So you want me to prove a negative? Or is this just an elaborate troll?
Normally how this would go is: You ask me to state said assumptions. I state said assumptions. Then you proceed to refute what I claim to be assumptions. And nobody comes out with a different perspective. Why bother doing the same internet bs?
Instead, being the intelligent man with 3+decades(150% of my life) of knowledge and experience I think you can figure out what I was alluding to when I said assumptions. Sure I could point them out. But that would defeat the purpose of my post saying that I wasn't going to point them out.
So, from my perspective, what about that post would seem like a vast assumption? Let's pretend for a second that I'm not a 21 year old kid and instead, a 50 year old bible scholar who knows everything there is to know about the bible and the world/culture and time period that it was written in. What problems could someone find in your post?
I think if you do this, instead of controlling and fueling an debate/argument, we can come away with a different perspective. See, I have no desire to argue and debate with people anymore. I avoid it as much as possible. I want to learn. I have no need to compete intellectually. Now, I'm not saying you do and that I'm some enlightened individual or anything like that. I just want to change shit up and do this a bit differently.
So, if you will, point out for me, what might be construed as more or less here say opinion rather than "fact".
You should stop trolling. Seriously. It is distasteful and truly inconsiderate at best. Proletaria asked you to state the assumption so that he could engage in a discussion that might address your concern. What you have referred to as internet bs is what is known as sharing concrete ideas so they can be debated upon. If you are not ready for this, you should probably abstain from making comments that you are gradually turning into this elaborate and pointless riddle devoid of any sense.
It has been a back and forth exchange here. There is no control or fueling unless you are finding yourself overwhelmed in the face of truth you cannot handle.
Another thing about Christian it totally different from any other religion. God send his ONLY Son to die for us to pay for our sins in other religions it is always about proving you are worthy going to heaven(the ones that have a heaven)all God Ask form us is to live like the bible says and to believe he exist and believe in Him, Believe his Son died for our sins.
What is said allot of Christians don't know how to learn somebody about God. They think just use the bible, but if you just use your heart and show you care about the person and you want the person not one day to go to hell and you want God to work in his life. What ever you all believe i respect that and all i ask is you respect what i believe.
According to the many other religions around, Christians are going to hell. So be don't be too surprised when they try to convert you because they are doing so for your own good. Never mind if your life is one dedicated to service and the betterment of your fellow humans because it's all about who you worship and what rituals you do.
Still don't realize the stupidity of it all?
Also nobody died for my sins. Each man is responsible and accountable for his own actions. This is how we live on a day-to-day basis.
First, I thought this was a topic just presenting ideas and concepts of what people believe, I didn't realize you literally wanted someone to prove God exists.
So let me answer that very quickly: it is impossible to do so.
It is impossible to prove that God exists, just as it is impossible to prove that it doesn't exist.
That being said, I'll go ahead and respond to your comments.
If you assume that the universe had a beginning and infer that god did it, why then will you not accept that god had a beginning?
I do accept this as a possibility, and even stated so in my original text when I said that God may have a God, and that one or both of them may exist outside of our concept of time.
What i've contiued to ask is why that belief comes about in the first place when we do not need it to explain anything and when we grant it, it yet-again does not explain anything either? It does little for us to reflect on how or why god created the universe if we are not able to even suspect that there was a creation to the universe.
The reason people speculate there might be a God is because the only other answer we have at this point is "I don't know." This is how every theory mankind has comes about, by the way. You come up with a theory, and then work your way toward proving or disproving it systematically. Some "truths" we have cannot yet be explained fully, we just accept them; like gravity, which at one point was just some crackpot theory that we've found stands against scrutiny and every scientific experiment we can put it through, but we still have no idea why or how it works. This does not mean we simply say "I don't know" when someone asks why apples fall to the Earth, we say "well, maybe it's gravity."
But, you have not even granted in your own words that the concept of god has intelligence. That it can know things more than we, in the universe, can know things is not established. You have skipped a great many steps and inserted an omnipotent and omnisient god. This is precisely the kind of intellectual dishonesty that i've been trying to point out time and again.
I both grant this in my own beliefs, and also say that it may not be true. I granted in my original post that God may have created everything on accident, and may not even have any idea that it did so. I simply grant that whether or not God has intelligence, it doesn't matter. I simply brought up the idea of an afterlife because it, too, is another reason people ask about God. For most people, the quest for God is the quest for an afterlife, and they believe if they find one, it's proof of the other. I don't agree, and said as much, but there is a natural correlation between one topic and the other, so I went ahead and shared my belief structure on whether or not afterlife exists.
I choose to believe that God is smarter than I am, because even if it created everything on accident, it still commands the knowledge to create. This isn't like walking by a table and accidentally spilling something, which poured cosmic goo everywhere and bam, here we are.
In any case, this was all about afterlife, and doesn't matter when it comes to the concept of creation.
Maybe God doesn't even control what happens when we die? Maybe it would like to, but cannot, just like we cannot control what happens when we kill an ant.
...
Maybe God has a creator; a God. Maybe God's-God created it, and our God created time. Maybe God exists outside time, seeing all events simultaneously from beginning to end, or not seeing any of it at all.
Again, I don't see the point in speculating about the forms and methods of this god if we have not even established that it is evident the universe is requiring a god to exist. We may as well speculate about what kind of computer-driven machines controll the matrix we are all plugged into. We have no evidence to suggest to us that we are plugged into the matrix, but still we could set about wondering how we are under the control of those machines and perhaps what the motives were. Why do we not do this instead or aswell?
The point of this speculation is to point out that the things people take for granted when it comes to the concept of God are not necessarily true, which you yourself have stated. This is also where I point out that the one responsible for our creation (our universe's creation) may not be responsible for all creation.
You're making a leap in logic when you say that we must first establish whether or not we NEED God to have created the universe, before we establish whether or not God exists.
We do not have the scientific prowess great enough to determine how our universe was created (IE whether or not we NEED a God to have created it), therefore we must speculate on the other end; whether or not a God can even exist in which to do so. If you disprove God's existence, then you prove that God did not create our universe. If you can find a proof for God's existence, then the possibility that God created our universe exists.
That's why we're speculating on whether or not God exists and why, rather than any other jibberish you can come up with.
To summarize, I don't know any of these answers, but God does, and that's good enough for me.
If there isn't a God, it's because there shouldn't be, and if there is, it's because there should.
...
But I like to believe there is. Everything else is just speculation.
Neither of us know the answers, but you are asserting an answer the moment you assert that there is a god who does. I hope you realize that.
I was not trying to PROVE God exists (again, impossible), I was simply stating what I think.
I assert an answer because I'm telling you what I choose to believe in the end, I'm not making a leap in logic saying "it is a fact that God is intelligent," I'm simply telling you how I come to terms with my mortal life, and life's meaning in general, in a time and place where no one knows the answer.
I also only do this after plainly stating above that God may or may not be intelligent, may have created on accident, and may have nothing to do with the universe, regardless of whether it created it.
This is also all in preface to my statement that it's all speculation.
I too, wish I could live much, much longer and bask in all the great revelations of understanding and new evidence that comes avalible to us. The problem, in our case, is that asserting god does not help us do this. Neither does a lack of assertion of god prevent us from doing this.
The only thing I can say here is that asserting God is simply giving one possible solution to the question.
