Total posts: 1,044
-->
@ludofl3x
I can understand the initial confusion one might have with my statement. It makes sense to ask what I mean (instead of implying what I mean), but this should really be clear now.You mean like this, from my post 31?Define the sentient category in which a human is contained and a theoretically super-advanced AI could NOT be contained. I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, I'd just like to hear you flesh this out more.You ignored it for pages so I was trying to figure it out for myself.
Like I indicated before, there's never been a post of yours ignored. There may be comments of yours I just don't feel a need to answer, but we can't comment on everything. But there's never been a post I purposely ignored due to being to be stumped. I know that alot of your questions are desinged to create a trap.
Most likely, I either didn't see it, or hadn't gotten to it yet. And then sometimes because of that I just end up moving on. You have to admit, you post quite a bit. Nothing wrong with that, but you should understand that a number of your posts will probably fall through the cracks because we're all on our own independant schedules. And like I also indicated, there have been numerous times you didn't respond to my posts, didn't answer certain questions, etc. Do you recall me ever claiming that you were running away from a tough question, or avoiding certain comments I've made?
I know what you're getting at. As of right now, there's a common understanding in the difference between AI, and creatures of the animal kingdom. And the differences are more a categorical listing at this point as opposed to one specific defining description. Natural vs. artificial might be one of the examples (natural flesh vs. synthetic). The ability to naturally reproduce might be another example. But, yes, sentient I suppose could be subjective. I could argue that the new face command phones are sentient. The phone will just leap for joy when it sees us. Or maybe be appalled?
I think one of the problems is that you're looking at this issue as something that's threatening to God (or to Christians concerning the concept of God). Like God (or God being symbolic of Christians) is worried about man becoming smarter, figuring out how he does things and perform the same things, or becoming smarter than God himself. Quite the opposite actually. I think God would be willing to reveal to us more than we know. I think with the development of AI, God is actually providing a glimpse of creationism. And is not remotely threatened by how close we can develop robots with humans.
So how about you? What is your definition of sentient?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Are you claiming that anything other than complete unconcious existence after death means "magical afterlife"? If it's something that science doesn't (at the moment) touch a concious afterlife, it would have to be magic?It's just like trying to scientifically discover what happens after death.We scientifically know what happens after death. Your body's vital signs all drop to zero, and your tissue begins to decay. What you mean here is "it's like scientifically trying to prove a magical afterlife" which is not the same thing as either 'what happens after death' or 'create an artificial sentience.'
Now, what I said I would address.
Creating sentient life, although I believe is impossible, I have to place an asterix there on that statement. Rather, it's impossibly possible. I don't rule out the possibility of producing sentient life, but in my opinion the creator has rendered it impossible.
Ironically, creating sentient life also produces questions on morality. Would it be moral? This question gets posed in a number of fictional writings like "Frankenstein", where the question comes along "should we play God"? For instance, what if we created a race of sentient beingd that turned hostile to humanity?
When it comes to questions of the afterlife, I think the most atheistic of atheists understand that this is much deeper than creating healthy energy drinks. It would present a challenge to deityship, therefore has appeal as the idea tantalizes us with proving the non-existence of an ultimate creator of divine nature.
The same theme goes along with time travel. A moral issue is considered here. Like, if we go back in time and kill Hitler, would that violate the rights of others who are alive because of Hitler's existence. Therefore, I think God rendered the theoretical possibility of time travel to that extent impossible.
But at least with time travel, we could make some speculations on how we might go about it. Travel at light speed to go into the future, enter a black hole to go into the past, etc. With life after scientifically expiring? Nada.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Because you said you were of the opinion that robots will never be sentient, at least not in the same sentient category as humans, which you subsequently walked back it seems to either sentient or non-sentient. I'm asking you how you define sentience in this case, and it appears your answer is "human" and it has something to do with feelings, which you have yet to expound upon. Human emotions seems to equal sentience for you as of this moment, I asked already is that fair to say? That feelings, specifically human feelings, are the defining characteristic of sentience that divide robots from humans?
Hopefully I cleared all of this up in a prior thread this morning. Not sure if you commented on it yet. I'll guess I'll wait to see as I'm trying to address your posts in order.
accordance, in simple situations. "We haven't done it yet" is not a reason we will never do it. 25 years ago, if you got diagnosed with prostate cancer, your prognosis was DECIDEDLY different than if you get diagnosed with it today, would you agree? "We'll figure it out one day maybe" is exactly how every single advancement that overcomes problems is born. Can't get water to here? We'll figure it out one day. Boom, aqueducts. It's not just a saying. It's how we move forward.
I don't make the claim that we haven't done it yet is a reason we will never do it. Ironicallty, this is an argument a number of people use to suggest the Bible is fiction. "We don't see evidence of King David's or Solomon's kingdoms, therefore they never existed". And then when evidence does show up, they move on to the exodus, Garden of Eden, etc.
I'll comment more on this on my next post.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
But...as you know. It's just a movie.Maybe, but probably not for long. [LINK]
This is no surprise at all.
I would guess that 90% of the males who consider any companionship related theme with robots, two intial thoughts come to mind. Sex......and Japan.
The other 10% that are looking for genuine emotional companionship with a robot will face a similar dilemma with those who look for companionship with mail order brides (who look for companionship with U.S. citizenship).
If this ever really takes off, my guess would be that it wouldn't take long for the "something is missing" complaints about robot/human romantic relations.
The other 10% that are looking for genuine emotional companionship with a robot will face a similar dilemma with those who look for companionship with mail order brides (who look for companionship with U.S. citizenship).
If this ever really takes off, my guess would be that it wouldn't take long for the "something is missing" complaints about robot/human romantic relations.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, but this is a breeding process, not creation (manufacturing). At best, indirect creation.Yes.Wild dogs and wolves (dog ancestors) are incapable of reading and imitating human emotions (empathy).Humans have selectively bred dogs to increase bi-directional empathy (emotional expressiveness).Is a dog more sentient or conscious than a wolf?
Can these breeders produce wild dogs and wolves (no inter-breeding) with Golden Retriever gualities/personalities?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm not familiar with the program in question. And....probably won't see it.Take the sex out of it. There's a Black Mirror episode called "Be Right Back" that I think got me to consider this question. Have you watched it, either of you? Young couple just bought a house. During their move in process, when they're returning the moving truck, something terrible happens. I don't want to spoil it because I just think it's a masterpiece of short form drama that needs to be seen to be discussed properly, but it challenges a LOT of what you just said, Rod. The applications aren't JUST for potential fuckbots. I thought it captured a lot of the implications of super-advanced AI really well.
If you feel this, what I assume is a fictional story, makes a significant challenge to what I say, you won't have to worry about spoiling it for me.
