todays monkeys, one is stronger then the other, one is more intelligent then the other.
Now suppose some sort of catastrophe hits, maybe another ice age, and food is really hard to get, maybe only the smartest monkeys can get food, so only the smartest monkeys survive.
A result of this would be that the average intelligence would go up among the monkey population. Given enough time, it could get as high as our avg intelligence today.
One other question, if god created the world, and the humans, how come the humans oldest religion is Hinduism?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SlowwHand
A freaking rainbow is what pissed him off so bad, but he's not irrational. |
Congratulations on your troll. Fez sure took the bait.
There was at least some people trying to debate rationaly prior to that. You have succeeded masterfully in turning this into a crap fest.
Of course you had a master bait taker to help you.
Fez why can't you try to discuss ANYTHING with out it turning into the sort of crap that most people give up when they hit puberty. This 'I am rubber and you are glue' type of garbage should be something you should have outgrown long ago.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
Ps. to Jack theB, UR, again you guys left the discussion with my last arguments and answered unanswerd. Next time you guys will start again like I never came with those answers. It's getting boring. |
...Huh?
You attempted to use "fulfilled prophecies" as evidence for God, and you attempted to use "something cannot come from nothing" as evidence for God.
You have done this before, several times.
And I have pointed out the fact that the Bible contains many failed prophecies, and that something CAN come from nothing, and that if time began in the Big Bang then there never was a time when "nothing" existed, and so on.
Again, I have done this before, several times.
So who, exactly, "will start again like I never came with those answers"?
For as long as you keep citing the re-emergence of Israel as evidence for God, I will keep pointing out that the Bible has a very poor success rate for prophecies. And for as long as you use the same lame first-cause argument, I will keep pointing out the holes in it.
Yes, this IS getting boring. Are you ready to stop doing this?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ckweb
Woah!
Hey Ethel and Jack -- nice to see you guys again ( I assume your male ). You stopped posting to the other thread we had going so I thought you lost the appetite for religious discussions. Oh well, it was for the best . . . I was spending way too much time posting anyways and needed to stop. |
That thread died because you had long left the initial reason for your starting it which was dubious at best. That is as I recall you were upset with me for using Fundamentalist ideas against Fundamentalist and seemed to feel that I was somehow obligated to use YOUR concepts of the Bible in a discusion with them but then you complained when I used your concepts in the discussion with you.
As a consequence there was nothing left to comment on without going over all the questionable remarks you made one by one and most of that was stuff I had little interest in. I did ask you to get to the point and you started hemming and hawing about definitions so it looked to me like you were going to drag things out rather get on with it.
quote:
Ethel, it's kind of weird agreeing on something here.
But, I did want to point something out. Within orthodox Christianity, the present day purpose of the Ten Commandments is not to prescribe good Christian living as you suggested a couple posts back (although, true, they are not totally irrelevant to this aim). |
There is no such thing as othodox (lower case as opposed to the Orthodox Churches) Christianity, except maybe in comparison to the fringe groups like the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. There are far too many that disagree with your ideas on what constitutes orthodox especialy in the US where Fundamentalism is a major force.
quote:
The Ten Commandments are an indictment that holiness and righteousness are beyond the human grasp apart from faith and due to sin. |
Well it may be beyond your grasp but morals are not beyond mine. Holiness is another matter as that can't exist without a god and after all that is what is open to question on this thread.
quote:
Jack: The majority of the Bible was not written after or around 200 B.C.E. You are stating a minority opinion as fact. There are only a select group of minimalist scholars, i.e. Lemche, Van Seters, who adhere to such an outlandish theory. |
Obviously that only pertains to the Old Testament. It wasn't assembled as a cohesive whole till after the Diaspora in any case but at least most of it appears to have written initially long before that. It might be that at least some of the individual parts were not in their present form till after the end of the Babylonian captivity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
|
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Jack: The majority of the Bible was not written after or around 200 B.C.E. You are stating a minority opinion as fact. There are only a select group of minimalist scholars, i.e. Lemche, Van Seters, who adhere to such an outlandish theory. |
...Yes, I should have addressed that.