Just like gravity, you can theorize on the answer before you know how to get there.
I think speculating on God has (or had) a good place for science, because it drives (drove) people to try to prove where we came from.
In today's world, I think we're far enough along scientifically to ignore the God end of the equation (and all other potential answers) and just work toward figuring out how things happened (and how things are happening in the universe) to arrive at the conclusion. But what about 500 years ago? The only answer we had 500 years ago was either God, and "I don't know." People are always going to fill in the blank when they don't know, because it's human nature. It's a travesty when their theories are presented as fact, and people should be wary of this, but humans will still try to figure out the answer with all of the data they have been provided with.
If you aren't opposed to watching things which may conflict with your beliefs, check out Stephen Hawking on Discovery, his latest research yielded a theory that basically negates everything I believe.
He isn't just jumping to a conclusion that god necessarily does not exist. He, like many before him, has understood another level of complexity to the universe and informed us that there need not be a god to make it all work. As I have said again and again, we need not say there is no god, we need only admit that we have no need for one just as we have no evidence for one.
This is my only real problem with your rebuttal. I understand he's trying to explain that there need not be God for our universe to exist. However, he DOES conclude that God does not exist.
That's my problem with his conclusion, and also why I said he's jumping ahead in logic. Whether or not he meant it like that, it is exactly what he said:
"...there is no God."
I'm not saying he's wrong, because again, no one knows, I'm simply saying that he makes a pretty big leap from the universe not needing a God to have created it, to there not being one at all.
Furthermore, he makes another leap when he notes that just because neutrons can pop into and out of existence, so can a singularity. I understand he's saying that such a thing can happen without breaking the laws of physics, that's fine, but to say "it could happen" is the same as "this is how it happened" in order to draw the conclusion that God wasn't necessary to create our universe is to err.
Moreover, just because we don't know where these particles come from, doesn't mean they simply pop into being. The possibility exists that these neutrons come from another universe, just crossing between them until they fix to something inside one. The possibility also exists that neutrons are formed so quickly that we cannot tell the difference between them being formed and simply appearing. These are all questions that need answered before you can being to draw the conclusion that the universe didn't need a God to create it.
Until we gain a greater understanding of how the universe works, we cannot arrive at a truth on how the universe came to be.
But how much knowledge of the universe do we need to arrive at truth?
Six. Six knowledge.
There's no way anyone can answer this. I'm simply stating we don't have the resources or data to arrive at any truth at this time, but once we do, we'll have a greater understanding of what role, if any, God played. You, too, have said this, when you say that "...we need only admit that we have no need for [God]." If we can prove we didn't need a God to create the universe, then the possibility exists that there is no God. If we can prove as a TRUTH that the universe *could not* be created without a supernatural start, then it's evidence that God does exist.
I don't see how we could ever prove either way, but the statement remains true.
I see no reason for you to assume that we are progressing toward and understanding of this, currently useless, concept. As you yourself just said, we do not know that god exists. Why then, should we hamstring our reason and insist on thinking about not-only the belief/concept that he does, but anything else related to that irrational and unnecessary concept?
Again, I assume that we're progressing toward the understanding of our universe's creation because if you CAN prove one way or the other, it proves and/or provides evidence for or against a God.
This is how proofs work in math. It doesn't matter if you have the steps to get from a starting point to the answer, you still lay out what steps you do have, and what parts you need to get to to reach the conclusion. This is why there are unsolved proofs in math that have a conclusion.
I include our search for the knowledge of the creation of our universe because it is the final step to understanding whether or not we need God to have created the universe.
Step A is everything we know.
Step B is blank/unknown.
Step C is how the universe was made.
Step D is God does/does not exist.
I'm not sure why you point out that Hawking and others are trying to prove that we don't need a God to have created the universe, and then respond to me saying "When we know how the universe was created, we'll know more," by calling it a useless concept considering we aren't progressing toward its understanding at all.
We obviously are if Hawking is already claiming the universe was created without a God, albeit prematurely.
You're basically just responding to everyone that their arguments are all speculation, and there's no point in asserting a God.
1. Everything is speculation. Everything. Including your arguments. That's why there cannot be a conclusion to any of this, which is what I stated in my original post.
2. The assumption for God comes from the answer side of the equation, where there are only two possible answers right now, "I don't know how the universe was created" and "God did it." As I said before, people will always try to fill the blanks in with what makes sense to them. If you don't know how your car's engine works, or how precipitation works, or how an atomic bomb works, you can use what you do know to draw a reasonable conclusion. Does it matter if that conclusion is 100% correct? Saying we shouldn't assert God as a possible answer is just like saying "If you don't know for sure don't even bother trying to guess."
How can a magical being be considered a reasonable guess? You judge 'reasonable' based on what facts you have to base your conclusion on.
If you know 7x7 = 49, and you know 9x9=81, then a reasonable guess for 8x8 is somewhere between 50 and 80.
Now let's say you *only* know 2x2=4, and 100,000x100,000=10,000,000,000, your guess for 1000x1000 is somewhere between 5 and 10 billion. Is 1 billion a poor guess? Based on what you know, it is reasonable to assume that might be correct.
If you know basically nothing about how the universe was created, or why it was created, or what lies beyond our own universe, then your conclusions are going to be pretty radical, like a magical being that created everything.
THAT is why people assert God as a possible solution.
No, the burden of proof does not lie on the atheist.
If you want proof, here's 50 simple ones that even a religious person should be able to grasp: http://godisimaginary.com/
...this is all giving proof that Christianity is wrong.
Proving God exists and proving Christianity is correct are NOT, NOT, NOT the same thing.
And it's poisonous to give credence to this misconception. It makes people think that everyone that believes in God also believes in Jesus, prayer, magical oil, infinite fish, heaven, hell, and rising from the grave.
Furthermore, I think by saying "prove God doesn't exist" he's simply trying to show you that it's impossible to either prove or disprove God's existence, so laying the burden of proof on anyone is futile.
theoretically we can move faster than light, and enter null space-time, which would make us enter god realm, where laws dont apply. just cause something is in null time-space it still must have an origin even if we dont understand it.
ppl just try to overcomplicated things, always coming up with new theories to make god inaccessible, cause that's what god is suppose to be? well ofc, if it was accessible, it wouldnt be godly right? but the there's always new theories to make him inaccessible, but all the theories are just theories, and made up by man.
i think this is the same thing as what some scientists do. as an example i made earlier, there's this guy that discovered quasicrystals, but his superiors pretty much threw him out, cause his theory was *impossible* but then he got noble price for his discovery.
Religious ppl are like those superiors, that always wanna claim this or that is impossible, for whatever reason.
in case of religion you always wanna maintain the impossibility, cause otherwise you'd loose your religion. cause if god was tangible it would be scientific and not religious. but why do you wanna believe in whatever, just to believe?
if god is tangible, so be it. if it isnt, so be it. just dont apply overcomplicated rules, to keep it inaccessible.
D&D and DMs are man made concepts. and if you wanna have god as a DM, then DMs have a origin, and a world of their own. which we theoretically could visit, since there's the multiverse, and unknown planes in D&D. which theoretically could lead back to the DM.