In the past I've had problems with people using fictional stories (stories that are universally understood to be fiction) as some sort of proof though. At the other board there was a member who seemed to be using the idea that because a Canadian female author wrote a book about a fictional religious dictatorship in the U.S., we should close all our churches down.
I guess this author didn't have the common courtesy of using Canada instead of the U.S. But, she was playing on a certain segment of society's emotions, knowing she can get away with this.
In other words, whatever point this show is making, it has to be really good.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Second, theoretically, programming might advance enough to allow robotic eyes to read human non-verbal cues and react with emotional displays with which we are familiar, essentially giving them the appearance of feelings. How then would we distinguish the appearance of feelings with actual feelings?
Let's say you have 2 professions. An AI manufacturer, and a dog breeder.
You manufacture a robot, programming it to react with emotional displays. At the same time you're in a way creating life by purposely placing male and female dogs together to mate and produce off-spring.
So you have 2 creations. The display of emotions the robot possesses were a result of your engineering. But what about the emotions the dogs you helped breed possess? Did you assist them in the breeding process to obtain feelings and emotion?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
So emotions = sentience then? This is a sticky one. Instinctively, I agree, but then we run into a couple of points of divergence. First and foremost, we'd be talking about HUMAN emotions and feelings, when what we'd be looking at is decidedly not human. Second, theoretically, programming might advance enough to allow robotic eyes to read human non-verbal cues and react with emotional displays with which we are familiar, essentially giving them the appearance of feelings. How then would we distinguish the appearance of feelings with actual feelings?
For one, the definition of sentient involves the ability to feel.
If a dog's feelings are hurt because he was scolded for chewing up the carpet, is that hurt the dog feels human emotion, or dog emotion?
You're right, it wasn't LEVELS of sentient. It was CATEGORIES. From your post 27:A robot will never be in the same sentient category as a human.Are you now saying there are only two categories of sentience: yes and no? That should make defining what's in those two categories much easier. You seem to limit it to feelings, particularly human feelings / emotions. Is that fair to say?
No. Nothing's changed. A robot is not a sentient object. A robot is not in the same sentient category as a human, dog, cat, caterpillar, 49er fan, etc. They are not in any sentient categories because they are not sentient. I guess maybe I specified human because robots are usually designed to look human, do human chores, etc.
I can understand the initial confusion one might have with my statement. It makes sense to ask what I mean (instead of implying what I mean), but this should really be clear now.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Where am I implying this? I'm saying pretty clearly that intelligence is NOT necessarily a product of sentience. All I've asked you to do is define sentience and explain why you're of the opinion that AI will never be sentient.
Forgive me if I've misunderstood you.
I'm not sure though why you're asking me to define sentience? Are you looking for a dictionary defintion? Because that's all that's needed, right? Nothin mysterious. Or is there?
Why do I think AI will ever be sentient?
Why should I beleive it ever will? Anything of course is possible. But the concept of AI sentience is "maybe one day we will figure it out". Beyond simple and advanced technology, we wouldn't have a clue as to how to even go about attempting to create a sentient being. It's just like trying to scientifically discover what happens after death. A big road block. All we can say is "maybe one day we'll figure it out". But that's just one of those coin phrases to put off the reality of human limiation.
Why do I think AI will ever be sentient?
Why should I beleive it ever will? Anything of course is possible. But the concept of AI sentience is "maybe one day we will figure it out". Beyond simple and advanced technology, we wouldn't have a clue as to how to even go about attempting to create a sentient being. It's just like trying to scientifically discover what happens after death. A big road block. All we can say is "maybe one day we'll figure it out". But that's just one of those coin phrases to put off the reality of human limiation.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
This guy falls in love with an AI?
I don't think, like most movies, the story is too realistic. I can conceive of an AI being produced to play a companionary role for lonely men. But the AI would be nothing more than an artificial escort.
More realistically, the interest in AI will involve sex moreso than companionship. It didn't take long for the idea of sex robots to accomodate sexually frustrated men.
But...as you know. It's just a movie.
I don't think, like most movies, the story is too realistic. I can conceive of an AI being produced to play a companionary role for lonely men. But the AI would be nothing more than an artificial escort.
More realistically, the interest in AI will involve sex moreso than companionship. It didn't take long for the idea of sex robots to accomodate sexually frustrated men.
But...as you know. It's just a movie.
Created:
Again a straw man: I never said a list is intelligent and intelligence isn't the issue, SENTIENCE is the issue. You are either obfuscating or just realize you don't have an answer. I never implied a book was sentient OR intelligent. I asked what makes something sentient. I mentioned the intelligence of technology in my initial response to you to actually point out that intelligence does not seem to be the only component of sentience. From that post, you leave this unanswered: "Define the sentient category in which a human is contained and a theoretically super-advanced AI could NOT be contained. I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, I'd just like to hear you flesh this out more." Subsequently, "My question is more along the lines of "whatin your opinion will delineate human sentience from super-advanced AI." You responded with can watsonplay chess and a dictionary isn't intelligent, I am not sure how those are relevant."
You're making the usual mountain out of a molehill out of my various comments.
I never said you thought a grocery list is intelligent.
Yes, you are making an issue of intelligence because that's what you're implying is a product of sentience.
Again, there is no sentient category (that I know of).
Created:
What would make it sentient? And further, what would make it the same "level of sentience" as a human? That's what you said earlier. That's what I'm asking.
No, that's not what I said. You misread my statement.
I don't think there's any level of sentience. I don't think robots are on
level "B", dictionaries level "C", grocery lists level "D", etc. None of these examples are sentient....period.
What would make a robot sentient? An obvious one might be, can you hurt a robot's feelings?
Is this an actual question? To start with, AI makes decisions. Dictionaries do not. One is a list, the other is essentially algorithmic. I have to imagine this wasrhetorical and not in any way meant to equivocate the two, but I wanted to clarify.
Yes, it's more rhetorical I would say. Of
course there are unique differences, but ultimately a highly advanced AI wouldn't care if you thought it looked fat anymore tnan
a dictionary would.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
But you did in fact say "Is Watson's chess playing ability unbeatable", right? I mean if you're trying to be pedantic, good game, but that would certainly seem to be in some way related to "can watson play chess." Either way, I am still unsure how that response is to my quote about how many chess playing AI's there are. You know, doing things that people do: making strategic decisions in a game. It's not the be allend all, but chess simulators are one of the earliest examples of people starting out thinking "computers can't do X, only people can do X" only to find out that with enough work, computers can do X.
Either a robot is a sentient being, or it isn't. If a robot was programmed to run a nation, including making the decision on pressing the button, that still wouldn't make it sentient. I think you're confusing brilliant technology with sentience.