The word I used was "much", not "most". Of course, "much" is a subjective term, but the recent stuff includes the Book of Daniel, often cited as "prophecy" of events that took place half a millennium earlier.
Also, a lot of the older stuff has been rewritten since. Particularly the stuff written prior to the Babylonian captivity (700 BC or thereabouts) when the Jews were still polytheistic. People who describe Judaism as an "ancient" religion often don't appreciate that Judaism as we know it today isn't much older than Christianity, even though parts of it are much older.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gary
That depends whether you believe the cause is before, or at the same time. Given time starts at the birth of the universe it isn't before. Now if you were concerned about things being outside time, that's a different matter, but how the cause came about is not particularly relevant. the important thing is that it's there. |
Its only there if you assume it. You are still assuming there must be a cause for something you happened outside of time. If its outside of time cause and effect no longer applies. Thus your assumption was unwarranted.
quote:
My assumptions didn't, your's did. (But who says something is absurd anyway, when considering things outside of this universe and time ? Not sure you can apply the same rules there.) Anyway, like I said, it isn't relevant. One God will do, your many are just a bonus. Just don't expect me to agree with your "Many Gods" theory. |
I don't expect a believer to agree with reason over belief. The extra gods are not a bonus. They are a clear indication that you made a dubious asssumption. I didn't make it. I used YOUR assumption that the universe must have a cause and the a god is the cause. The same exact assumption was used for your god. Thus generating an infinite regresion unless you simply stop arbitrarily as you did. I choose to stop one step sooner.
quote:
The assumption was that there was a cause. Which I don't see how you can suggest is unjustifiable. If it is, show how a universe comes into existence without a cause. I can only say again that the infinite regression comes from your assumptions, not mine. |
Show how the god came into existence. The exact same questions must arise for your god as you raise for the universe. Again the assumption was YOURS. The only thing I did was too NOT stop arbitrarily with one god who clearly is in as much need of a cause as the Universe.
Want to go around again? You are doing a good job of showing what an infinite regresion is and how it is inevitable given your assumption that things must have causes.
quote:
But in a nutshell, I can't see how you can argue with the idea that, assuming a cause, it can be called God and thus God exists. |
Sorry that you can't handle that. I clearly don't have that problem as I am doing exactly that. The asumption of a cause requires a reasoning person to admit that the asumption also applies to any godlike enitity. It does not however apply to mathematics as no self-aware entity is needed for that.
You after all are not merely putting a label of convenience on the assumed cause. You are insisting that the cause is sentient as a god must be, at least for an all knowing god anyway, as that sort of god must by definition know itself. If it doesn't know itself its indistinguishable from a natural law.
quote:
If you don't like the initial assumption, suggest an alternative, i.e. how a universe (or anything) comes into being without a cause. That would convince the gallery |
I have done that, except for the convincing part and you can't do that either.
My, purely speculitive, thought is that physics is a consequence of mathematics therefor some sort of natural laws may be inherent in logic and math without need for anyother cause. From there it is merely a matter of a different universes with different variations on those laws arising till one arises that can support life. Without life nothing will notice the other universes that may or may not exist or have existed.
In fact our universe does not have to have come into existence from a condition of no-tiime and no-space. It could arise from vacuum fluctations in a pre-existing universe. Of course that also leads to an infinite regression but you seem satisfied with an infinite number of gods so why not an infinite number of universes?
Oh I know this is off topic and you won't care but I don't like Times New Roman. For some reason I prefer sans seriff fonts. Just mention that because I have to check the font tags when I quote you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
|
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:21
|
|
Lemmy, that's not how evolution is said to work.
evolution works with randomized genetic modification during reproduction. Most of these modifications are bad modification that result in degeneration. That's the point where natural selection pops in, since natural selection takes away the wrong modifications so only the good new will survive.
compared to my monkey example, a monkey types:
asdfk asdf;;lk jasfd lkj afsdl;kj the alkj dk cat asdljdsafj is ;laskf fdkdsa lovely.
natural selection removes a whole bunch of errors, and then "The cat is lovely" stays.
the odds that a monkey will write a good book that way are higher than that evolution will result in the current life on the planet earth.