Making god inaccessible is just a way to make humans powerless and insignificant. puppets to dance for god, which is ridiculous. and if god is this inaccessible, overpowered god, and humans so insignificant etc, what's our purpose?
a perfect god doesnt need us. it's us that need god, which just makes god our man made invention, to give ourselves a destination after death.
but it just over complicates stuff, and alienate ppl from each other.
if god was real and wanted something from us, he'd make sure everyone knew without a doubt, which isnt the case. so there's this plethora of gods, and all religions think their god/gods are the true god/gods, while everyone else is wrong. then make up stories, so you can punish the non-believers. if god is so concerned about it, he can just show himself. but then christians over complicate stuff again, and say you have been warned in this 2000year old book, read it, or burn in hell for your ignorance.
im wondering too, why ppl want the bible to be true, since it's so full of rape, murder and punishment. sounds more like satanism to me.
Apparently you don't understand the concept of what I said AT ALL. I will however... take the time to restate this one more time:
Time is mechanic/ dimension that is part of our universe. Everything that we see and know... is dependent on time. The universe, the big bang, even you and I ... require an origin as we fall within the realm of time. We as humans always attempt to say that god must have an origin due to the fact that we think with what we know. We are trying to apply time to something that existed before the dimension of time (god).
Your statement about how DM's are man made creations is junk. You didn't take from the metaphor what was presented to you.... and instead tried to apply concepts from our universe to it. I will restate this directly so hopefully you get it: Dungeon Masters in D&D are not subject to whatever laws or rules they implement into the world they are building, because the world they are building is not their reality. Time is part of our reality, and for all we know (and we literally will NEVER know) god is outside of time.
If you seriously take the time to read the genesis laid out in the bible (I am not saying the bible is right... I am just using this as a way to look at creation metaphors), you would see that 7 day metaphor could very easily fit to explain the big bang, the bible even states that god is outside of time.
Well since no one corrected me I guess it's true. I'm Jesus Christ!
Well for all we know you could be. The bible does specify the return of Jesus Christ... and he isn't going to be the same personality or body that he was in 0 AD.
So you want me to prove a negative? Or is this just an elaborate troll?
Normally how this would go is: You ask me to state said assumptions. I state said assumptions. Then you proceed to refute what I claim to be assumptions. And nobody comes out with a different perspective. Why bother doing the same internet bs?
Instead, being the intelligent man with 3+decades(150% of my life) of knowledge and experience I think you can figure out what I was alluding to when I said assumptions. Sure I could point them out. But that would defeat the purpose of my post saying that I wasn't going to point them out.
So, from my perspective, what about that post would seem like a vast assumption? Let's pretend for a second that I'm not a 21 year old kid and instead, a 50 year old bible scholar who knows everything there is to know about the bible and the world/culture and time period that it was written in. What problems could someone find in your post?
I think if you do this, instead of controlling and fueling an debate/argument, we can come away with a different perspective. See, I have no desire to argue and debate with people anymore. I avoid it as much as possible. I want to learn. I have no need to compete intellectually. Now, I'm not saying you do and that I'm some enlightened individual or anything like that. I just want to change shit up and do this a bit differently.
So, if you will, point out for me, what might be construed as more or less here say opinion rather than "fact".
You should stop trolling. Seriously. It is distasteful and truly inconsiderate at best. Proletaria asked you to state the assumption so that he could engage in a discussion that might address your concern. What you have referred to as internet bs is what is known as sharing concrete ideas so they can be debated upon. If you are not ready for this, you should probably abstain from making comments that you are gradually turning into this elaborate and pointless riddle devoid of any sense.
It has been a back and forth exchange here. There is no control or fueling unless you are finding yourself overwhelmed in the face of truth you cannot handle.
Another thing about Christian it totally different from any other religion. God send his ONLY Son to die for us to pay for our sins in other religions it is always about proving you are worthy going to heaven(the ones that have a heaven)all God Ask form us is to live like the bible says and to believe he exist and believe in Him, Believe his Son died for our sins.
What is said allot of Christians don't know how to learn somebody about God. They think just use the bible, but if you just use your heart and show you care about the person and you want the person not one day to go to hell and you want God to work in his life. What ever you all believe i respect that and all i ask is you respect what i believe.
According to the many other religions around, Christians are going to hell. So be don't be too surprised when they try to convert you because they are doing so for your own good. Never mind if your life is one dedicated to service and the betterment of your fellow humans because it's all about who you worship and what rituals you do.
Still don't realize the stupidity of it all?
Also nobody died for my sins. Each man is responsible and accountable for his own actions. This is how we live on a day-to-day basis.
I'm quite serious actually. This is just a different way to approach the conversation. Do you not try to look at things from a different perspective?
And what "truth" am I unable to handle? What truth could EVER be presented in an discussion like this?
I'll rephrase it just for you Nekro
@Prole- What is fact based about that post? You made many bold claims. Why should I believe them?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
K explain to me this if somebody shows you a car and tells you it just appear why wont you believe him you would tell him somebody build the car, But if somebody shows you the universe and tells you God made it you wont believe him.
I have a serious question for you, Pyro_Doggy. Why do Christians think that they can use the arguments for Deism and then everyone will automatically believe in the Theistic god of Christianity?
The universe is prove that God exist, Why is it that earth is just on the right spot for life.
We found a star going around Beta Centauri that is in just the right spot for life. Does that mean there is another god for that planet? Does the Christian god love us less now that there are two known planets that are in the habitable zone around their planet?
And on that matter, at least one moon around Jupiter is getting energy from the gravitational force from Jupiter which is heating the inside up, allowing a possibility of life at some point. Does god love us even less now that there are more places that life could exist?
Another thing about Christian it totally different from any other religion. God send his ONLY Son to die for us to pay for our sins in other religions it is always about proving you are worthy going to heaven(the ones that have a heaven)all God Ask form us is to live like the bible says and to believe he exist and believe in Him, Believe his Son died for our sins.
You have no idea how many gods throughout time sacrificed themselves or their loved ones or whatever for humanity, do you? If you are not even willing to try, I'm not willing to help you with that. -.-
What is said allot of Christians don't know how to learn somebody about God. They think just use the bible, but if you just use your heart and show you care about the person and you want the person not one day to go to hell and you want God to work in his life. What ever you all believe i respect that and all i ask is you respect what i believe.
The ONLY information we have about the Christian god is in the Christian bible. You can make up all you want about god, but if it isn't in the Christian bible, it isn't about the Christian god. And that, sir, is a fact.
I love science, but remember allot of science is based on theory
I love how the religious have no clue what the hell a theory is. Gravity is a theory. Electricity is a theory. In fact, lets look at Meriam Webster's definition of a fucking theory.
Quote from THE DICTIONARY »
the·o·ry noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
I fucking hate when people don't know or don't care what a theory is. -.-
Ohhhhhhhh Proletaria... I have already diffused you on this argument. Theres a fact you simply cannot and or willnot and or don't want to understand, and that is that God does not require an origin.
If god does not require an origin, then neither does the Universe.
im wondering too, why ppl want the bible to be true, since it's so full of rape, murder and punishment. sounds more like satanism to me.
Actually from my studies of Satanism, Satanism is a lot kinder then Christianity. (That's not saying much, though, considering almost any religion could be classified as kinder. But Satanism does seem like a decent religion.)
If the TC is asking us to prove in a deity, I don't see what the problem is in asking him to the same thing. If in fact, it is true that there is no Creator I don't see what the problem is, he should be able to whip up the 'true' answer immediately.