This is a distraction and a straw man disguised as a simple question. Of course the dictionary contains more words and definitions than I know, but I'm not saying books are or will be or can't be sentient or in the same level of sentience as a human. I asked you simply to define the 'level of sentience' in some way that is conducive to examination, because advancement in the nuances of AI areaccelerating all the time.
After the smoke clears and we remove the rubble, we do have the answer to the question I asked. Thank you.
What's the difference between a highly advanced form of AI, and a Webster's dictionary?
Of course you couldn't possibly remember every word, and know all the definitions contained in a dictionary. The dictionary however holds it all. Every word we know of, and it's complete definition. But a dictionary is not more intelligent than you are. Just holds far more information in terms of words than you do. An advanced robot that is a chess expert is programmed to defeat your average human in a game of chess. Even there, this doesn't make the chess expert robot more intelligent than a sentient human.
A shopping list isn't any different. Your wife gives you a grocery list of 20 items. Since you don't have it all memorized, you keep having to refer to the list because it holds more information in terms of what your wife wants purchased than you do. But of course, doesn't imply that the shopping list is more intelligent than you.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
yet still imperfect) AI. There's so many chess playing AI's that are better than humans it's not even worth listing them. There are robotic limbs, as keith points out, that react to the electric stimuli produced by the brain and act as our own bodies. Robotic eyes make judgement all the time. Define the sentient category in which a human is contained and a theoretically super-advanced AI could NOT be contained. I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, I'd just like to hear you flesh this out more.I don't see IBM's Watson as being particularly different than any computer that has more information stored than I have in my brain. Or book, like Webster's dictionary. I don't think a book is more intelligent than myself because it has information stored in it's pages that I don't.Is Watson's chess playing ability unbeatable?I don't know about Watson's chess playing ability, I don't believe that's what it's for, but what difference would it make? My question was can you explain a little more about your statement, "A robot will never be in the same sentient category as a human." I pointed out that machines can already do most of what people can do in practical terms. My question is more along the lines of "what in your opinion will delineate human sentience from super-advanced AI." You responded with can watson play chess and a dictionary isn't intelligent, I am not sure how those are relevant.
No, I didn't ask if if Watson can play chess. I responded to your underlined quote.
I'm pressed for time here, so I have to be brief. I'll pose another question.
I'm pressed for time here, so I have to be brief. I'll pose another question.
Which holds more knowledge in terms of number of words, and definitions? You, or Webster's dictionary?
Very simple question.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
How do you form this opinion, like what's it based on? For example, IBM's Watson is an insanely intelligent (yet still imperfect) AI. There's so many chess playing AI's that are better than humans it's not even worth listing them. There are robotic limbs, as keith points out, that react to the electric stimuli produced by the brain and act as our own bodies. Robotic eyes make judgement all the time. Define the sentient category in which a human is contained and a theoretically super-advanced AI could NOT be contained. I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, I'd just like to hear you flesh this out more.
I don't see IBM's Watson as being particularly different than any computer that has more information stored than I have in my brain. Or book, like Webster's dictionary. I don't think a book is more intelligent than myself because it has information stored in it's pages that I don't.
Is Watson's chess playing ability unbeatable?
Is Watson's chess playing ability unbeatable?
Created:
LIke Ramshutu said, there's no proof of a soul, so I think opinion is the key character here in this interesting thread.
My opinion is that Jane is correct. A robot will never be in the same sentient category as a human. AI, and nothing more than AI.
I will say though, that there's an interesting correlation between robots and Adam and Eve of all people. One of the big arguments against the Biblical rendition of creation is the creation of 2 fully grown adults. Well, Adam and Eve weren't just created to occupy space and sort of act as helpless pet animals. Purpose was given to this couple. Responsibility. Ironically, we do the same with robots. They are made with a purpose. And.....they're always produced full grown. Even my Alexa always had an adult voice. I don't recall any baby talk, or adolescent voice changes.
Robots are made with a purpose, and it would be impractical to produce them as having to start out with a physical and mental growth process. So in like fashion, God created 2 fully grown humans to occupy and carry out an assignment.
I think God gave us the ability to produce robots as a means of getting a glimpse of creation. We can't (IMO) produce sentient life, but we have a small glimpse of creationism by producing them. The same goes for creating universes like metamaterial universes, and virtual universes. But nothing like our created universe teaming with life. Glimpses God gives us, that we tend to think are evidence of sole human acheivement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Well we could satisfy that in a number of ways, first consider that the soul existed prior to the physical body, this should be a no-brainer even in Christianity. If that soul inhabits a physical body once or a number of times either way it is a reincarnation because the soul exists apart from any forms. If you exist in an afterlife in another form that is reincarnation.... If you existed in a series of lives or are a new soul no matter how you look at it reincarnation is a reality, when you leave this world you still exist in another form and another world. Whether that's heaven or another shot at the physical world or one of the multiverses it's all reincarnation. Fundamentalist Christians don't like terms that are not generally accepted in their religions lol, but reincarnation at the basic definition is "the rebirth of a soul in a new body." That applies in many ways especially within spirituality, Christianity or whatever religious, spiritual path one pursues spirituality has the same objective for the individual. Also not everything and all knowledge is within the Bible, many other paths of spirituality have knowledge and insights about God and creation. God is not as rigid as some religions make that out to be.I'd be interested in the other things you don't agree with I said...
Well, for now I'd prefer to focus on the reincarnation issue, and then possibly go from there because this is what stands out in my memory.
The reason I said "I don't believe in reincarnation, at least not in the traditional sense" is for the very reason you just brought up. (i.e., a believer receives a new resurrected body.....aka reicarnated new body).
If I'm a created being, then I have no reason to believe that the human body I now occupy isn't the very first form of life I've been given. That prior to this life, I just didn't exist until God breathed the breath of life in my current form.
I'll throw a strange question at you.
I'm a firm believer in the possibility (and impossibility) of time travel. In secular terms, time travel is possible in theory, but impossible in practicality. We just don't have the technology to even come close to such a notion.
From a more divine perspective, time travel is possible in similar fashion to how the construction of the Tower of Babel was possible. But it was rendered impossible by the restrictive hand of God. Same principle. Time travel is possible if we acquired the near to impossible technology, but I believe rendered impossible by the restrictive hand of God because God will not allow man to turn back the hand of time to right their wrongs. Man is judged by what we do individually, and there's no chance of going back to change it. The only way out of our dilemma is to put our current lives in the hand of the savior.
So, I believe time travel, if God allowed, could cause an onteological problem. In other words, if God allowed a human to travel in the past, and rewrite history so to speak where he doesn't rob the bank, thus not subject to criminal justice, it would cause a problem in the day of judgment.