But, according to the scientists, that's no problem, since there are more changes than odds, because of the billions of planets, is the explanations of the scientists.
this is not my personal opinion, it's just the plain way evolution is said to work.
Now back to the question: do you see a monkey see a book like shakespear with human control like that, if you give it X time?
-------------------
*if* you still stick to your form of evolution,
than it still does not work.
Say you have monkeys with inteligence 1 up to 10.
The avg would be 5.5, right?
Natural selection will remove the 1-4 monkeys, so only 6-10 are left over. Now the avg will be 8. If you continue this way, in the end, there will be only monkeys with level 10.
What monkeys need to evolve into man is that their inteligence should raise, from 10 to 10.000. New gens much appear or the old gens much be modificated. Then we get back to the first part of this message.
The question stays the same, will monkeys with human supervision ever write a book of shakespear?
CyberShy
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
|
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
You simply never replied to my last-bunch of arguments.
- Post the failed prophecies here. |
There are too many to post here. Here's a link to the False Prophecies, Broken Promises, and Misquotes section of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.
And my thread entitled "...at the Church of the Nativity, the Birthplace of Jesus..." discusses just how worthless the "prophecy" of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem is.
quote:
- Explain how scientists can in reproduce particles to pop out of the utter nothing in a lab (which is far from nothing)
- explain why you use an argument (they do pop out of nothing) and a backup argument (it never popped out of nothing, it was always there) those are two contradictionary arguments. |
Yes, particles pop out of nothing (look up "virtual particles" or the "Casimir effect" in a physics textbook). That fact is enough to contradict your statement that something CANNOT come from nothing. A vacuum is the closest we can get to "nothing". If you wish to argue that there was an ABSOLUTE "nothing" which the Universe popped out of, then you need to prove that. Why should we believe there was "nothing"?
And if there was REALLY "nothing", then there was no God, right?
And the two arguments are not contradictory. We know that things can pop out of the best "nothing" that we have access to, and current theories about the origin of time don't include a time in which there was "nothing" anyhow. These are two holes in YOUR argument: that divine intervention is required to make the Universe "pop out of nothing".
quote:
Your arrogance is absurd.
You literary never replied to the arguments I raised in my last reaction to you in this thread. you always leave, and return in a new thread with a 'been there done that' attitude. |
I need to sleep occasionally. And sometimes I wake up to find that somebody else has continued the discussion and said everything I was going to say.
quote:
*if* you still stick to your form of evolution,
than it still does not work.
Say you have monkeys with inteligence 1 up to 10.
The avg would be 5.5, right?
Natural selection will remove the 1-4 monkeys, so only 6-10 are left over. Now the avg will be 8. If you continue this way, in the end, there will be only monkeys with level 10.
What monkeys need to evolve into man is that their inteligence should raise, from 10 to 10.000. New gens much appear or the old gens much be modificated. Then we get back to the first part of this message.
The question stays the same, will monkeys with human supervision ever write a book of shakespear? |
New genes are being added all the time, by mutation.
Look at it this way: we KNOW that genes can exist which give human intelligence. We are living proof of that.
And all genes are combinations of the same four amino acids.
Therefore, if these amino acids can be arranged into any order by the right mutations, then we know that humans can evolve.
To claim otherwise, you'd have to demonstrate that a particular combination of genes required for human intelligence could not appear by random mutation and natural selection.