The burden of proof stands at the person making the positive claim.
For example, if I claim there is no god, period, end of discussion, I made a positive claim. If you claim that there is a Christian god, period, end of discussion, you have made a positive claim. In both instances, the positive claim is the claim that must be defended.
If, for example, I simply disagree with your claim, I have made a negative claim, and the burden of proof still lies with you. And, again, if you simply disagree with my claim, then the burden of proof still lies with you.
In this situation, the burden of proof lies with the religious, as the religious are making the positive claim.
If, in another thread, an Atheist were to make a claim in a similar fashion to "There is no god." then that person would have to provide the proof, not the religious in the counterargument.
On the side, the site gave examples of enormous caliber such as curing cancer, things that are life-changing to everyone. Maybe that person deserved to get sick and a simple prayer is not adequate or the answer is simply 'no', the person needed to get sick for punishment or whatever Gd decided is. If every answer was 'yes' then the world wouldn't be able to function, little kids asking for spider-man powers or a punished student asking for an injury (or death) of a teacher or what not who punished him, who in the child's eyes was mistreated
Because, asking for a teacher to get hurt or for spiderman powers is exactly the same as an entire city praying for my little nephew to be cured of cancer, then the poor boy still dying, right?
No, the burden of proof does not lie on the atheist.
If you want proof, here's 50 simple ones that even a religious person should be able to grasp: http://godisimaginary.com/
I must disagree. If the Atheist is making the positive claim, then the burden of proof is on the Atheist.
It's not what side of the fence you are on, it's whether you make a positive claim or not. If I, as an Atheist, stand up and declare, there is absolutely no god, period, the burden of proof is on me to show that there is no god.
As an intellectual person, I do not know 100% that there is no god, but I do not see any evidence that there is no god. As such, the burden of proof is not on me.
If god does not require an origin, then neither does the Universe.
Occams Razor.
God you keep fucking avoiding it LinkX. You are just as narrow minded as the christian zealot.
The universe requires an origin because the laws within the universe apply to it. God does not because the laws of the universe DO not apply to it. DONE DEAL. Stop using your flawed logic.
I'm quite serious actually. This is just a different way to approach the conversation. Do you not try to look at things from a different perspective?
And what "truth" am I unable to handle? What truth could EVER be presented in an discussion like this?
I'll rephrase it just for you Nekro
@Prole- What is fact based about that post? You made many bold claims. Why should I believe them?
It is a shame that as a knowledge or truth seeker- as you have so many times hinted you are(correct me if I am wrong)- you are choosing to discard in this particular instance the value of responding to a simple question so that the discussion can actually carry on.
I'll rephrase just for you Reptar-
Name those bold claims so we can discuss them.
You are dodging that simple question under the pretense of a new approach which in essence is - "i have a point but i won't tell you. Figure the point out and argue with yourself."
I'm sorry but that's just silly and discourteous.
I shouldn't HAVE to point them out. Isn't it obvious? It's almost insulting to say that you can't see how broad and unfounded those statements were. Almost.
I'm not an atheist or a christian. But I have learned a few things about the context of the bible in my day. And calling the whole thing a fairy tale book is at the very least, incorrect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Finally, a small fragment of a piece of your mind.
Come on now, you can do it.
Just a little more.
As to the matter of the bible, you can find context in any mythology from around the world. It should be pretty obvious considering the number of religions there are.
So share yours with us.
Historians at one time rejected the existence of Nebuchadnezzar at one point. Until one day, archaeologists proved his existence. They found large slabs with his name on it somehwhere around where Babylon was located( Nebu was the king at one time).Without the bible, it would have been thousands of years without ever knowing he even existed in reality.
That's one example. I don't care what beliefs you have. I'm tired of people insulting a book that is incredibly important to our history. And no, I'm not saying that EVERY page is fact. I'm saying it's an important book to our history( I can't speak for the Koran and others). And I'm tired of seeing it bashed just so people can say "SEE?!?! My belief is right and yours is wrong!"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Historians at one time rejected the existence of Nebuchadnezzar at one point. Until one day, archaeologists proved his existence. They found large slabs with his name on it somehwhere around where Babylon was located( Nebu was the king at one time).Without the bible, it would have been thousands of years without ever knowing he even existed in reality.
Archeologists have also found compelling evidence to suggest that Troy was a real city and the siege of Troy by a Greek armada was a real event. Does that mean that we have evidence for the demi-god status of Achillies or the existence of the Greek Pantheon? It does not.
I have a lot of other posts i'd like to get at today and maybe I will, but it's looking like another round of first-cause and "science will never know," assumptions and if anyone bothers to read a few of the first 17 pages they'll understand why I have already refuted those absolute claims and maintain that we cannot assume god or no god from them. Sufficed to say, if anyone wants to bring any new arguments to my attention, please let me know what they are so I can dig them out of the repeats and reply with care.
And Umpa, I honestly do not have a clue what you're talking about. If you genuinely want me to discuss something with you, quote what you have an issue with and tell me why you disagree. I am not capable of reading your mind and asessing what you feel isn't factual. That is beyond my power as a human being.
I never said it did. I just find it obnoxious when people use really insulting terms for an important assortment of books. Just because you don't respect the ideology doesn't mean you shouldn't respect the relevance of the book instead of just calling the whole thing a childs bedtime story. It's simply incorrect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
I never said it did. I just find it obnoxious when people use really insulting terms for an important assortment of books. Just because you don't respect the ideology doesn't mean you shouldn't respect the relevance of the book instead of just calling the whole thing a childs bedtime story. It's simply incorrect.
And I find it equally obnoxious that I am supposed to infer histoical importance on an assortment of book for no reason other than a large group of people worship the contents. I have stated that I respect the bible and other scripts as far as they are a literary tradition that is worth knowing. I have said that culturally, we are richer for having myths and legends. However, that is not to say that we should allow for baseless truth claims based on these books as though truth were a popularity contest. That is simply wrong.
"Baseless" is incorrect when there is more in depth historically approved content than in any history book.
The stories have as much basis as any other historical record from that time period.
I'm not saying they're not myths. But who are you to say they are?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
"Baseless" is incorrect when there is more in depth historically approved content than in any history book.
That is precisely baseless. I've been a student of history for nearly three of your lifetimes. I have worked with scholars who have made it their life's work to study the history surrounding the bible. Generations of scholars have made this their life's work and I assure you, without any doubt, that this is baseless. The bible has history within it's pages. There is no doubt about that. But if you are to submit to me that the Bible is more historically accurate than any other history book you are being purposefully ignorant of our human body of historical knowledge.
The stories have as much basis as any other historical record from that time period.
Also false. We have MANY more and MUCH more accurate accounts from other cultures during that time period. Do you really think that the Roman empire or the Greeks were poor record keepers compared to a tribe of desert nomads? There were many more literate and prolific histories long before the age of Christianity and there were many more after. This is nonsense. Just go out there and read!
I'm not saying they're not myths. But who are you to say they are?
They are myths until we prove otherwise. As I said, I make no statements of certainty. I don't assume, by calling something a myth, that it is unequivocally false. I am saying that we have no basis on which to call it a fact, thus it is not, at present, a fact.
No, the burden of proof does not lie on the atheist.