How would time travel, unless you think it's absolutely impossible in every way, or time is not really relative, affect reincarnation? Or would it? Could a human change their future reincarnated role if they went back in time, and changed portions of their lives that say, gave them negative karma effects?
The reason I said "I don't believe in reincarnation, at least not in the traditional sense" is for the very reason you just brought up. (i.e., a believer receives a new resurrected body.....aka reicarnated new body).
If I'm a created being, then I have no reason to believe that the human body I now occupy isn't the very first form of life I've been given. That prior to this life, I just didn't exist until God breathed the breath of life in my current form.
I'll throw a strange question at you.
I'm a firm believer in the possibility (and impossibility) of time travel. In secular terms, time travel is possible in theory, but impossible in practicality. We just don't have the technology to even come close to such a notion.
From a more divine perspective, time travel is possible in similar fashion to how the construction of the Tower of Babel was possible. But it was rendered impossible by the restrictive hand of God. Same principle. Time travel is possible if we acquired the near to impossible technology, but I believe rendered impossible by the restrictive hand of God because God will not allow man to turn back the hand of time to right their wrongs. Man is judged by what we do individually, and there's no chance of going back to change it. The only way out of our dilemma is to put our current lives in the hand of the savior.
So, I believe time travel, if God allowed, could cause an onteological problem. In other words, if God allowed a human to travel in the past, and rewrite history so to speak where he doesn't rob the bank, thus not subject to criminal justice, it would cause a problem in the day of judgment.
How would time travel, unless you think it's absolutely impossible in every way, or time is not really relative, affect reincarnation? Or would it? Could a human change their future reincarnated role if they went back in time, and changed portions of their lives that say, gave them negative karma effects?
Created:
Posted in:
Yeah, huh? If only there was a way to tell which Christians had it right, from the ones who have it wrong. Is it the god hates fags Christians, the I'm so sad my kid is gay becuse they're going to burn in hell Christians, or the Christians who say not a big deal because god made them gay...hmmmm...well how do we know who's right? Can you help? And if you think THIS is annoying, imagine if I tried to write laws based on MY interpretation of the bible and said "This is what is in the bible according to me, so it's now law!" and you DIDN'T AGREE WITH MY INTERPRETATION. Wouldn't THAT be annoying? WHat if I decided I pay lesstaxes than you because of my interpretation? Really annoying!
There are no U.S. laws based on scripture. None. Zero. So what does people misinterpreting scripture have to do with American law?
Interesting. Does god know then that some people are going to be evil sinners forever? did he, for example, know from the beginning Adam would eat the apple? Or is that one of those bible stories I'm interpreting wrong (which seems to mean at times I'm reading the words that are there and then not searching for alternative meanings that explain it in the rest of the bible)?
Yes, God knew there would be unrepentant sinners, and that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit. But there is no such thing as a human incapable of receiving salvation. The unrepentant sinner can repent. He doesn't have predestination against him as a force that renders eternal separation inevitable.
What does this have to do with anything?
Aren't you claiming that the Bible claims no one can receive knowledge of the Gospel unless they hear it from a human? And you wanted
textualreference?
What difference does it make? Every human is without excuse. No? You just said so yourself. How is sending either to hell for not accepting Jesus, knowing that god had foreknowledge of this person being born in a Muslim country to muslim parents and would never accept Jesus as a result of these circumstances, how does sending that muslim to Christian hell somehow qualify as perfect justice? If that's not what happens, to EITHER Muslim, please show me in the bible where it says regardless of faith or conviction, you can go to Christian heaven no matter what. I guess unless you're an atheist.
Who preached the Gospel message of Jesus Christ to Abraham?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
About 12. Why? Are you saying that not explicitly rejecting something is the same as accepting it?
Sorry, but I'm a bit suspicious about the "12 yeard old" claim. Not because a 12 year old is not capable of coming to that conclusion, but because of other claims you've made.
You've stated that you've sincerely sought God, and that you've gone to church. Was all of this seeking between the ages of 0 to 12 years old? Did you stop going to church when you were 12?
You've stated that you've sincerely sought God, and that you've gone to church. Was all of this seeking between the ages of 0 to 12 years old? Did you stop going to church when you were 12?
In the case of the Gospel, the problem of salvation is not centered on not knowing how to be saved. How a contemporary modern adult who takes advantage of all of modern technology avoids being saved is rejection of salvation. Children don't do that. They don't have the egomanical capabiltiy.
If someone had a difficult time believing, that didn't hinder salvation.
Mark 9:23-25 New King James Version (NKJV)
23 Jesus said to him, “If[a] you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes.”
24 Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!”
If someone had a difficult time believing, that didn't hinder salvation.
Mark 9:23-25 New King James Version (NKJV)
24 Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
No. My argument is the bible is unreliable because it is not clear, as evidenced by the innumerable interpretations of it. Do you somehow deny that scripture can and has been used to do things like maintain AND abolish slavery at the same time? How?
Yes, people have used the Bible to maintain slavery. I think that's a problem with humans, not the Bible.
People have also misinterpreted Darwinian evolution to suggest white racial superiority.
The bible presents a danger to many different groups, one of them is homosexuals, sure, because according to some Christians, "god hates fags" and therefore it's okay to persecute them. If we didn't live in America, it might even be okay to do them bodily harm! The solution to the problem is to stop looking to a 2000 year old collection of myths from unknown and unkownableauthorship as some sort of manual for living in 2019.
Obviously that's not going to happen because Ludo recommends it. Is the solution to heroine addiction just saying "stop taking heroine"?
What are the dangers you're talking about for both homosexuals, and the "many different groups" you're talking about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
What happens to a devout Muslim's soul when that devout Muslim dies? Does he go to CHristian heaven after spending his entire life not believing that Jesus is the son of the Christian god?
Are you referring to a Muslim who's heard the Gospel message? Or a Muslim that never heard the Gospel?
Can you conceive of any version of justice wherein a serial child rapist ends up in a state of eternal bliss, while an objectively moral Hindu who's lived a decent life ends up in eternal torture? Because that's the biblical system, whether you like it or not. I have invited you repeatedly to demonstrate through scripture how someone who never believes in Jesus (de facto rejection) gets into your heaven, you never do.I took your question as "what do you think God should do?", not "what sort of laws in society would you enact to enforce proper penalties for crimes".
Well here's a verse that refers to angels preaching a message concerning the Gospel.
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!
There are numerous other veresesinvolving angels giving a message without the message involving human involvement.
I'm sure I've linked you to some studies by missionaries who took the Gospel into primitive areas that had no Bible.