Yes, monkeys with human supervision (to act as natural selection) should be able to write a Shakespeare play. With all the garbage being removed, and only the right letters and words being kept, it probably wouldn't take very long either. There are computer simulations which mimic evolution, including one which demonstrates how easily and quickly eyes can evolve.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
|
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
There are too many to post here. Here's a link to the False Prophecies, Broken Promises, and Misquotes section of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. |
been there. 90% of the examples in there really make no sence and morely show off that the writer doesn't understand much of the bible. 8% are indeed hard, but are explainable if you have the right knowledge.
2% will give me a hard time indeed.
What do you expect me to do, go through all that bunch of crap overthere? I don't think you can expect me to do that.
post your favourites here.
quote:
And my thread entitled "...at the Church of the Nativity, the Birthplace of Jesus..." discusses just how worthless the "prophecy" of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem is. |
I think I have gone through that one before. I'll do it again soon.
quote:
(look up "virtual particles" or the "Casimir effect" in a physics textbook). |
I did.
- "virtual particles" are theoretical. But even if they do exist, the question will be the same, where do they come from. The only answer will be: virtual pt. and pt together sum up to be nothing. Both came out of nothing. Nice theory, question: how?
- "Casimir effect" two steel plates is not nothing.
quote:
A vacuum is the closest we can get to "nothing". If you wish to argue that there was an ABSOLUTE "nothing" which the Universe popped out of, then you need to prove that. Why should we believe there was "nothing"? |
Why should we believe there never was a begin?
The burden of proof that there was *no begin* lies on you. There's absolutely no logic in an infinite presence of the first vacuum. Everything we know of has a begin. Evolution and big bang theories are all about cause and effect. It's all a chain of reactions. It's fine with me if you say that there was no begin, but the burden of proof lies on you.
(and of course you will disagree with that. But again, than we are at least on a tie in which both our versions are equally acceptable)
quote:
And if there was REALLY "nothing", then there was no God, right? |
you can't deny I haven't explained that before.
I'll quote myself earlier in this thread in reaction to Ethelred:
quote:
CyberShy: a painter does not have to obey the same rules as a painting.
A baker does not need to same ingredients as a bread, and neiter does a god need to obey to the same rules of his creation.
I know the rules of the 'creation'. I agree that it's hard to imagine god according to these rules, but again, these rules don't have to apply. |
pherhaps a cheap answer, but I can't come with anything better, and you can't rebut it, meanwhile it does answer the question.
quote:
We know that things can pop out of the best "nothing" that we have access to |
good that you admit we have no proof things can pop up out of the complete nothing. (much people think we do have that proof, and if I remember correctly, you stated that in the past as well)
and that we see things pop out of the 'best nothing we have access to' means nothing for the real begin. Than we are indeed stucked to the question if the 'real nothing' ever existed.
quote:
and current theories about the origin of time don't include a time in which there was "nothing" anyhow |
pherhaps because there is no answer to that?
quote:
I need to sleep occasionally. And sometimes I wake up to find that somebody else has continued the discussion and said everything I was going to say. |
that's ok. but please don't phrase the "been there done that" thing all the time. It counts for both of us that we oftenly have to repeat our arguments.
The fact that we disagree does not mean that we debate on an unequal level. We're both equal partners in this discussion, and even if you think I'm the most stupid being on earth, you still should show respect in a discussion. Without respect, there is no discussion.
I respect you, eventhough we disagree. I hope you will respect me as well. I'm sure this will not be the last discussion between us. We don't have to hate each other. We both reply, we both have to go through stupid questions. You're not different than me.
quote:
To claim otherwise, you'd have to demonstrate that a particular combination of genes required for human intelligence could not appear by random mutation and natural selection. |
I don't think the burden of proof lies at my side in this.
You have to prove it if something 'can appear' by random mutation.
quote:
Yes, monkeys with human supervision (to act as natural selection) should be able to write a Shakespeare play. With all the garbage being removed, and only the right letters and words being kept, it probably wouldn't take very long either. |
I will agree if you mean on letter by letter (in this way)
aCsd klysd asbdfl;kj;elaskj asd;rlfkj aSdhflkj h;lykajsdf ;lkj
= CyberShy.
But on word by word base. (only 'wrong' words are removed) it can't.
Neither if letters are being removed untill the right word is there
C
Ca
Cb
Cd
C...
Cy
Cya
Cyb
Cyba
Cybb
Cybc
Cybd
Cybe
Cybea
Cybeb
Cybe---
Cyber
Cybera
Cyberb
Cyber--
CyberShy
that's because natural selection will 'remove' the words:
C
Ca
Cb
Cd
C...
Cy
Cya
Cyb
Cyba
(etc. etc. etc.)
in this case. Cy is no word, neither is Cyb.
Only if it's "CyberShy" natural selection will accept it as something that can stay.
I'll get back to you on Jesus birth.
You provide me failed prophecies to deal with, ok?
CyberShy
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gary
|
|
London
Apr 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
You are still assuming there must be a cause for something you happened outside of time. If its outside of time cause and effect no longer applies. Thus your assumption was unwarranted. |
You must be extremely knowledgeable to be able to say that if it is outside of time, cause and effect no longer apply. I'd have thought they'd occur simultaneously and thus have "no effect" on whether I can make the assumption. But I'm not the expert on things that happen at the point of the big bang. I await your example of something that happened without a cause then.
quote:
I don't expect a believer to agree with reason over belief. |
What reason ? All you've done is object to my reasoned argument. Or are you saying you are a believer in there being no God so are not concerned with reason ?
quote:
The extra gods are not a bonus. They are a clear indication that you made a dubious asssumption. I didn't make it. I used YOUR assumption that the universe must have a cause and the a god is the cause. |
For about the third time, it doesn't arise from my assumptions, but from yours. You were the one that needed a cause for the cause, when that is going to be outside our experience, our universe, and the rules we have deduced something about. Denial changes nothing.
quote:
Show how the god came into existence |
I don't have to. I was asked in the thread title to prove there was (or was not) a God. I have done so to any reasonable criteria.
quote:
The exact same questions must arise for your god as you raise for the universe. |
Really ? If you say so. It may or may not be true, but you are the one assuming that, not anyone else.
quote:
Want to go around again? |
Ah that's what you are doing are you ? Ignoring the previous posts to return to the same discredited arguments. No it isn't my actions that is causing us to cover the same ground over and over again. If you have nothing further to show we'll stop here. Might as well anyway, since had you any new arguments you would have put them.
quote:
Sorry that you can't handle that. I clearly don't have that problem as I am doing exactly that. |
Well that's a matter of debate in itself. Having shown the arguments you've put forward so far, to be flawed, when they are restated I'd consider that quibbling rather than debating.
quote:
The asumption of a cause requires a reasoning person to admit that the asumption also applies to any godlike enitity. |
Why ? That is a restriction you are putting on, and without justification. No one can know that the rules that apply here have any relevance anywhere else.
quote:
are insisting that the cause is sentient as a god must be, at least for an all knowing god anyway |
Err where did I mention sentience ? Are you not making up your own arguments to rail against here ? God may be sentient, or may not be, that was not anything that formed part of the initial request in the thread title.
quote:
have done that, except for the convincing part and you can't do that either. |
Sorry missed it.
quote:
My, purely speculitive, thought is that physics is a consequence of mathematics therefor some sort of natural laws may be inherent in logic and math without need for anyother cause. From there it is merely a matter of a different universes with different variations on those laws arising till one arises that can support life. Without life nothing will notice the other universes that may or may not exist or have existed. |
And how is all that caused ?
quote:
In fact our universe does not have to have come into existence from a condition of no-tiime and no-space. It could arise from vacuum fluctations in a pre-existing universe. Of course that also leads to an infinite regression but you seem satisfied with an infinite number of gods so why not an infinite number of universes? |
And how are vacuum fluctuations caused. Or the previous universe ? And what caused the rules mankind have deduced this universe seems to adhere to ?
Tell you what, call you universe, "God", and be happy
Getting bored with this anyway. I'll leave the questions I've posed, for you to mull over.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
|
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
2% will give me a hard time indeed.
What do you expect me to do, go through all that bunch of crap overthere? I don't think you can expect me to do that.
post your favourites here. |
The most obvious ones are the many NT verses in which it is prophesied that Jesus will return soon (within the lifetime of Paul, and James, and Peter, and John). The standard apologetic tactic is to claim that this refers to "the coming of the Kingdom of God" rather than the actual return of Jesus. But this did not happen later in their lifetimes: depending on the interpretation used, it either happened when Jesus ascended to Heaven, or when Constantine declared Christianity to be the official religion of the Roman empire, or it hasn't happened yet.
There are also the cities that were to be "utterly destroyed" and never inhabited again, but still exist in later books, and even in the modern world (like Damascus).
A common tactic of apologists is to say that a particular prophecy "hasn't happened yet". It should be obvious that ANY garbage can be called "prophecy" if that excuse is used: all the failed ones "haven't happened yet", so a collection of random sentences is just as good as the Bible for prophecy.
But Isaiah predicts that five cities in Egypt will speak Caananite (now an extinct language) and that there will be an alliance with the Assyrians (now an extinct civilization). So no "it hasn't happened yet" argument will work here.
And Jeremiah 42 predicts that all Jews who return to Egypt will die. They didn't, and Joseph and Mary supposedly took Jesus there to keep him safe!
quote:
- "virtual particles" are theoretical. But even if they do exist, the question will be the same, where do they come from. The only answer will be: virtual pt. and pt together sum up to be nothing. Both came out of nothing. Nice theory, question: how? |
"How" is not relevant: merely that it happens. And the effects have been observed: interference between real and virtual photons in the two-slit experiment, and the Casimir effect.
quote:
- "Casimir effect" two steel plates is not nothing. |
The two steel plates in a vacuum are pushed together by the pressure of the virtual particles forming around them.
quote:
A vacuum is the closest we can get to "nothing". If you wish to argue that there was an ABSOLUTE "nothing" which the Universe popped out of, then you need to prove that. Why should we believe there was "nothing"?
Why should we believe there never was a begin?
The burden of proof that there was *no begin* lies on you. There's absolutely no logic in an infinite presence of the first vacuum. Everything we know of has a begin. Evolution and big bang theories are all about cause and effect. It's all a chain of reactions. It's fine with me if you say that there was no begin, but the burden of proof lies on you.
(and of course you will disagree with that. But again, than we are at least on a tie in which both our versions are equally acceptable) |
No, because you're attempting to argue that a God is needed to explain how "something came from nothing". If this did not happen, there is no need for a God to make it happen.
If there is doubt about whether something came from nothing, then there is doubt about the need for a God.
quote:
To claim otherwise, you'd have to demonstrate that a particular combination of genes required for human intelligence could not appear by random mutation and natural selection.
I don't think the burden of proof lies at my side in this. You have to prove it if something 'can appear' by random mutation. |
We have a complete set of mutation types that will do the job: mutations that enlarge the genome, and mutations that can alter individual genes within it. It's rather like proving that a wall can be built by stacking bricks: we have all the bricks we need and we can demonstrate the stacking. That is sufficient proof that it's possible. The construction of the human genome does not require any bricks that aren't available, or a special method of stacking that we don't have. Therefore, in principle, it is "evolvable", just as a wall is "buildable".
As for your words example:
quote:
in this case. Cy is no word, neither is Cyb.
Only if it's "CyberShy" natural selection will accept it as something that can stay. |
If evolution worked like that, with several successive changes needed to make something that works: yes, this would be a problem. But that's why the theory insists that all evolutionary changes work in small steps where every step counts. It's why (for instance) eyes need to evolve gradually from more primitive sensors, or wings from limbs that gradually become better for gliding. Evolution works like the letter-selecting model, not the word-selecting one. Nobody has yet come up with an example of something that could NOT have evolved in small steps like that.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-08-2002 07:23
|