If you want proof, here's 50 simple ones that even a religious person should be able to grasp: http://godisimaginary.com/
here is no Creator I don't see what the problem is, he should be able to whip up the 'true' answer immediately.
and you're site is just atrocious. As a Jew I would like to dispute some of those points.
#1/2 prayer. Think of prayer as a request to your father. After all Don't we say that Gd is like our father? and sometimes your father simply says 'NO'. (On the side, the site gave examples of enormous caliber such as curing cancer, things that are life-changing to everyone. Maybe that person deserved to get sick and a simple prayer is not adequate or the answer is simply 'no', the person needed to get sick for punishment or whatever Gd decided is.
are you pro death sentence?
alot of ppl die in cancer, that dont deserve it. such as my mother, who was always kind to everyone.
what you're suggesting is that maybe the ppl in the holocaust deserved to die? because prayers did no good. ridiculous in my opinion.
whichever example you take in prayers, the point was that it doesnt change the chances of whatever you're studying. rate of recovery from cancer or what have you.
the point was that no matter who prayed, or who you prayed for, there was never any effect. does that mean everyone that get's cancer, gets it as a punishment? and no prayer will ever help?
so why didnt hitler, osama, etc get cancer, but random ppl that might have done some small sin? is being a pornstar worse than causing the holocaust?
ofc they are both dead, but you'd think god could have punished them a little earlier, before they killed alot of ppl.
well imo there's a cause and an effect for everything, it doesnt have anything to do with god though.
cancer cases are increasing, because of how we live. radioactivity, nano particles, manipulated and processed food, and many other things. god doesnt need to kill us as punishment, cause we're doing a fine job of killing ourselves already.
To a degree yes, I don't think a serial killer who just murdered half a town deserves to breathe another breath though its also not something to be handed out to every petty thug. I'm no judge, I'm not getting into this nor the severity that the death penalty requires.
I'll admit I might not have been clear or I might have skipped over this point but once again, I am not a judge nor am I Gd, 'negative' things could happen but not necessarily as a punishment. If you aren't pro-death for the reason that 'how can we judge/take a human life' than your entire rebuttal is naught as all you were doing was comparing average people with cancer to Hitler. Like I said, I am not judging anyone no matter how obvious a person might seem to be 'evil' or 'good'. There are a lot more aspects and attributes that Gd looks into than merely 'She was a good lady' Please I am not discounting anyone, let alone your mother, I trust that she is an amazing woman, please do not take offense but how does a person REALLY know what another person is/was like? how many times in the paper is a rich entrepreneur who gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to charity found out to be a drug dealer or sex slave trader or what not, BUT then again I am not accusing everyone of having a secret life. Without going too much into explanations I have two stories that I hope will do the talking for me:
There is a parable (not sure the source) of a man who lost his horses, the village said he is an unlucky man, the next day the horses return and brought along a few wild horses, increasing his total, the village said he's a lucky man, the man went to ride the horse and he fell and broke his leg, the village said he's an unlucky man, later the gov't (or king or whatever authority you want to use) came and drafted all the young men, the war was tragic, everyone died but this man stayed home due to his injury and the village said that he is a lucky man.
This one's a bit longer.
Once a scholar (it is a Jewish story so I can we can say rabbi) was learning and he got up for a second, when he returned he saw an angel (a specific angel that travels and performs certain tasks, I don't want to get too deep and digress) after they spoke the scholar asked to accompany the angel in his travels but the angel said on condition that the scholar asks no questions, the REALLY short version is that upon their travels they meet an extremely poor family who welcomes them in for the night, generously serving them whatever meager food they have. They depart and angel whispers something the family cows ear and it dies immediately and meet up with some rich guy who is in middle of building this huge estate, the pair walk over asking for a place to sleep but the guy is a huge a**hole, they sleep in the worker's hut, no food and on wooden benches. They got up in the middle of the night and the angel called down a group of angels and had the estate completely built for the rich contractor within a short time. Then they approached a poor village and when they requested a place to stay for the night everyone was fighting to do the honor of housing the guests even though not many could afford it. They left and the angel wished that they should be granted a great leader. They approached a rich town and made the same request but if they were not turned down immediately they were rudely ignored, they departed and the angel wished that they should all become leaders. The scholar could not take it and demanded to be told why the good were 'punished' yet the cruel were 'rewarded' the angel explained that the poor mother had a terminal illness and if I didn't 'transfer' it over to the cow she would have died that night, I have built the estate for the cruel man but it is a building of poor construction and it will fall apart shortly, if I let the workers to build there, they would dig for the foundations and discover an immense treasure worth more than the rich man is already worth. I blessed the poor village to have one powerful leader that will lead them to better times yet I cursed the rich village to all become leaders, with one leader you have a direction but with many leaders they will all fight for control causing more turmoil.
TL;DR version, I am not giving a solid answer but simply we do not know all of 'Gd's plans' Does a child really know that being sent to the corner is actually good for him and that in the coming years it will actually improve his character and make him a better person? No, I am not defending the 'punishments' of the good nor the 'rewards' of the bad. Also I want to point out that we really don't know what is really a 'punishment' or 'reward' I use apostrophes because so many things appear bad or good but are really not, like in the stories I gave. I know TRUE stories that people were found to have a minor tumor that really was nothing, the doctor checked it out and actually found an undetectable design that without the minor tumor would have never been found. Or I can name you dozens of stories that happened during 9/11 where people were fired from their jobs the weekend before and were worried about how to pay all their bills or were late to work ONLY on THAT day when they had a perfectly clean record. So all in all, we don't know what is REALLY a punishment or REALLY a reward or who is really bad or good
(Again, I am not saying anything about your mother or any of the countless people who have succumbed to illness, my own grandfather also passed from cancer as well as many other loved ones of mine and of my close friends, nor am I defending criminals or devil-incarnates but simply WE DO NOT KNOW what, who and how to judge properly).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I agree with feminism. I don't think that it's right that for every dollar a man makes, a women gets 70 cents. Why do I only get 30 cents and some chick gets the rest?
I never said it did. I just find it obnoxious when people use really insulting terms for an important assortment of books. Just because you don't respect the ideology doesn't mean you shouldn't respect the relevance of the book instead of just calling the whole thing a childs bedtime story. It's simply incorrect.
But...what's to respect about a book that says we are all dirt (Literally, go read Genesis!) and that stealing a loaf of bread to feed one's family is just as evil as murdering the president of the United States of America?
As for that slab of rock that has the dude's name on it, that proves that somebody carved a name onto a slab of rock...
@Link well i will use idea instead of theory then but if im not mistaken, in Swedish it's the same thing. so, sorry if i used it in the wrong way
Ahh, I don't know about the swedish language.
In America, theologists like to say "SEE IT'S A THEORY, THAT MEANS A GUESS!" when in reality, in the English language, a theory is an examination of the facts.
ya, i was gonna say that satanism is less violent etc, than christianity too
at most you might hear about satanists offering animals. in the bible there was that guy that was asked to sacrifice his own son. by non other than god himself. the god of love. splendid.
Modern Satanism is really a much less violent religion then most think. I'd dare say it's one of the more peaceful religions.