I'm sure I've linked you to some studies by missionaries who took the Gospel into primitive areas that had no Bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Well, according to YOU, that's the point. You think all children, around the world, believe inherently in your god, and therefore if they die without outright rejecting him, they go to heaven? That is ridiculous on its face. Children are not born with belief in Jesus. They're born with curiosity. They ask questions and let their parents answer them, and based on their evolutionarily necessary credulity, they simply take these answers as correct. If those parents say "Jesus made earth just for you," then, that child is now "trained" in your parlance to believe in Jesus. If the parents say "over the course of billions and billions of years dust and gravity and countless other factors formed it, it's realy complicated to understand as a 2 year old," then that child has been 'trained' to reject Jesus. Jesus said one must become like a child because some adults reason with children by saying "because I said so!" and that's that. THe bible in no way says "Jesus by default for babies," it just doesn't. It says you must accept Jesus, for that's the only way to heaven. You cannot accept anything as a newborn.
No, I said children don't reject God, so whether they hear about Jesus or not, they don't reject Jesus. At what age did you decide there was no God?
You're basically doing what you're complaining that others do, which is interpret the Bible how you see it.
You read one scripture, and base an opinion on the Bible that on that one scripture. I've told you a number of times, there's a method of bible study called "comparing scripture with scripture". There are numerous instances in the Bible where angels deliver a message pertaining to the Gospel. One scripture for instance explains that every human is without excuse, so predestination is not what we think it is. I have absolutely no problem with the term. The authors described how God has knowledge of the beginning and end. But a timeless knowledge doesn't imply that pertinent decisions were not made by individuals holding them responsible, just because God has a foreknowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
So your argument is that because you have a hard time understanding the Bible, it should be deemed unreliable?Scripture is used to support OSAS and Calvinist doctrines (by which I mean you have no control at all over whether or not you're saved, it's predestined). Here is one of the many places we see the problem with the book as the manual for living life: it's far too open to flawed interpretation, and you can use it to support whatever you want. You can use scripture to support both loving your gay neighbor and murdering your gay neighbor's husband by stoning him in the streets, to use a rather stark example.
The solution to the problem for many Christians is to study the Bible. It gives a simple message on salvation that most can understand, and from there the believer has the opportunity to learn progressively. This is why so many are fascinated with studying the Bible. Even for non-believers.
When the authors wrote the Bible, they didn't have the foreknowledge that Ludo would have a hard time understanding it. They weren't hip to the idea that people in the future will get mad because the Bible is not written in "See Spot Run" format.
Every argument you make deals with "this is what could happen". Not, "this is what happened." Don't feel bad, some high-profile atheist activists do the same thing. They present laws being worked on to protect religious freedom as being potentially harmful to homosexuals. It's always speculation. "If 'A' happens, 'B' might happen. And "B" never seems to happen.
So you think that the Bible is presenting some hypothetical danger for homosexuals, because some might interpret it wrong? What do you think the solution to the problem is?
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I think Bro D's crowd might go for this
Wow!
You wrote that piece?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
This is a divide-by-zero error: I don't have any reason to believe any god exists, so where it draws the line on forgiveness does't mean anything to me. It means something to you.
I think half the planet knows you don't believe any
god's
exist. And the rest, probably don't have the internet.
This fact actually does render the conversation somewhat fruitless, but it doesn't have to go so sour. For one thing, what's not clear, is whether or not
you think OSAS is scriptural. You can answer that without actually believing in any gods. Do you think scripture supports OSAS? If so, why? If no, why?
and they don't get to see the face of the father. The angels do. "Their angels in heaven always see the face of my father in heaven" =/= "babies who diebefore the age of X automatically get into heaven even if born to some other faith". Before you tell me this is figurative language, do you know how many very, very specific instructions the bible contains on how to burn a goat or a sheep as a sacrifice? The same book that tells you what can share a plate with what, and which fabrics you can wear? My point is that it picks a very strange place to be specific, and a very strange place to be vague.
The point is the children are children of God. Children don't reject God. You didn't reject God when you were a child. You never hear children say they don't believe there's a God unless they're trained to do so. This is why Jesus said "one must become like a child to enter the Kingdom".
Adults, when we've become too big for our britches, decide to reject God's gift of salvation. Of course this will lead into........"I can't reject something I don't believe exists". Well, maybe so. That can be why you're rejecting the gift of salvation. It doesn't matter. You're still rejecting it.
As far as the rest of this post, and you're questions, I'm just not sure what you're getting at.
Adults, when we've become too big for our britches, decide to reject God's gift of salvation. Of course this will lead into........"I can't reject something I don't believe exists". Well, maybe so. That can be why you're rejecting the gift of salvation. It doesn't matter. You're still rejecting it.
As far as the rest of this post, and you're questions, I'm just not sure what you're getting at.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Justice where it counts: in this world, the one we are sure and all agree exists. What I think isn'tat issue though. I'm more interested in if you disagree that OSAS is a very liberal application of Christian doctrine. I'm not sure you're an OSAS guy still, though, maybe it's not an argument to have with you, but when directly engaged on it, Christians of all stripes head for the hills. Why? Becausethe problem with the word 'justice;' would be my guess.
I doubt very seriously anyone runs to the hills on this issue. Most of the time I think we believe we have people on the ropes, it's just they lose interest, don't understand what you're saying, etc. How many times have you walked away from a conversation here with myself? I just figured you lost interest.
And what you think is the issue. The world doesn't agree on what justice is. It means different things to different people. And laws change because society's views of justice change. Justice is subjective. That's why I posed the question.
Maybe OSAS is liberal. I guess that depends on what you mean. Liberal is supposed to be a good thing though. Right?
Part of the problem (and confusion) may lay in the term itself. It has a negative sound to many people, including Christians. Eternal Security is another term used, but still has that sound to it like one looking for a free-ride.
You're looking at it as God not existing, so there's no repercussions from a higher power. Therefore, you speculate that the doctrine will lead Christians to do what they want, without reaping any ill effects, not just in the afterlife, but here on terra-firma. The Bible is very clear that not all those who profess are believers, and the one's that are genuine believers who sin face consequences. The chastening is for God's children. Just like a parent doesnt chasten their neighbor's children, just their own. Paul for instance made mention of the fact that some believers die early because of their sinful lifestyle.
And what you think is the issue. The world doesn't agree on what justice is. It means different things to different people. And laws change because society's views of justice change. Justice is subjective. That's why I posed the question.
Maybe OSAS is liberal. I guess that depends on what you mean. Liberal is supposed to be a good thing though. Right?
Part of the problem (and confusion) may lay in the term itself. It has a negative sound to many people, including Christians. Eternal Security is another term used, but still has that sound to it like one looking for a free-ride.
You're looking at it as God not existing, so there's no repercussions from a higher power. Therefore, you speculate that the doctrine will lead Christians to do what they want, without reaping any ill effects, not just in the afterlife, but here on terra-firma. The Bible is very clear that not all those who profess are believers, and the one's that are genuine believers who sin face consequences. The chastening is for God's children. Just like a parent doesnt chasten their neighbor's children, just their own. Paul for instance made mention of the fact that some believers die early because of their sinful lifestyle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
1. What do you think the penalty for those violations you mentioned should be?
2. Where should God draw the line on what is forgivable?
As far as children not hearing about Jesus. The Bible refers to angelic visitations, so yes, one can hear about the Gospel from another source other than human. There's a verse that refers to Children and their relationship to angels.
"See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.
How would you interpret that scripture?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Why do you think OSAS is a liberal doctrine?
And why do you think babies don't go to heaven?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
You have to be very clear on what you mean by doubting Jesus for a second.
There's a difference between doubting the existence of Jesus (or His deity/Sonship), and doubting a claim or the meaning of portions of scripture. For instance, Mary and Martha didn't doubt the divinity of Jesus, but they doubted his ability, or his will to bring their brother back to life. They took a compromising position that Jesus must have meant the after-life/resurrection. John the Baptist didn't doubt the divinity of Jesus, but he had doubts that the Jesus he was in touch with was the messiah. Peter didn't doubt the divinity of Jesus (not ultimately anyway), but he doubted a revelation given him that he knew came directly from God. He even suggested God was wrong.
Do you detect anywhere in scripture that these individual's soul were in danger?
Being open to being wrong is not doubting. I'm open to the possibility of being part of an alien experiment, and dreaming all of this. But this doesn't mean I doubt I'm wide awake in the real world. If I did, I wouldn't bother going to work today.
Do you detect anywhere in scripture that these individual's soul were in danger?
Being open to being wrong is not doubting. I'm open to the possibility of being part of an alien experiment, and dreaming all of this. But this doesn't mean I doubt I'm wide awake in the real world. If I did, I wouldn't bother going to work today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Well, at least you can't throw a No True Scotsman Fallacy my way, lol.
I don't agree with a number of things he's said. I don't believe, for instance in reincarnation. Not in the traditional sense anyway.
From what I gather from his various posts, he believes (and loves) Jesus. And from what very little I know about him, which is strictly on-line, he seems to bear fruits of a believer. I believe he fully understands the traditional biblical view of the after-life, and I don't feel any need to point it out to him.
I myself don't feel a need to consider anything other than the traditional view. But, it doesn't mean I won't listen, and even ponder other thoughts. Yeah, I could be wrong concerning my personal view. I could be wrong about everything. I've mentioned a number of times, maybe I'm part of an alien experiment, and I'm just dreaming all of this. That's possible. But I have no reason to take it beyond just a mere consideration.
Out of curiosity, why do you think I'd be risking my soul, I assume meaning if I don't throw the traditional view out there in the conversation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
You seem to understand that these are speculations. And the truth really depends on the O.T.s relationship with divinely inspired authorship. Without that, the sky is really the limit in terms of how many author's, and editing were involved.
We have a big problem at the beginning of Genesis, because the type of authorship required to record "In the beginning" from an eye-witness perspective would be humanly impossible.
So if you would stretch your mind a bit (not that you haven't), giving the creation account the benefit of the doubt (if but for a fleeting moment) as being a factual historical account, who would you credit to, or possibly credit it to in terms of human authorship?
So if you would stretch your mind a bit (not that you haven't), giving the creation account the benefit of the doubt (if but for a fleeting moment) as being a factual historical account, who would you credit to, or possibly credit it to in terms of human authorship?
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I'm guessing there's still websites that promote the idea of Christians being baffled (in a discouraged sense) by various verses.
There are numerous issues in the Bible like the Sonship of Jesus that have required a lot of research, with still differing opinions. But how this gets turned into Christians being baffled, discouraged, on the defensive, etc. is baffling itself. Issues like these is what makes Bible study fascinating. It's really like science actually.
The disadvantage the more miitant atheist (often a former believer, minister, or theologian) has is that they (not referring to you or Stephen) completely stop researching once they've drawn a conclusion that the Bible is (fill in the blank with negative reference). They don't learn anymore, and often seem to resent those that keep on researching, and find various claims to be misunderstanding of scripture. We all have misunderstood scripture at times, whether Christian or non-believer. It's a continual learning process. It never comes to an end.
There are numerous issues in the Bible like the Sonship of Jesus that have required a lot of research, with still differing opinions. But how this gets turned into Christians being baffled, discouraged, on the defensive, etc. is baffling itself. Issues like these is what makes Bible study fascinating. It's really like science actually.
The disadvantage the more miitant atheist (often a former believer, minister, or theologian) has is that they (not referring to you or Stephen) completely stop researching once they've drawn a conclusion that the Bible is (fill in the blank with negative reference). They don't learn anymore, and often seem to resent those that keep on researching, and find various claims to be misunderstanding of scripture. We all have misunderstood scripture at times, whether Christian or non-believer. It's a continual learning process. It never comes to an end.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I don't know that I've ever heard anyone claim Jesus is the literal off-spring of God. Except maybe the Mormons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@croweupc
I've always said, sure, there's a possibility I'm wrong. But, in the same fashion I'm open to everything being an allusion. Maybe aliens are manipulating our minds, causing some to believe in a God, others not. But, that falls along the same lines as being open to me just dreaming all of this. So, I'm not going to not go to work because, my workplace may not exist.
A number of non-believers have said something along the lines of "the creator would be able to speak to us in such a way that there's no question it's God. Do you believe that as well?
What are the similar manifestations that people of other religions have that you're referring to. What exactly does the Wiccan women experience?
A number of non-believers have said something along the lines of "the creator would be able to speak to us in such a way that there's no question it's God. Do you believe that as well?
What are the similar manifestations that people of other religions have that you're referring to. What exactly does the Wiccan women experience?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
How do you know this was Jesus? And not your mind playing tricks.The whole gleaming robed vision thing is so typical and cheesy and has probably been stored in your internal database since childhood.
Not likely. I had never been to church up to that point. I basically grew up in an atheist environment. As far as household religious icons and artwork, it was eastern religion. We actually had a Buddhist statue in our backyard.
What's so cheesy about a robe? If you see a Buddhist Monk wearing a robe, do you consider that cheesy?
One could go up a mountain and decide to believe anything.
Or they can stay in their room. What's the point?
This was all, simply a conscious manipulation of acquired and stored data relative to external stimuli.
Really? Have you ever been to Berkeley, CA by chance? That's where this happened. If you're theory was correct, I'd probably be a Hari Krishna follower.
You are probably just a highly susceptible and easily influenced person.