Emo junior high kids give Satanism a bad name. (As does Christianity, but we can forgive the ignorance of Christians. )
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You should stop trolling. Seriously. It is distasteful and truly inconsiderate at best. Proletaria asked you to state the assumption so that he could engage in a discussion that might address your concern. What you have referred to as internet bs is what is known as sharing concrete ideas so they can be debated upon. If you are not ready for this, you should probably abstain from making comments that you are gradually turning into this elaborate and pointless riddle devoid of any sense.
It has been a back and forth exchange here. There is no control or fueling unless you are finding yourself overwhelmed in the face of truth you cannot handle.
According to the many other religions around, Christians are going to hell. So be don't be too surprised when they try to convert you because they are doing so for your own good. Never mind if your life is one dedicated to service and the betterment of your fellow humans because it's all about who you worship and what rituals you do.
Still don't realize the stupidity of it all?
Also nobody died for my sins. Each man is responsible and accountable for his own actions. This is how we live on a day-to-day basis.
So let me answer that very quickly: it is impossible to do so.
It is impossible to prove that God exists, just as it is impossible to prove that it doesn't exist.
That being said, I'll go ahead and respond to your comments.
I do accept this as a possibility, and even stated so in my original text when I said that God may have a God, and that one or both of them may exist outside of our concept of time.
The reason people speculate there might be a God is because the only other answer we have at this point is "I don't know." This is how every theory mankind has comes about, by the way. You come up with a theory, and then work your way toward proving or disproving it systematically. Some "truths" we have cannot yet be explained fully, we just accept them; like gravity, which at one point was just some crackpot theory that we've found stands against scrutiny and every scientific experiment we can put it through, but we still have no idea why or how it works. This does not mean we simply say "I don't know" when someone asks why apples fall to the Earth, we say "well, maybe it's gravity."
I both grant this in my own beliefs, and also say that it may not be true. I granted in my original post that God may have created everything on accident, and may not even have any idea that it did so. I simply grant that whether or not God has intelligence, it doesn't matter. I simply brought up the idea of an afterlife because it, too, is another reason people ask about God. For most people, the quest for God is the quest for an afterlife, and they believe if they find one, it's proof of the other. I don't agree, and said as much, but there is a natural correlation between one topic and the other, so I went ahead and shared my belief structure on whether or not afterlife exists.
I choose to believe that God is smarter than I am, because even if it created everything on accident, it still commands the knowledge to create. This isn't like walking by a table and accidentally spilling something, which poured cosmic goo everywhere and bam, here we are.
In any case, this was all about afterlife, and doesn't matter when it comes to the concept of creation.
The point of this speculation is to point out that the things people take for granted when it comes to the concept of God are not necessarily true, which you yourself have stated. This is also where I point out that the one responsible for our creation (our universe's creation) may not be responsible for all creation.
You're making a leap in logic when you say that we must first establish whether or not we NEED God to have created the universe, before we establish whether or not God exists.
We do not have the scientific prowess great enough to determine how our universe was created (IE whether or not we NEED a God to have created it), therefore we must speculate on the other end; whether or not a God can even exist in which to do so. If you disprove God's existence, then you prove that God did not create our universe. If you can find a proof for God's existence, then the possibility that God created our universe exists.
That's why we're speculating on whether or not God exists and why, rather than any other jibberish you can come up with.
I was not trying to PROVE God exists (again, impossible), I was simply stating what I think.
I assert an answer because I'm telling you what I choose to believe in the end, I'm not making a leap in logic saying "it is a fact that God is intelligent," I'm simply telling you how I come to terms with my mortal life, and life's meaning in general, in a time and place where no one knows the answer.
I also only do this after plainly stating above that God may or may not be intelligent, may have created on accident, and may have nothing to do with the universe, regardless of whether it created it.
This is also all in preface to my statement that it's all speculation.
The only thing I can say here is that asserting God is simply giving one possible solution to the question.
Just like gravity, you can theorize on the answer before you know how to get there.
I think speculating on God has (or had) a good place for science, because it drives (drove) people to try to prove where we came from.
In today's world, I think we're far enough along scientifically to ignore the God end of the equation (and all other potential answers) and just work toward figuring out how things happened (and how things are happening in the universe) to arrive at the conclusion. But what about 500 years ago? The only answer we had 500 years ago was either God, and "I don't know." People are always going to fill in the blank when they don't know, because it's human nature. It's a travesty when their theories are presented as fact, and people should be wary of this, but humans will still try to figure out the answer with all of the data they have been provided with.
This is my only real problem with your rebuttal. I understand he's trying to explain that there need not be God for our universe to exist. However, he DOES conclude that God does not exist.
That's my problem with his conclusion, and also why I said he's jumping ahead in logic. Whether or not he meant it like that, it is exactly what he said:
"...there is no God."
I'm not saying he's wrong, because again, no one knows, I'm simply saying that he makes a pretty big leap from the universe not needing a God to have created it, to there not being one at all.
Furthermore, he makes another leap when he notes that just because neutrons can pop into and out of existence, so can a singularity. I understand he's saying that such a thing can happen without breaking the laws of physics, that's fine, but to say "it could happen" is the same as "this is how it happened" in order to draw the conclusion that God wasn't necessary to create our universe is to err.
Moreover, just because we don't know where these particles come from, doesn't mean they simply pop into being. The possibility exists that these neutrons come from another universe, just crossing between them until they fix to something inside one. The possibility also exists that neutrons are formed so quickly that we cannot tell the difference between them being formed and simply appearing. These are all questions that need answered before you can being to draw the conclusion that the universe didn't need a God to create it.
Six. Six knowledge.
There's no way anyone can answer this. I'm simply stating we don't have the resources or data to arrive at any truth at this time, but once we do, we'll have a greater understanding of what role, if any, God played. You, too, have said this, when you say that "...we need only admit that we have no need for [God]." If we can prove we didn't need a God to create the universe, then the possibility exists that there is no God. If we can prove as a TRUTH that the universe *could not* be created without a supernatural start, then it's evidence that God does exist.
I don't see how we could ever prove either way, but the statement remains true.
Again, I assume that we're progressing toward the understanding of our universe's creation because if you CAN prove one way or the other, it proves and/or provides evidence for or against a God.
This is how proofs work in math. It doesn't matter if you have the steps to get from a starting point to the answer, you still lay out what steps you do have, and what parts you need to get to to reach the conclusion. This is why there are unsolved proofs in math that have a conclusion.
I include our search for the knowledge of the creation of our universe because it is the final step to understanding whether or not we need God to have created the universe.
Step A is everything we know.
Step B is blank/unknown.
Step C is how the universe was made.
Step D is God does/does not exist.
I'm not sure why you point out that Hawking and others are trying to prove that we don't need a God to have created the universe, and then respond to me saying "When we know how the universe was created, we'll know more," by calling it a useless concept considering we aren't progressing toward its understanding at all.
We obviously are if Hawking is already claiming the universe was created without a God, albeit prematurely.
You're basically just responding to everyone that their arguments are all speculation, and there's no point in asserting a God.
1. Everything is speculation. Everything. Including your arguments. That's why there cannot be a conclusion to any of this, which is what I stated in my original post.
2. The assumption for God comes from the answer side of the equation, where there are only two possible answers right now, "I don't know how the universe was created" and "God did it." As I said before, people will always try to fill the blanks in with what makes sense to them. If you don't know how your car's engine works, or how precipitation works, or how an atomic bomb works, you can use what you do know to draw a reasonable conclusion. Does it matter if that conclusion is 100% correct? Saying we shouldn't assert God as a possible answer is just like saying "If you don't know for sure don't even bother trying to guess."
How can a magical being be considered a reasonable guess? You judge 'reasonable' based on what facts you have to base your conclusion on.
If you know 7x7 = 49, and you know 9x9=81, then a reasonable guess for 8x8 is somewhere between 50 and 80.
Now let's say you *only* know 2x2=4, and 100,000x100,000=10,000,000,000, your guess for 1000x1000 is somewhere between 5 and 10 billion. Is 1 billion a poor guess? Based on what you know, it is reasonable to assume that might be correct.
If you know basically nothing about how the universe was created, or why it was created, or what lies beyond our own universe, then your conclusions are going to be pretty radical, like a magical being that created everything.
THAT is why people assert God as a possible solution.
...this is all giving proof that Christianity is wrong.
Proving God exists and proving Christianity is correct are NOT, NOT, NOT the same thing.
And it's poisonous to give credence to this misconception. It makes people think that everyone that believes in God also believes in Jesus, prayer, magical oil, infinite fish, heaven, hell, and rising from the grave.
Furthermore, I think by saying "prove God doesn't exist" he's simply trying to show you that it's impossible to either prove or disprove God's existence, so laying the burden of proof on anyone is futile.
Apparently you don't understand the concept of what I said AT ALL. I will however... take the time to restate this one more time:
Time is mechanic/ dimension that is part of our universe. Everything that we see and know... is dependent on time. The universe, the big bang, even you and I ... require an origin as we fall within the realm of time. We as humans always attempt to say that god must have an origin due to the fact that we think with what we know. We are trying to apply time to something that existed before the dimension of time (god).
Your statement about how DM's are man made creations is junk. You didn't take from the metaphor what was presented to you.... and instead tried to apply concepts from our universe to it. I will restate this directly so hopefully you get it: Dungeon Masters in D&D are not subject to whatever laws or rules they implement into the world they are building, because the world they are building is not their reality. Time is part of our reality, and for all we know (and we literally will NEVER know) god is outside of time.
If you seriously take the time to read the genesis laid out in the bible (I am not saying the bible is right... I am just using this as a way to look at creation metaphors), you would see that 7 day metaphor could very easily fit to explain the big bang, the bible even states that god is outside of time.
Well for all we know you could be. The bible does specify the return of Jesus Christ... and he isn't going to be the same personality or body that he was in 0 AD.
I'm quite serious actually. This is just a different way to approach the conversation. Do you not try to look at things from a different perspective?
And what "truth" am I unable to handle? What truth could EVER be presented in an discussion like this?
I'll rephrase it just for you Nekro
@Prole- What is fact based about that post? You made many bold claims. Why should I believe them?
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Hehe, too many pages for me too, buddy.
I have a serious question for you, Pyro_Doggy. Why do Christians think that they can use the arguments for Deism and then everyone will automatically believe in the Theistic god of Christianity?
We found a star going around Beta Centauri that is in just the right spot for life. Does that mean there is another god for that planet? Does the Christian god love us less now that there are two known planets that are in the habitable zone around their planet?
And on that matter, at least one moon around Jupiter is getting energy from the gravitational force from Jupiter which is heating the inside up, allowing a possibility of life at some point. Does god love us even less now that there are more places that life could exist?
Does your god even known these places exist?
You have no idea how many gods throughout time sacrificed themselves or their loved ones or whatever for humanity, do you? If you are not even willing to try, I'm not willing to help you with that. -.-
The ONLY information we have about the Christian god is in the Christian bible. You can make up all you want about god, but if it isn't in the Christian bible, it isn't about the Christian god. And that, sir, is a fact.
I love how the religious have no clue what the hell a theory is. Gravity is a theory. Electricity is a theory. In fact, lets look at Meriam Webster's definition of a fucking theory.
I fucking hate when people don't know or don't care what a theory is. -.-
If god does not require an origin, then neither does the Universe.
Occams Razor.
Please refer up to my reply to Pyro about the insane ideas the average person has about Theories...
Actually from my studies of Satanism, Satanism is a lot kinder then Christianity. (That's not saying much, though, considering almost any religion could be classified as kinder. But Satanism does seem like a decent religion.)
The burden of proof stands at the person making the positive claim.
For example, if I claim there is no god, period, end of discussion, I made a positive claim. If you claim that there is a Christian god, period, end of discussion, you have made a positive claim. In both instances, the positive claim is the claim that must be defended.
If, for example, I simply disagree with your claim, I have made a negative claim, and the burden of proof still lies with you. And, again, if you simply disagree with my claim, then the burden of proof still lies with you.
In this situation, the burden of proof lies with the religious, as the religious are making the positive claim.
If, in another thread, an Atheist were to make a claim in a similar fashion to "There is no god." then that person would have to provide the proof, not the religious in the counterargument.
I hope that helped you understand better.
Because, asking for a teacher to get hurt or for spiderman powers is exactly the same as an entire city praying for my little nephew to be cured of cancer, then the poor boy still dying, right?
Yea, I'm done with responding to you.
/Agree
Each man is responsible for his or her own actions, regardless of his or her religion.
That's the great thing about Christianity! All sin is sin!
The sin of murder is the same as the sin of adultry.
Don't you just feel the love of Christianity and the Bible?
(Not hating on the Bible, just pointing out the "facts" that the Bible claims.)
I must disagree. If the Atheist is making the positive claim, then the burden of proof is on the Atheist.
It's not what side of the fence you are on, it's whether you make a positive claim or not. If I, as an Atheist, stand up and declare, there is absolutely no god, period, the burden of proof is on me to show that there is no god.
As an intellectual person, I do not know 100% that there is no god, but I do not see any evidence that there is no god. As such, the burden of proof is not on me.
Hope that helped your understanding.
God you keep fucking avoiding it LinkX. You are just as narrow minded as the christian zealot.
The universe requires an origin because the laws within the universe apply to it. God does not because the laws of the universe DO not apply to it. DONE DEAL. Stop using your flawed logic.
It is a shame that as a knowledge or truth seeker- as you have so many times hinted you are(correct me if I am wrong)- you are choosing to discard in this particular instance the value of responding to a simple question so that the discussion can actually carry on.
I'll rephrase just for you Reptar-
Name those bold claims so we can discuss them.
You are dodging that simple question under the pretense of a new approach which in essence is - "i have a point but i won't tell you. Figure the point out and argue with yourself."
I'm sorry but that's just silly and discourteous.
I'm not an atheist or a christian. But I have learned a few things about the context of the bible in my day. And calling the whole thing a fairy tale book is at the very least, incorrect.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Come on now, you can do it.
Just a little more.
As to the matter of the bible, you can find context in any mythology from around the world. It should be pretty obvious considering the number of religions there are.
So share yours with us.
It was more historical than history at one point.
Historians at one time rejected the existence of Nebuchadnezzar at one point. Until one day, archaeologists proved his existence. They found large slabs with his name on it somehwhere around where Babylon was located( Nebu was the king at one time).Without the bible, it would have been thousands of years without ever knowing he even existed in reality.
That's one example. I don't care what beliefs you have. I'm tired of people insulting a book that is incredibly important to our history. And no, I'm not saying that EVERY page is fact. I'm saying it's an important book to our history( I can't speak for the Koran and others). And I'm tired of seeing it bashed just so people can say "SEE?!?! My belief is right and yours is wrong!"
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Archeologists have also found compelling evidence to suggest that Troy was a real city and the siege of Troy by a Greek armada was a real event. Does that mean that we have evidence for the demi-god status of Achillies or the existence of the Greek Pantheon? It does not.
I have a lot of other posts i'd like to get at today and maybe I will, but it's looking like another round of first-cause and "science will never know," assumptions and if anyone bothers to read a few of the first 17 pages they'll understand why I have already refuted those absolute claims and maintain that we cannot assume god or no god from them. Sufficed to say, if anyone wants to bring any new arguments to my attention, please let me know what they are so I can dig them out of the repeats and reply with care.
And Umpa, I honestly do not have a clue what you're talking about. If you genuinely want me to discuss something with you, quote what you have an issue with and tell me why you disagree. I am not capable of reading your mind and asessing what you feel isn't factual. That is beyond my power as a human being.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
And I find it equally obnoxious that I am supposed to infer histoical importance on an assortment of book for no reason other than a large group of people worship the contents. I have stated that I respect the bible and other scripts as far as they are a literary tradition that is worth knowing. I have said that culturally, we are richer for having myths and legends. However, that is not to say that we should allow for baseless truth claims based on these books as though truth were a popularity contest. That is simply wrong.
The stories have as much basis as any other historical record from that time period.
I'm not saying they're not myths. But who are you to say they are?
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
That is precisely baseless. I've been a student of history for nearly three of your lifetimes. I have worked with scholars who have made it their life's work to study the history surrounding the bible. Generations of scholars have made this their life's work and I assure you, without any doubt, that this is baseless. The bible has history within it's pages. There is no doubt about that. But if you are to submit to me that the Bible is more historically accurate than any other history book you are being purposefully ignorant of our human body of historical knowledge.
Also false. We have MANY more and MUCH more accurate accounts from other cultures during that time period. Do you really think that the Roman empire or the Greeks were poor record keepers compared to a tribe of desert nomads? There were many more literate and prolific histories long before the age of Christianity and there were many more after. This is nonsense. Just go out there and read!
They are myths until we prove otherwise. As I said, I make no statements of certainty. I don't assume, by calling something a myth, that it is unequivocally false. I am saying that we have no basis on which to call it a fact, thus it is not, at present, a fact.
To a degree yes, I don't think a serial killer who just murdered half a town deserves to breathe another breath though its also not something to be handed out to every petty thug. I'm no judge, I'm not getting into this nor the severity that the death penalty requires.
I'll admit I might not have been clear or I might have skipped over this point but once again, I am not a judge nor am I Gd, 'negative' things could happen but not necessarily as a punishment. If you aren't pro-death for the reason that 'how can we judge/take a human life' than your entire rebuttal is naught as all you were doing was comparing average people with cancer to Hitler. Like I said, I am not judging anyone no matter how obvious a person might seem to be 'evil' or 'good'. There are a lot more aspects and attributes that Gd looks into than merely 'She was a good lady' Please I am not discounting anyone, let alone your mother, I trust that she is an amazing woman, please do not take offense but how does a person REALLY know what another person is/was like? how many times in the paper is a rich entrepreneur who gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to charity found out to be a drug dealer or sex slave trader or what not, BUT then again I am not accusing everyone of having a secret life. Without going too much into explanations I have two stories that I hope will do the talking for me:
There is a parable (not sure the source) of a man who lost his horses, the village said he is an unlucky man, the next day the horses return and brought along a few wild horses, increasing his total, the village said he's a lucky man, the man went to ride the horse and he fell and broke his leg, the village said he's an unlucky man, later the gov't (or king or whatever authority you want to use) came and drafted all the young men, the war was tragic, everyone died but this man stayed home due to his injury and the village said that he is a lucky man.
This one's a bit longer.
Once a scholar (it is a Jewish story so I can we can say rabbi) was learning and he got up for a second, when he returned he saw an angel (a specific angel that travels and performs certain tasks, I don't want to get too deep and digress) after they spoke the scholar asked to accompany the angel in his travels but the angel said on condition that the scholar asks no questions, the REALLY short version is that upon their travels they meet an extremely poor family who welcomes them in for the night, generously serving them whatever meager food they have. They depart and angel whispers something the family cows ear and it dies immediately and meet up with some rich guy who is in middle of building this huge estate, the pair walk over asking for a place to sleep but the guy is a huge a**hole, they sleep in the worker's hut, no food and on wooden benches. They got up in the middle of the night and the angel called down a group of angels and had the estate completely built for the rich contractor within a short time. Then they approached a poor village and when they requested a place to stay for the night everyone was fighting to do the honor of housing the guests even though not many could afford it. They left and the angel wished that they should be granted a great leader. They approached a rich town and made the same request but if they were not turned down immediately they were rudely ignored, they departed and the angel wished that they should all become leaders. The scholar could not take it and demanded to be told why the good were 'punished' yet the cruel were 'rewarded' the angel explained that the poor mother had a terminal illness and if I didn't 'transfer' it over to the cow she would have died that night, I have built the estate for the cruel man but it is a building of poor construction and it will fall apart shortly, if I let the workers to build there, they would dig for the foundations and discover an immense treasure worth more than the rich man is already worth. I blessed the poor village to have one powerful leader that will lead them to better times yet I cursed the rich village to all become leaders, with one leader you have a direction but with many leaders they will all fight for control causing more turmoil.
TL;DR version, I am not giving a solid answer but simply we do not know all of 'Gd's plans' Does a child really know that being sent to the corner is actually good for him and that in the coming years it will actually improve his character and make him a better person? No, I am not defending the 'punishments' of the good nor the 'rewards' of the bad. Also I want to point out that we really don't know what is really a 'punishment' or 'reward' I use apostrophes because so many things appear bad or good but are really not, like in the stories I gave. I know TRUE stories that people were found to have a minor tumor that really was nothing, the doctor checked it out and actually found an undetectable design that without the minor tumor would have never been found. Or I can name you dozens of stories that happened during 9/11 where people were fired from their jobs the weekend before and were worried about how to pay all their bills or were late to work ONLY on THAT day when they had a perfectly clean record. So all in all, we don't know what is REALLY a punishment or REALLY a reward or who is really bad or good
(Again, I am not saying anything about your mother or any of the countless people who have succumbed to illness, my own grandfather also passed from cancer as well as many other loved ones of mine and of my close friends, nor am I defending criminals or devil-incarnates but simply WE DO NOT KNOW what, who and how to judge properly).
But...what's to respect about a book that says we are all dirt (Literally, go read Genesis!) and that stealing a loaf of bread to feed one's family is just as evil as murdering the president of the United States of America?
As for that slab of rock that has the dude's name on it, that proves that somebody carved a name onto a slab of rock...
Ahh, I don't know about the swedish language.
In America, theologists like to say "SEE IT'S A THEORY, THAT MEANS A GUESS!" when in reality, in the English language, a theory is an examination of the facts.
It really, really agitates me a lot
Modern Satanism is really a much less violent religion then most think. I'd dare say it's one of the more peaceful religions.
Emo junior high kids give Satanism a bad name. (As does Christianity, but we can forgive the ignorance of Christians. )