Just the opposite. I'm extremely independent, don't like anyone telling me what to do, believe, think. I was always rebellious (albeit in a civil way). Before I became a believer, I actually pretended to be a Christian just to piss off a scientologist trying to convert me. And the Moonies? Oh yeah. They couldn't stand me.
I'm also very skeptical. Including being skeptical of some of the claims made by a number of atheists.
I'm also very skeptical. Including being skeptical of some of the claims made by a number of atheists.
If your roommates had all been Buddhists, you would probably have had a vision of the Buddha and subsequently have decided to become a Buddhist.
I had been around Buddhists already. Never a vision of Buddha though. Maybe because Buddha was only human.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@croweupc
How do you know the God of the Bible exists?
When I was 21, a professed atheist (but probably agnostic would have been a better description), I was in a situation that prompted me to move to a college town with a buddy I grew up with who became a Christian. I ended up rooming with him and his
christian roommates who all attended the local college. They were very respectful and non-forceful of their Christian beliefs. On one day for some reason I began to ponder Christianity, but actually tried to think/reason my way out of it. For some reason, I just couldn't. So, I hiked up a local hill/mountain overlooking the area, and made the decision to become a believer.
Upon doing so, the atmoshere around me changed (like the whole area lit up with a bright light), and I saw a vision in the shape of a man wearing a robe, like he was made of light. There was no question in my mind it was Jesus. I was filled with joy, and don't remember walking down the trail back to ground level. The next day I realized that my whole life would be different from now on, so I had more of a sobering feeling. And that has sure been the case.
Upon doing so, the atmoshere around me changed (like the whole area lit up with a bright light), and I saw a vision in the shape of a man wearing a robe, like he was made of light. There was no question in my mind it was Jesus. I was filled with joy, and don't remember walking down the trail back to ground level. The next day I realized that my whole life would be different from now on, so I had more of a sobering feeling. And that has sure been the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Out of curiosity, according to how your life is now, taking karma into consideration, what kind of prior life do you feel you had? Assuming you feel you had, or possibly had one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
So in other words, everyone is on a Universal List?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@croweupc
As long as you belong to the right religion, the right denomination, hold the right set of beliefs, and act on those beliefs in just the right way, it’s free!
According to who?
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hmmmm. I don't know.
Have you tried it?
Created:
Posted in:
Topic of course being from a biblical perspective.
Ephesians 2:8-9 New International Version (NIV)
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
Why doesn't God just save everyone whether they ask for it or not? If it's a gift, just give it unconditionally, right?
I think this question is looking at salvation the way we look at junk mail. I'm not choosing the term junk mail as a means to suggest devalueing salvation (although it might be). But, we receive, unconditionally, junk mail in addition to expected mail. But even if we eventually discard it, we initially received it. If there's something we like in the junk mail, we may take advantage of the offer. If not, we discard it. It goes in a stack, and/or the recycling bin.
The difference between salvation and junkmail, other than the obvious absurdity of the comparison in terms of value, is that with salvation it's a rejection issue.
The difference between salvation and junkmail, other than the obvious absurdity of the comparison in terms of value, is that with salvation it's a rejection issue.
Revelation 3:20 King James Version (KJV)
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Basically, it would appear that Jesus is honoring a breaking and entering law. The requirment here is the opening of the door. This verse is directed
at the Church in Laodicia, but sometimes is used in reference to an invitation for salvation. So same principle applies. This is not something that can be shoved through a mail slot. We can't tell Jesus to leave it on the doorstep for us to attend to later.
You can give someone a free gift in the form of a Mazurati. And (although unlikely), they can refuse the free gift. If you leave it on their driveway with a bow tied around it, they can demand you get it off their property. (We can't do this with junk mail that I'm aware of.) It may be a free gift, but not one that is accepted, therefore whatever benefits of owning a Mazurati will not apply.
Basically, it would appear that Jesus is honoring a breaking and entering law. The requirment here is the opening of the door. This verse is directed
at the Church in Laodicia, but sometimes is used in reference to an invitation for salvation. So same principle applies. This is not something that can be shoved through a mail slot. We can't tell Jesus to leave it on the doorstep for us to attend to later.
You can give someone a free gift in the form of a Mazurati. And (although unlikely), they can refuse the free gift. If you leave it on their driveway with a bow tied around it, they can demand you get it off their property. (We can't do this with junk mail that I'm aware of.) It may be a free gift, but not one that is accepted, therefore whatever benefits of owning a Mazurati will not apply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Hello EtrnlVw.
I'm posting on a laptop so I'm experiencing all the fun that goes along with it. So I have to limit my answering individual quotations. I have to avoid getting that scrambled jigsaw puzzle look with the sentences everytime I hit the back button.
I gave Outplayz a scenario where a former employee described what he thinks will happen (to him) in the afterlife. He stated that because he felt that we will somehow have an eternal experience according to what we take pleasure in during this life. To him, it was an eternal setting in a coffee shop drinking cappucino with his girlfriend. I was wondering what your opinion was on that. Where, if any, are his thought on this accurate? Where might he be missing the mark?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
In regards to some of the other stuff you wrote, looking at how this reality has an effect on you in any given situation is looking at reality from a finite perspective. Simply just imagine you are infinite looking down on this finite reality... how would 'you' see it? What would you know? etc. You can't fully experience it bc you are finite, but you can understand it through some thought. At least for me, that's when the pieces started fitting
One of the incidences that came to mind after pondering your post, was a discussion I had with a former fellow employee who I asked what he thought would happen in his (or the) after life. He responded with what sounded like an experience (or eternal experience) as opposed to a location (heaven, hell, purgatory, etc.). The former (experience) maybe being more an eastern thought than the latter (location) being a more western thought. And his experience would take the form of what he finds pleasure in. So he stated he saw himself sitting in a coffee shop drinking cappucino with his girlfriend, and thi scenario being an eternal bliss. I tend to think life up to that point was fairly good to him, and his thoughts followed a pattern of not only current life existence treating him good (parents, family members, friends, employers, etc.), but (for lack of a better term) eternity would follow suit.
My theory is that there's a deep down understanding that something that is extremely good is on the horizon in the afterlife. I don't know if you're necessarily saying that, as there seems a lot more in what you're saying than what he said. Maybe even totally different. I don't know if he was an atheist, but certainly not the conventional atheist who would maintain that life completely discontinues in any fashion after passing on. The trick may be to find out when goodness is given unconditionally, and when it needs to be pursued. An obvious example might be a child getting nice, expensive gifts on Christmas and/or birthday as unconditional. When the child gets older, to get that Camero they have to take action (work hard, save money, etc.). Like Frank Sinatra, we may be able to accomplish earthly goals and obtain earthly possessions our way. But it doesn't hurt to get guidance even if it's not unconditionally guaranteed. I think it's absolutely mandatory to get guidance directly from God as far as the afterlife (as well as in our current life). I don't think we can do it our way. One of the problems with blissful experiences is that the vehicles used at times to accomplish than have reverse effects (hallucinogenics, deep meditation, etc.).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Unfortunately I don't have any tips (at the moment). But I can tell you you're not alone. I'm going through something similar, so I feel for ya!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Well, I never thought too highly of Israel Finkelstien's claims. But I have to think that much of the ideas against the Bible as history have to do with many of it's association with the supernatural. That's got to play a significant part as opposed to strictly going by archaeological and literary findings. For instance, I don't see any controversy with not finding evidence of the Exodus in the Sinai in that we're talking about a huge land mass that would probably require many years of excavation before finding any evidence (although some sources say probable artifacts supporting the incident have been found). That should be no problem. In a similar scenario involving evolution, I think the patience would be far greater. But when it's suggested that the Egyptian exodus did occur, what does one do with the parting of the Red Sea?
Are you familiar with Sennacharib's Prism?
It's particularly interesting because in it's contents, the King boasts about his conquests against King Hezekiah and an impending invasion of Jerusalem. However, oddly the prism doesn't describe the siege of Jerusalem. However, the continuation of the account continues in 2 Kings 19 where the Assyrians are supernaturally defeated. Well, everything should be fine with everyone, except that little detail involving the supernatural.
As far as mixing science and miracles, there's still the problems that require possible natural theories to answer them like multiverses and dimensions. For probably most scientists, they don't really want to touch these because to them they border on pseudo-science. So why would these speculative theories be any more plausible than involvement of a creator?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
RoderickSpode,The verse in question is yet another passage that shows the earth is flat and the center of the universe, where when the sun revolves around the earth in a geocentric form as believed by many societies of biblical times, then the sun is able to stop without horrific results to Mother Earth!There are actually members here on DebateArt that deny this Biblical FLAT EARTH CENTER OF UNIVERSE that the Bible proposes, where the historicity of the time period supports a flat center of universe earth as well. Did someone mention the Ptolemaic Planetary System when the writings of the Bible were written in approximately 100AD? Hmmmm ..... 2+2 still equals 4.
Well a flat earth I suppose would support the doctrine of church women wearing a beehive hairstyle to get closer to God.
Created:
Posted in:
Joshua chapter 10 talks about an incident at one point when his army was at war with an
allignedarmy, and he asked God to cause the Sun to stand still so they would have extended time in their battle with the opposing army. Of
coursethis idea in the literal sense would have
reekedhavoc on our planet that would have killed all of life. I would say however, we have some clues that would suggest a literal stopping of the earth's rotation unnecessary.
1. A smaller point, but even Hollywood has a concept of suspended time. Sometimes during a
converstaionbetween people within a movie, we will get a facial shot on camera of one of the individuals. Sometimes they may look into the camera, and talk to us the audience. Sometimes we may just hear what they're thinking during the scene when they're interacting with others. But during this extended period of time, the party they are interacting with has no clue of this. To them, time went on as normal, and time never stopped while interacting with the person we received a glimpse of their thought from. That extended period of time we witnessed didn't exist with that party present during that scene.
2. Hypnosis. Am I suggesting Joshua and his army were hypnotized into thinking the day was longer? No. But, it's another example of different perceptions in time. If someone was hypnotized for 2 hours, after awakening, they may not be aware they lost 2 hours whereas others around them would be fully aware of that time-frame as it wasn't lost to them. Of course we lose proper realization of time when we awake from sleep, or even just getting involved in activity that demands full attention.
3. Aircraft activity. We lose a very small fraction of time in a commercial airline, and an astronaught would age considerably less if they orbited for a long period of time. The latter scenario of someone remaining much younger than their contemporaries is something out of a fantasy story, but is a
real potential scenario. This is another example of time manipulation that doesn't require an earthshaking catastrophe.
real potential scenario. This is another example of time manipulation that doesn't require an earthshaking catastrophe.
4. Dimensions and multiverses. While none of these can be proven scientifically, and fall under the umbrella of speculations, they are natural-based speculations aimed to give us possible explanations to some of the mysteries of the universe. It's speculated that multiverses could collide, and maybe even overlap. Imagine what would happen if, particularly the latter happened. Another universe intermingling with our very own. I couldn't imagine what that would be like. There have been numerous sightings of what has been called UFOs. I personally don't believe in interplanetary
travellers, and the subject is so puzzling, that some suggest UFOs are inter-dimensional travellers. Well, substitute inter-dimensional ET activity with an all-powerful creator who understands and can operate in and through a time-less realm, what happened in Joshua chapter 10 may not be far-fetched.
Conclusion, the incident in Joshua 10 does not require tons of gravel and water to come to a complete halt wiping out all of life on earth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I don't think there is any overlord or "god" that reveals anything to us...i think we are all infinite... if you understand what that truly means, you will get that is insane by its own right. We don't need "another" to do anything for us... it is "you" it is "us" that has been the driver the whole time. This life may not make sense to a lot while they play the game... but once your done, if you become eternal, what does this life mean then? I'll help... it means nothing other than the experiences. If those experiences are profound enough... you will have this experience again. I think "we" are the ones in control... I think any message you get... it's "You" giving you the message... You are "infinitely" the driver... Do you know what that means? it's insane. At least people on sites like this may understand me... bc for the most part, people i meet irl, they cannot think from the infinite angle... i've even met people this angle makes uncomfortable even if i'm being logical... to me that says something. We are not suppose to know. We are suppose to play the part we came here to play... if i was wrong, i wouldn't visually see this. But i do. What does that make me? Idk, but i'm happy not everyone is like me... again playing into my speculations.
We're not in totall control even now. We're subject to the laws of nature, so we can't do anything we want in an omnipotent fashion. And our free will is confined to our laws. Sometimes our decisions are based on what others demand, so even if it's our decision to follow the rules, it's still the decision of those in authority. And sometimes we have to pay the consequence by causing authority to have to make utlimate decisions for us. So, I don't think anything changes in that respect, say, after we pass on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
As I said, science doesn't deal outside of our natural realm. So I wouldn't expect it to reveal who or which creator it is.But what other standard do you have in giving consistent results on what is going on outside our realm?
I'm not sure what you mean?
Alright fine. God exists how is it the Biblical one?
Aren't we back to where we were? You already compromised by assuming God exists.
The problem with evidence is that in our natural realm, we can always assume a natural explanation. If a giant finger showed up in the sky giving a sky written message, something like, Jesus is the Son of God, inevitably some would claim it was extra-terrestrials. That's why I asked if you would become a Christian. If say, a giant finger showed up in the sky producing said sky-writing, would you believe the message, or assume extra-terrestrials?
Created: