Total posts: 2,082
Posted in:
I think the answer would be some form of the pantheon, if we worshiped gods at all. The pantheon explains a lot of the problems that omni-gods from the monotheistic traditions run into (problem of suffering, natural disasters, the non-interventionist nature of divinity, etc) pretty easily. But I'm not sure they'd have withstood the renaissance and the age of enlightenment, either. Largely those gods were results of people not knowing how nature worked and inventing awesome stories about that. I think the advent of the microscope and the telescope would have forced them to the fringes, they weren't really the kind of gods who would have fit well with the god of the gaps technique.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Again, you confuse the relevant audience of address as to conditions applying to us today. The principle of burning the house down if mould was found was sound for that period of time because they did not have the chemicals or advanced understanding we do to treat mould. God is not speaking directly to us but to a culture vastly different in its knowledge from ours. There example witnesses to us.
Your argument then is that parts of the bible should not be applied to today's far more intelligent and advanced culture, correct? NOw we know mold is not a "burn your house down" problem. Now we know seizures are not a "demonic possession problem," but they are rooted in other medical conditions, and we can solve those. Cool, agree, I wouldn't use a 2000 year old medical textbook for any reason, at all. I wouldn't take home maintenance advice from people who lived in huts and tents and thought if you found mold, the only way to solve it was to burn down your house. That would be dumb, especially considering I have no way to tell who the authors are, what they knew, or if anything in their book is real. Apparently back then talking donkeys existed, so clearly, things have changed.
Except...why then would I put any stock in the moral pronouncements in this book? IN other words, what process are you using to say "this part here only really applied to this time period in this region to these people," from the parts that we can now discard because they clearly no longer apply? Is that process scientific in any way? If I wouldn't use a 2000 year old medical textbook, why would I use a 2000 year old moral code? Why would I use a 2000 year old ANYTHING, actually? I mean if I couldn't verify it against what we know today, right?
Wouldn't the same thinking apply to the biblical moral compass: how do I know this part was meant for today, and that part was meant for just back then? For example, should I stone a non-virgin bride in front of her dad? Does THAT principle apply today? Probably not, because it makes you uncomfortable, right? THIS IS RELATIVISM. Should I not eat shellfish? Maybe I am going to burn in hell for wearing mixed fabrics? Or was that one of the ones that we can ignore now? Slave ownership, yay or nay? Stoning gays, should or shouldn't? Either morality is objective and unchanging, or it's relative and situational. It can't be both. But you can quit with the only way to tell right from wrong is by Jesus, because that book, which you just said only seems to have applied in full to an illiterate people from thousands of years ago, is outdated in parts.
Not to mention its pronouncements are contingent on the character being real, and it being the one who created the universe, annnnnnnddd....you've not stepped in that direction yet. Page 27.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
But isn't the claim that the empire state building appears in a story from 500 years ago, perfectly described, right down to the giant gorilla on top of it?
That's PGa's claim about the prophecy. THe claim I'm referring to is that the character in the book is real: "This book is true." Okay, how do you know it's true? "The book itself says it's true and I can't imagine it's not true so therefore it's true."
or
"This man murdered his wife." (claim)
"How can we confirm this?" (inquiry)
"I just told you he murdered his wife." (CLAIM) or...
"We found him with the weapon, covered in her blood as verified by DNA evidence, and he'd recently discovered she was sleeping wtih another man. We also have texts that show him saying "I'm on my way over there to kill you." (EVIDENCE)
Created:
Posted in:
How would prophecy, written by men, in a book from 2000 years ago, somehow in any way prove your version of god was real, and as secular merlin points out, that it isn't what Muslims, I believe, call abrogation or some other explanation? Again this is granting your prophesy of choice, the one about the temple, which is not strictly in the bible and requires post-hoc footnoting to make it work.You are the one who keeps inhibiting me from providing a reasoned and logical explanation via prophecy since you will not look at it
How do you want me to prove God without using the Bible in which this God is revealed?
Evidence would be a start. The bible is the claim, you say yourself right here: the character in the book is real! How do I prove it without saying the book says he's real? By pointing to the book again!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Harping on this: the topic grants that a god-like something is WHY the universe is here. The challenge is why that god is the Christian version of God, and not Yassine's version of Allah, or the team of gods that make the most sense from the Pantheon (refutation thereof still pending by you, I'm afraid). You answer is "the bible says it's this one." Yassine's answer is "The Quran says it's this one." Somehow you both will then say "Well, it's the same one, really," and then both of you will retire tonight thinking the other's definitely going to roast in eternal torture for being wrong on technicality. At least you'll both agree that I'm going to burn in hell as an atheist, I suppose there's hope for us all :).Saying, "god did it" is functionally identical to saying, "nobody knows". [LINK]Again, God doing it makes sense of its being. I challenge you to explain why the universe is here. Make sense of the "why."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your evidence of prophecy is like saying, "the empire state building is real, and therefore, since the empire state building is in a spider-man comic book, therefore the story must be true and spider-man is real."
Excellent illustration. I hope it sinks in this time. Claims are not evidence of whatever they claim!
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Not my answer but the biblical answer. How it answers the question is that it makes sense of it.
This is non sensical. To trace the conversation, you say "I can make sense of the big questions." I said "Ok, go ahead, what's the reason the universe exists?" You said "God loves us and wants us to love him." That's not an answer to the question, it is a literal non-sequitor.
The meaning of children having leukemia is that Adam's choice had consequences. He was barred from Eden and from eating from the tree of life. The meaning of innocent children dying is that they live in heaven with God rather than suffer on earth. The meaning of death is that we only have so much time either to find God or exist without Him. When Adam sinned we inherited a sinful nature that is passed on from generation to generation. We need a transformation that can only come through faith in Jesus Christ.
Wow. So in your mind, when you see that mother crying, you think, "Wow, sucks Adam did that and your kid is about to die for it, but that's justice for you." It just seems weird that you think the objective source of morality finds it moral to punish a mother and her baby for something you think the literal first person on earth did, especially when you factor in that god would have absolutely KNOWN HE WOULD EAT THE FRUIT. That's morality? That's justice? I guess you're a subscriber to divine command? For real, I hope you never know anyone who loses a child.
An Amazon tribe is still accountable to God for wrongful action.
Interesting. THey're accountable, even if he gave them no reason to think he's there. So let me ask you: the muslims who were murdered last week, the three year old victim, the youngest one...he's burning in hell right now, right? Don't wriggle about now, you just said he's accountable to god for sinful action, and he was in the act of not worshipping jesus, of denying jesus and the bible. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time and got shot and is dead. He's burning in hell, if you had to guess, right? Not "I don't get to judge," that's cowardice and seems a soft denial of Jesus to me.
No more special than your pleading.Any life that has a beginning derives from something else
Do you know what special pleading is? I'll show you: if all life comes from life, where did Adam come from? He was at one point not alive, and then, according to you, suddenly alive. Did he come from another person who was alive? No? Then did he come from god? Yes? Then god's alive? Yes? Then what live thing begat god? Nothing, god is alive and always was alive and was always here. THIS IS SPECIAL PLEADING. Life always comes from life EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE TIME. Please demonstrate what you think I'm doing that is special pleading.
No? Then Adam didn't come from something alive, and life, therefore, did not come from life. If no living thing created god and he's alive, then it's special pleading. If Adam came from god and god's not alive...your premise (life only comes from life) is flawed at the outset.
How do I special plead this situation, if I answer "Where did the first life come from" with the honest response "I don't know"? That's not special pleading, it's not answering with an appeal to fallacy. It's very simply I don't know. And stop complaining you're not allowed to use your claim as evidence. The two are different things! How many ways must that be demonstrated? If you have EVIDENCE, produce it.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
First Peter 3:15 is why you are bound to make the effort, right?
The Hindenberg was an example to illustrate which part of the prophesy is the problem: not that history happened, that you're ascribing supernatural elements to it. THe prophesy I can show you is not about the Hindenberg. It's about another event in history that someone had zero reason to predict at the time, it was years ahead of the event. the prophet was ridiculed, ignored even. Then it came true. It wasn't even like yours, which according to you and some footnotes claims a year. This at WORST claims a specific month and year, at best brings it down to a WEEK of that month of that year. I have historical evidence for the prophecy. You're having trouble following.
Do you believe in Jesus due to the prophecy you say is true from the bible? Is that the REASON you believe in Jesus, or do you believe in Jesus and then say "also, this prophecy is true, so that helps." Which is first? The question is in the OP and you don't address it in spite of quoting it.
Tell me what would make my prophecy impressive enough to perhaps allow that your god isn't the only god. I will, again, describe this prophecy and you can tell me which part of my description is LESS impressive than yours"
- Predicted an event without precedent
- Predicted it to the month and year
- Evidence both written and photographed of both prophecy and event
- Even could not have been mathematically predicted
If I ascribe this prophecy to supernatural sources, or the prophet does, would you say that means the supernatural source is real?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Science changing its position is WHY SCIENCE WORKS as well as it does. It's how we advance: by not accepting the answer that the sun goes around the earth. Let's say you were ill: would you want medical treatment described in the bible, or medical treatments described by modern science? You start having seizures, do you want a scientist who says "Let's look at your brain with all the advances of modern technology and neurological theory and information, find the problem and try to solve it," or do you want a doctor who says "Sorry, man, it's clearly demonic possession wrought upon you likely for something your grandfather did to offend the god who sits behind the sun, I'm afraid the only answer is to go out into the wilderness, beg for forgiveness until madness overtakes you"?
One's biblically sound. The other is science. Choose carefully!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I would argue on the impossibility of the contrary. I don't understand how a universe without a necessary Being is possible.
You keep stepping in this. The topic at hand grants the universe exists via an agency creating it, for purposes of discussion. We're on page 26 and you've not made one inch of progress toward the question: why is that agent the god in your book. You continually skip that step and then start talking about stuff that makes no sense and that no one contends in this topic.
Why would a universe begin to exist, then sustain itself via random chance happenstance?
The laws of nature =/= chance happenstance, and by all observations, they are what sustains the existence of the universe and describe how it behaves.
It is not logically consistent that a universe that has no intent to it, no design, no purpose would continue to exist and sustain itself for billions of years via chance.
Again, the laws of nature appear to be sufficient to sustain the universe, because they are demonstrated. You question isn't really sustaining the universe, it's what CREATED the universe. The existence of a thinking agent up there with its hands on the dials IS NOT demonstrated, though it is GRANTED for discussion here. Why is that character your god? Don't say "It is," or "The bible says it is," or "that's the one that makes the most sense." Explain, don't assert. Again, page 26 and you've not tried.
And nothing seems more ludicrous to me than when a person claims there's a reason or a plan or a purpose and then makes no attempt to describe any of them in any way. "What is the purpose of the unverse" is the question to which you feel you have a religious based answer, but when queried all you can say is "BEcause god wants us to love him or wants to love us", which does not in any way explain anything, particularly when he's apparently done such a shit job designing people that he is by default mad at them forever. He's sure good at covering his tracks though, that part he paid particular attention to: disappear, and then leave only evidence that makes it look like you were never there and aren't required.
Created:
Posted in:
I sense another gray stripe on that username in your future, you ignoramus.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
The answer is God has revealed what is good and we have disobeyed Him. God has given us light (His word is a light to our feet, it illuminates truth) yet we choose to walk in darkness, to do our own thing (relativism).
This is your answer to the big question "why are we here"? How does this approach an answer to that question, exactly? You profess to have answers, this isn't one.
It means something only if God exists. If God does not exist we are just biological machines doing what our environments and genetics DETERMINE we do. It means people do wrong and choose wrongly only if God exists and has revealed Himself to us. Without God, there is no justice for such actions, for those who consider them wrong, no ultimate accountability. There is no punishment for wrongful actions other than we die which we will anyway. There is also no hope for a future for those who are innocent of wrong and who have been wrongfully accused and are dead (such as in the case of abortion where an innocent life is taken). Where is the justice in that?
"IF GOD EXISTS." This now sounds like you sort of think he exists as part of some personal comfort level, or incredulity (how can it be another way??). It also doesn't answer the question. What is the meaning in children having leukemia? How is a dying infant justice if it's really repayment for something Adam did? Again, you're claiming to have these answers. This isn't an answer.
The reason we are here is that a personal God chose to make us so that we could know Him in a loving relationship. He created us so that we could enjoy Him in His majesty and glory, so humanity was created for this purpose.
Except he made us so poorly he's constantly mad at us for doing what he knew we'd do, according to your religion, right? In any case, this is not materially differnet than "Made to sing songs about Jesus." This also doesn't make sense of anything. It simply asserts the answer, again. "We can know him in a loving relationship" answers the question for YOU. How does it answer the question for the Amazon tribe he created who'd never hear of him forever, that he'd have to burn in hell for the sin of not figuring out from no evidence at all that he is worth singing songs about, and having a personal relationship with? This makes LESS sense. Not more.
My belief that life comes from a necessary life is consistent with what I witness, the living from that which is already alive.
Is your next move special pleading (all life is from prior life EXCEPT FOR GOD)? I'm not sure what else there is otherwise. How do you avoid the infinite regress? THe former answer makes your character an irrationality, and no longer subject to logic and reasoning as a result. Would you grant Xenu the same leeway?
Please show me your prophecy and show me it is not made up by your mind. I asked you above to show me the Hindenburg one also and when you propose it was written.
THe hindenberg one is an example. I have a real one, but you're already wriggling around. I can only assure you that none of the biblical prophecies are nearly as specific or as undoubtable as this one. None, not one, not even close. This was predicted multiple years prior to it happening, it had never happened before, there's no room for interpretation either of the prophesy or of the outcome. If I can show you such a prophesy, and I told you it was attributed to Xenu, god of Scientology (an active religion, with a large population, infrastructure, and a more recent vintage of revelation than 2000 years ago)? My prohphesy doesn't need a story of a dream and a statue of clay and all that other crap or footnotes. Mine's real. And if you presuppose Xenu, it's EXTRA real. Will you grant if I can demonstrate beyond any doubt that htis prophesy was made specifically and accurately, that Xenu's prophets are as powerful as Gods? Would you consider believing in him as a result of this prophesy?
I'll show you, but I don't think prophesy is why you believe in God and therefore, I don't think it's honest of you to use its idea as a reason to believe in god for others. The more excuses and conditions you add to Xenu, you don't add those to Yahweh. Let's say you got one right based on third party footnotes and recalculations. If mine's more accurate and more verifiable, mine would be better, right? I know you're curious. Just not curious enough ismy guess.
Created:
Posted in:
You're right, it's SIX nations rubgy, and SEVEN nations army. My mistake!
Created:
Posted in:
New best response, 10/10. Another classic threadfart, welcome back from the dead, PW.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I can't even start to figure out Rugby. I was disappointed to see seven nations rugby on in place of premier league this weekend, and damned if I have any idea what's going on with that game. What I need is really a video game version so I can toy around with it for like five years before I figure out how to actually watch it. Though the end of the MU PSG champions league game was pretty compelling thinking anything could happen.
Sorry, digressing.
Created:
Posted in:
We'd have never guessed. So let me get this straight, you got banned, for at least the second time, then spent that time plotting the pettiest revenge of all time, returning here and going right back to completely inane non-contributions to every discussion? Sounds like someone didn't learn her lesson!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Careful, you'll be back on the naughty list that way!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The words are immaterial. It's that what we currently define as a group of four somethings and a group of three somethings, when put together, will always equal seven somethings. Think of it in terms of objects. But we're getting wrapped around the axle here, as philosophical folks are wont to do :).4 + 3 = 7 is a tautology. Niether four nor three exist in and of themselves they are simply a designation relating to the number of items in a grouping. We could define four or three or eight differently and make the number statement 4 + 3 = 7 true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
But may be a belief like 'I can beat this guy at pool' might have a positive effect...
In reality only if you actually have the skill to beat the guy at pool. Sure, there's luck or whatever involved, but in the end, no matter how much I believe, for example, that I can beat Tiger Woods playing golf, that belief is ill founded, meaningless and has no measurable effect on if I can beat Tiger Woods. This is what I find dangerous about movies like "Rocky Iv," because no matter how much Rocky believed he could beat Drago, he was a foot shorter and fifty pounds lighter and spent the first three rounds being repeatedly concussed. The science they showed there is almost funny, until you realize that he was basically getting hit with the same force as a cinder block hitting your face after a two story fall.
Sorry, that movie was on yesterday and I can never NOT watch it :).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
fervently believing in a proposition does not in and of itself effect how true this proposition is
Propositions are true or false in and of themselves, not as far as I can tell, at least, in any way related to how fervently they're believed in, or how many people believe them. If everyone suddenly believe 4 + 3 = 8, and they REAAAAALLLLLY believed it, so much so that they started bombing mathematician's homes and places of business, 4 + 3 = 7.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
What is the nature of the prophecy and how detailed are the accounts? How well do the accounts match what we know of the history and archaeology of the times in which they were written?
It's a prediction of a future event, the accounts match history and archaelogy exactly. EXACTLY. There is literally zero way to misinterpret it. It says "In X years, Z will happen." In X years, Z happened. No one, on earth, denies that it happened. The prophet was ridiculed when he made the prediction. Will you even consider the idea that Xenu is real if he's the one that inspired it?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
The big questions try to answer the reasons why we are here.
So what's the answer with God? Is it just "because God"? Because you bite off an awful lot here:
when bad things happen don't try to look for meaning or justice in them
So hypothetically, what's the 'meaning' when that guy in TX unloads a machine gun on people while they're in church? What was the 'justice' exactly? THe Muslims who were murdered last, Jesus doesn't care because they're Muslims? The mother who's crying as she watches her newborn struggle to take the last handful of breaths before it dies, the father who's crying while his three year old sits getting chemotherapy for stage 4 leaukemia...what's the'meaning' in all of that? What 'justice' is there for the three year old cancer victim, or the three year oldMuslim baby who was murdered? You see, if the answer is there is no meaning in it, which is what I think, then bad things happen, and they happen to everyone, and you just have to go on living your life best you can. Make the most of it. Your contention is that people should somehow be happy their kid has leukemia, it shows Jesus was thinking about them, I guess? Please, pick one of these and tell me what the meaning of it is. Is the answer "I don't know, only God does," then it's a trite pacifier, not a reason or any meaning at all. It's hubris on your part.
How is history the claim? Was Jerusalem destroyed in AD 70?
History isn't the claim. Your claim is it's history because someone in the bible said it would happen, only it happened not when they said it would happen, and therefore God was involved. It'd be like me saying "THor destroyed the Hindenberg." The part about the Hindenberg isn't the problem. It's the part about Thor.
My worldview can consistently make sense of the big questions.
Not demonstrated to this point. Again, if you think 'making sense' of 'why are we here' = "BEcause Jesus wants us to sing songs praising him!" I'm afraid you and I have big differences in our definitions of 'making sense.' I've invited you to demonstrate how you make sense of these big questions, you just complain that I don't bother. I'm not contending I do, I don't see a reason to address them in any way other than what's evident. I don't need to add magic to it, it brings nothing to the table.
If you could prove Xenu with reason and logic, I would ask you to do so, so go ahead if you want to base your beliefs on Xenu
That wasn't the question. If I could show you an indisputably true prophecy that was inspired by Xenu, would you then think Xenu might also be real? And this one doesn't count on a third hand interpretation of a story about a dream that never, ever mentions the greatest nation on earth at the time, Rome, by name. You consistently leave that part out while pointing to your wacky math. It has photographic evidence, video even, that it really happened, AND that it was really predicted. Nearly to the day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Why can't I make myself believe stuff...I guess I don't have an answer to that one. I just can't. I'd love to believe, for example, that tomorrow I'm going to hit the lottery and never have to work again. I don't believe that at all, and thank goodness, because if I did, I might go out and make some really bad choices based on that belief. And I can't imagine my chances at winning the lottery are in any way related to how fervently I believe I'm going to win it, either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
How strongly did this factor into your determinations?
Not at all, it was a joke, I keep having to remind myself that 'tone' doesn't translate to message boards. :)
Ok but why not? I feel like we are getting close to the actual reason.
I guess because I felt like I'd taken a large enough sample size? I don't know I guess. I can't make myself believe stuff, I either believe it or I don't. Strange, no one's ever asked me this one before!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Oh, I tried a couple of other brands of Christianity along the way, none of those stuck either and only made the issue more glaring. Once I realized almost all religions that I'd been either directly or indirectly exposed to sought to do a couple of things above all else that make more sense as services to our psychology rather than actually being reality, I figured I didn't need to go down the entire checklist and reach the same conclusion over and over. Basically none of it made any sense to me anymore, especially when compared against what we DID know about nature.
Also, I didn't want to be one of those western Buddhist douchebag trendsters :). I'm looking at you, Richard Gere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I can see you're still swinging and still missing on the idea of Divine Command Theory. The question is simple. Is something moral because god says to do it, or is something moral independent of god's command? Change the 'alien' in your second to last paragraph to 'god' and your question becomes more interesting. Is it ever moral to kill your own child? Even if you say "PSYCHE!"?
This is the question at hand: is it ever moral to punish someone for something that you absolutely know they didn't do? If god says to do it, is it moral? Voila, divine command theory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I've done similar threads, and disgusted is indeed correct: confronted with the idea of what happens in paradise EXCLUSIVE of the fact that you're not being tormented eternally, believers have an exceptionally difficult time answering this one. And none of them, even the ones that do answer, are even remotely the same. Some make it sound like the greatest vacation ever, others say you're a disembodied spirit who sings all day and doesn't remember their family.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
This seems a keithprosser question :). Strictly speaking I suppose it's the latter: that it's the earliest event for which we can observe evidence. But as we are unlikely to every cross the threshold and figure out a way to study something before the Planck time, to me it's functionally the same.I'm sorry but does the data support that or does the data merely support that the big bang is the earliest event we have direct evidence of?
Since this is a religion thread shy not start with why you do not maintain a belief in any god(s).
That's a long answer! To put it very, very briefly, it started when I first heard a priest making a god of the gaps argument, before I even knew what a god of the gaps argument was. I am pretty sure he was talking about evolutionary science and how that's what god USED to make life on earth as diverse as it is. I just remember thinking "Well that's not what the book says, though," and that basically started unraveling the whole thing. Eventually I got to where I was wondering why anyone thought so poorly of Judas, since he'd have to be executing god's plan in the first place and without him there might not have been the crucifixion everyone wanted. Then I started thinking, "Wait a minute, how does this make sense: why not just FORGIVE the sins since you're literally the thing that makes all the rules?" THEN I started thinking "Wait, if this is all a plan in the first place, then we probably can't act outside of that plan...which means people MUST SIN to act according to the plan, so why are they asking to be forgiven for something they had no say in?" Soon enough I was thinking "You know, hindu people are pretty sure they're right just like Christian people...how can we tell who actually IS?"
And on and on and on. It didn't stop me from being a church going guy for a long time, from praying for things, etc etc., but eventually the principles of basic human psychology just became too evident and I couldn't even pretend to believe anymore. In fact I didn't really admit I was pretending to believe around ten years on from my first questions.
That paragraph covers about 13 years!
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
How would you know this God unless He had revealed Himself and He has chosen to do that by His word? The Bible reveals His word is powerful enough to create the universe, just by speaking it into existence.
Powerful enough to create the universe, not powerful enough to find a way around the severe limitation of only appearing in a book from one of the least literate cultures in one of the least literate times in the history of humanity. If it's so important to him, he could reveal himself again, right?
The footnote helps explain something about the Scripture.
That's one way to look at it. The other way is "it was added after the fact to make events fit into its otherwise incorrect timeline." You can see how bringing it in, at the very least, means you're no longer talking about PURE scripture, right? That and the fact that the words that would have allowed for a more impressive level of specificity existed in the bible are a problem. If the Daniel X: YZ said "490 years from now, Romans will tear down our temple," you'd have a much better case. This is closer to the case I can cite. If I can cite such a case, which I can, and told you the prophet said it was Xenu who told him to write it when he did, would you say Xenu is probably real?
No, my argument is that you can't make sense of the big questions without first presupposing God.
Actually quite similar to MY argument: that YOU can't make sense of them without presupposing God. I don't presuppose God and I don't need to 'make sense' of any 'big question.'
What do you consider evidence? IF God has revealed Himself to humanity by people inspired to write down this revelation (which Scripture reveals) THEN the Scriptures should provide evidence that confirms His word and in occasions like origins give reasonable and logical ideas of why we are here that can make sense of the universe and us existing.
Evidence: Something that isn't the claim. Start with evidence for the underlined, but you're already a step too far. You have to support that your god in the bible is the one that exists (going back to the other topic,only because I've granted you that A god exists, you have to prove it to be YOUR god), THEN that he revealed himself to humans, by asking illiterate people to write down stories in books. Then we can discuss why the books are so weird that they are extremely unlikely to be true.
Wordlview, again one of your favorite words, are another topic which you're free to start. But I ask you again: if I told you that I know a person who said Xenu, the god of Scientology, and DEFINITELY Xenu, not Jesus disguised as Xenu, told him to write that something that had never happened before, that math couldn't predict, in such a way that literally anyone can see proof of it, and the results cannot be questioned or interpreted, it really, really happened, would you then allow for the possibility that Xenu is real?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You can always use the private message feature if it's only one person's opinion you're interested in. Email him. You're posting out here in the forum, so I'll comment where I please, thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
This will then edge into divine command theory: God did it, therefore it was moral, or at least it was that one time.
Created:
Posted in:
I guess my answer is that it would depend on the proposition put in front of me?
What is your world-view?
Relative to what?
How did the universe come into existence?
Apparently via big bang cosmology, that's the current model supported by data.
Is there any purpose to existence?
Not inherently.
Why do you believe what you believe?
THis one really depends on the specific proposition it refers to.
Created:
I am pretty sure its clear he thinks they're forgeries and in no way relating 'truth'. He's saying they're forged to incorporate true events in order to appear prophetic and gave a fairly logical reason for thinking that way (accuracy rate drops dramatically). I don't know, it seems pretty clear to me. You know forgery and 'true' are not in the same category, right? "Forgery" is relative to "authentic."
Created:
Posted in:
On its face, the answer is no. But I'm an atheist, so most of these folks on the other side of the fence will likely accuse me of having no moral compass to begin with or borrowing my opinion from Jesus somehow, and therefore I either have no right to weigh in, or I actually believe in Jesus but don't know it. I'd love to have this conversation but I'm withholding my optimism for it progressing very far :).
Created:
Posted in:
Does "a crime they didn't commit" include things like giving a getaway driver in a stick up that ends in murder? In the US you can be charged for murder under that pretense. Technically, he didn't commit murder but he does bear culpability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The only quibble I'd have with that is that describing evolution as "statement of what occurred in the past to produce the world as it is today" gives the impression that evolution has somehow stopped doing so at some point, as if human beings were somehow the 'goal' of evolution rather than just another result. (this gives rise to the contention "Well then WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS AND NOT ONLY HUMANS?"). Evolution continues actively every regeneration of every species every day! If some new specimen is born or sprouts, that specimen's genetic information is always an imperfect copy of its progenitors'. The real difference today (last several millenia) is that we (humans) have added artificial selection to natural selection in the evolutionary toolbox. But I digress! Shame on me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Interesting. I wonder if that would lead then to "if I can't describe it to anyone, and they can't describe it to me, even if we agree, what are we even talking about, how would I know anything at all about this idea."
Which brings us right back to deism at best. And as I believe you pointed out already, if your deism is one where a god does not interact in any way with the material world in any way that makes its presence plain, and this god totally defies description, then I'm pretty sure it functions exactly the same as atheism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I feel like the answer is going to be "because it's so mysterious / mystifying, that's how it works and you don't understand it, just believe it first then you'll understand it is true."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Can you get from creator to Allah without the Quran?- Not if you mean by 'Allah' God as defined in the Quran. The Arab Christians & Jews call God Allah too.
Thanks for the honesty, at least it didn't take you too long to get there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I'm all for criticizing the structure of the joke, I didn't think it was super funny anyway. What I'm interested in is the response from the church.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
You forgot the footnote.
The footnote isn't in the scripture. Otherwise it'd just be in the text. It is outside the scripture, and by that definition you are not using the bible anymore. It's no longer a biblical scripture, it's biblical plus something else that is not purported to be breathed by god himself. The bible features in other places the words "year", "week", "four" "hundred" "ninety", "Rome" and "Temple." If the prophecy used these words and not the interpretation ex facto of a story of someone else's dream about a statue with feet of clay, you might be able to call this a biblical prophesy. Of course, there'd be no way to tell if god was the reason it were true. AND you'd still have to square how this one part being right eliminates tons of other instances where it's objectively wrong.
Again, your bias is evident. You do not want to hear the explanation as to why prophecy is an indication of the Bible (which says thousands of times that God spoke/said) as reliable and accurate, and extremely detailed from cover to cover, unlike any other religious writing.
I want to hear evidence. Not the repackaged claim. "The bible is true," you say, "and therefore this is the only god who's ever existed." Okay, say I, what evidence do you have of that? You say "The bible says it's true, and this one thing in it happened if you squint really hard, that means all other things in it happened." I say "No, that's what the bible SAYS. I want to know how I can tell if it's TRUE." I've even bolded the part of your argument where you literally say that: the bible says god said this. That is not evidence that the bible is true, THAT IS THE CLAIM. I'm totally willing to talk about beliefs or whatever in another thread. This thread is about prophecy. Start a different topic.
What if I told you that someone successfully prophesied something that had literally NEVER happened before (there was no historical precedent, unlike Romans destroying temples in other cultures), essentially to the exact date that such an event would happen (closed ended on the time and eliminating any external retrofitting), that the entire world witnessed it and could verify the prophesy as having come to pass (is not contingent on any faith proposition), that math was not involved (so this example is not something that could have been derived through calculation as inevitable), there was written proof of the prophesy that literally anyone could (and can) go see, to this day, and there is absolutely no room or need for any interpretation? If I could show you that and you were convinced what I just described was true, would that mean the predictor was somehow inspired by one of the many gods who are reported to exist?It would add reasons to the reasonableness of the claim of that god existing. Compile this with hundreds, even thousands of other prophecies plus the nature of the biblical account then it would be most reasonable to believe. Who do you know that can predict the future in such detail and with such accuracy?
So if I could show you something that undeniably prophetic and the author said Xenu was the one who told him the details, would that mean Xenu was likely to be real in your mind? Would it make any dent in your belief? If not, then what's the point of prophesy as a tool to prop up your belief system? I literally know someone who did exactly what I described, and unlike you, I can provide evidence. I don't want to bother if you're just going to say "That was really Jesus in disguise."
What you do continually is disingenuous. You challenge me to present why I think the Christian God has given evidence for His existence that is reasonable and logical to believe and when I start to do this you wriggle out of the discussion claiming before you hear the evidence that it will not stand. How reasonable is this
I say provide evidence that the biblical stories are true. You have only replied with long versions of "because the bible says it's true." THat's the claim, it isn't evidence. I'm more than willing to hear evidence that does not point at the claim. Your god's existence shouldn't be contingent on a book being true. It's the other way around: your book being true has to be contingent on the existence of the god within it, as far as I can tell. As far as "making sense" of the "big questions," you're not doing that either. Your answer to all of these questions is "Well, god did it this way, it must make sense even if I can't tell exactly how, or impart exactly how to others in such a way that they concur, so therefore it makes sense." It only pushed the question back one more step. Watch, I'll demonstrate: please advise why your existence makes sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
This also seems somewhat presuppositional. Can you get from creator to Allah without the Quran? Basically the outsider's test of faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Sorry, that meals for the homeless quotes were mine, misused. I meant it as a reference to the idea that they've done a lot of good, therefore we should respect their feelings about all the really bad stuff they've done. It's a common argument for all religion.
Interesting observation about Islam, I don't think that faith deserves default respect either, and not just because of terrorism. In short no belief deserves respect just because it's a belief someone dearly holds.
I have to disagree that the tone of this press release is anything less than pearl clutching victimization complex in the face of actual facts:
"Apparently, the only acceptable bias these days is against the Catholic Church. The faithful of our Church are disgusted by the harassment by those in news and entertainment, and this sketch offends millions. The mockery of this difficult time in the Church’s history serves no purpose."
Poor you, wealthiest landowning organization on earth! Someone made a joke about a well known and disgusting epidemic you've worked for decades to cover up: abuse of children. Wow, the bias against child abuse! You're right, Pete Davidson is the monster here. Please. No diocese or parish should ever look for credit by saying "We haven't abused children since at least 2002, guys, give us a break!" He also didn't target the diocese of Brooklyn, it was the Catholic Church on the whole. Let the pope excommunicate him I guess. It ends with this particularly tone deaf nugget:
"It is likely that no other institution has done more than the Catholic Church to combat and prevent sexual abuse. The insensitivity of the writers, producers, and the cast of SNL around this painful subject is alarming."
Created:
Posted in:
Not sure if anyone here watches SNL, but I heard on my local morning news yesterday that Pete Davidson made a joke that basically drew a comparison between R Kelly (the singer recently in a heap of legal trouble for sexually abusing girls under age) and the Catholic Church (Which...well., it's the Catholic church, you know what they're up to). I don't want to repeat the joke because it doesn't translate on a retelling, but the truism that made it work was that if you continue to support the Catholic Church, how can you not support R Kelly? This got the Catholic Church, I believe specifcally the Brooklyn diocese, all up in arms and demanding an apology. Clutching their pearls, as if HOW DARE YOU say that about the Catholic church! Where do you get the nerve! We're a religion!
My thoughts: the Catholic Church better pipe the F down. First of all, it's a satire program and second of all, you can't look MORE clueless than saying "The Catholic Church has done more for sexual assault victims than any other organization" in your demand for an apology. If you're the Catholic church and you don't like getting constantly connected to anything regarding sexual assualt against minors, maybe you ought to actually do something about the real problem, which is RAMPANT ABUSE OF MINORS in the Catholic church, and not worry about something said on late night television pointing out that behavior. I thought it was a real mistake from a PR perspective for the Catholic church, even as I don't think the joke was SUPER funny. This is a classic example of "respect religion only because it's a religion," when in fact this organization which certainly has had some members do plenty of objectively decent things, doesn't deserve it. I don't care how many homeless people you give a meal to if as soon as you're done you go make a nine year old give you a blow job. You don't get to say "but I gave meals to homeless people," the two are not equivalent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It depends on numerous issues and proofs but also on whether you believe there is some ultimate authority and what that is.Why should I accept that there is any ultimate authority? Assuming I do accept that premis how would I determine what that authority was?
THe very question we've been trying to answer for 22 pages! Not "how do you make sense of origins," which I'm sorry PGA, you only SAY you do. You don't demonstrate that you've 'made sense' of anything, you've just said "Well, god did all this, so it makes sense." That's not illuminating anything, unless you'd like to expand on that idea to demonstrate it somehow "makes sense". How, for example, would it "make sense" that god did all this, but left us only evidence that we would interpret as requiring no god at all, then get mad at us for not accepting his unprovable existence? How would that 'make sense'?
That is your explanation for them. But evolution is not an agent in the sense that there is no intent to it. Things just happen and from these things, the strong adapt and survive. The weak die out
I don't think anyone thinks "ONLY THE STRONG ADAPT AND SURVIVE," at least not seriously. The more accurate way to phrase that, to take out the idea that nature is somehow a bully beating up weaker versions of animals, is that those best adapted to survive in a changing environment get more chances to reproduce. But it's not as pithy, and less open to emotional attacks like "Should we then kill all of the people who have birth defects?!?!" which no one thinks. "Survival of the fittest" some people think means "survival of the animal in the best physical shape" when it literally means "most fit to survive."
You just list Mars as the cause of war by assertion. Prove he is the cause with evidence that backs up your claim. You made the claim. It is your burden of proof.
No, you prove to me he ISN'T the one doing it. I presuppose him, and my faith in the pantheon is like really, really strong, so it's on you to prove he's not there. Or, I guess, you can prove your god IS there, but don't point to the bible, because that's not the evidence, it's the claim.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Daniel's people and city (Jerusalem) are given a time frame of seventy sevens or 490 years (70 X 7 = 490) to finish the six listed conditions - agreed from the text of Scripture? Yes or no?
No. Here's the scripture you quoted.
24 “Seventy [a]weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint themost holyplace.
There's no mention of years in this version. And...this:
"God's response to Daniel's prayer was in the form of a revelation brought to him by the angel Gabriel, who stated, as the first item of information, that the seventy years of captivity were to be followed by a period of seventy sevens (of years). The word here rendered "weeks" is literally "sevens"; so there is no doubt that the period designated in this prophecy is seventy sevens of years- 490 years."
Is not from scripture and does not have any reason to add (of years) as far as I can see. Don't waste your time on me though with this stuff, even if this were 100% accurate (and didn't require man-made additions and subtractions, conversions and translations to make it just so), it proves little about if that god is the only god, if that god inspired this somehow...it's involving byond a third party's interpretation of a dream in a book of very questionable authorship, and that's only the beginning of its problems.
What if I told you that someone successfully prophesied something that had literally NEVER happened before (there was no historical precedent, unlike Romans destroying temples in other cultures), essentially to the exact date that such an event would happen (closed ended on the time and eliminating any external retrofitting), that the entire world witnessed it and could verify the prophesy as having come to pass (is not contingent on any faith proposition), that math was not involved (so this example is not something that could have been derived through calculation as inevitable), there was written proof of the prophesy that literally anyone could (and can) go see, to this day, and there is absolutely no room or need for any interpretation? If I could show you that and you were convinced what I just described was true, would that mean the predictor was somehow inspired by one of the many gods who are reported to exist? Would it somehow change your view of this prophecy you love, seeing as my prophecy is far, far, far more accurate and impressive? Remember, this event that was predicted LITERALLY NEVER HAPPENED IN ALL OF HISTORY. Not once.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The evidence is better for Him than Zeus as being a real person. Currently, there are around two billion people, worldwide that believe in Him and that He was a real Person. That beats professing atheists if you are going strictly by numbers which is not necessarily an indication of truth. It is still the leading religion by profession (but not necessarily by the actions of its adherents) in the world.
Ad populum, and poorly executed: there are currently more people on earth that do not believe in Jesus than there are that do. By this argument, they're right. Clearly you don't think that.
Those who claimed to be eyewitnesses of His life, death, and resurrection willingly died for what, a myth? Would not only you but hundreds of others be willing to die for a myth?
So if anyone at any point was willing to die for something, then that something is more likely true than false? I'll let the 9/11 hijackers know. I'mnot willing to die for any myth, what's that make me?
1. Mars is said to be the god of war, but so was Ares. Same with Neptune as opposed to Poseidon.2. There are many other reasons why wars happen that can be explained other than Mars.So the conclusion does not necessarily follow because the premises are both flawed.
Mars and Ares aren't exclusive to each other. And yeah, there are many things that cause wars, those things are just what Mars uses to cause them. I think you'd be familiar with a straw man. Can't you just explain why the causes of wars isn't Mars for sure, but it IS Jesus?
Who worships Zeus or Mars and who believes they are anything other than myth in our day and age? You made the claim. Support it with tangible evidence rather than opinion and assertions.
How does this mean they're false? Because they're old? Wouldn't that mean that Mormonism and Scientology have a better chance at being real than Christianity? They were born during the last 200 years. You're literally about five generations from the tablets or Moroni. I'm only observing that lightning bolts exist, and that the atmospheric conditions that produce them reinforce my presupposition that Zeus is using those atmospheric conditions to generate them. What's so weird about that?
Then prove Neptune did this by offering reasonable evidence.
Many people believed it, and the stuff attributed to Neptune's activities goes on all the time. I mean there are storms that swallow ocean liners, right? Again, Neptune is not grabbing them by hand, he's just using storms to do that. I don't think you can believe in Neptune unless you believe he's probably there. I am open for you to convince me that Jesus is doing it instead, you won't bother.
You keep challenging Christians to give evidence then you tell them what evidence you will and will not accept and refuse to hear the evidence. How reasonable is that? Biased from the getgo and directing the narrative so that it becomes impossible to give evidence.
I'm waiting for EVIDENCE. You are restating the claim, we've been over this. Again you: "THe bible is true!" Me: "How do you know?" You "THE BIBLE SAYS IT IS TRUE, because there's a story about a dream some guy had about a statue with clay feet, and DUH! That's ROME!" And Neptune has plenty of verified sunken ships to his credit.
I am offering to explain why there is reasonable evidence for the Christian God that can't easily be dismissed by those who want to engage in refuting it, yet you keep denying it without even hearing the position. That is unreasonable and I waste my time.
I'm willing to hear this evidence, so long as it isn't from the claim. But not here. How do you know the Christian god is the one that created the universe? How do you convince someone else they're wrong? You complained that I didn't bother with your evidence again, and I set up a topic to talk about your prophecy. You ignored this one though, which is more to this topic:
It's a backdoor way to help me understand your reasoning: if you can't prove yourself right, then how might you go about proving all others wrong, ending up correct by process of elimination. Ergo which god saves the child if ten gods exclusive of each other are prayed to? You've yet to attempt that in earnest either:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I believe it takes an act of grace (faith comes from hearing God's message)
Appeal to special knowledge. We're playing all the hits! Up next, "Et Tu Quoque!"
Honestly there's a lot of questions from the rest of that post, but again none of what you say in it encroaches on the question at hand. The answer to Keith's question directly, from you, based on what you just wrote, has to be "Yes, it is impossible to arrive at my conclusion from a purely null hypothesis," if you're being at all honest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The Roman gods are considered myths. How can you say they comport with reality? The Christian community, from its beginning, refuted charges against the biblical God as a myth or human construct.A tidal wave gives no more proof of Neptune that other explanations. In fact, other explanations explain the cause better. Now if Neptune said that a tidal wave would happen 490 years from now and destroy the city of Istanbul and listed six other factors that happened, that would be a better case for Neptune.
Jesus is also considered myth by more people than believe he was real. I explained how they comport with reality and you didn't refute it, you just said no they don't. It's not even an argument. "No they don't" is missing "because XYZ" after it. As it is, it's the contention of a child. Yeah, I know Neptune doesn't DIRECTLY cause the tidal waves. Sometimes an undersea earthquake does. But that's just the tool that Neptune USES to make it happen sometimes. Yeah, I know a buildup of electricity in the air under certain atmospheric conditions cause lightning, but that's just the METHOD Zeus uses to make them. What, you don't believe me? Prove to me Zeus isn't there, then. THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE ASKING EVERYONE ELSE TO DO, and it's the result of an impenetrable presupposition. I am the one saying no, tectonic shifts often cause tidal waves. You are basically responding with the Neptune argument, except you're using Jesus.
"The Christian community refutes charges against their god being not real" is not an argument for anything either. It's simply saying Christians believe in Jesus. Okay, not in dispute. It's exactly what one would expect a Christian to do, but it in no way makes an argument that anything they believe is true or real, just that they believe and therefore do not agree with those who see it as a myth.
Because wars exist give no more credence to Mars than to human nature, greed, anger, differences over morality, etc., that explain wars as well or better than Mars.
If you exchange the word MARS for the word JESUS, it's exactly the same.
What does the last have to do with giving evidence for the Creator?
There is no need for evidence of a creator, the creator in this thought experiment is already granted. It goes to the question of how do you know which god, if any, IS THE CREATOR. It's a backdoor way to help me understand your reasoning: if you can't prove yourself right, then how might you go about proving all others wrong, ending up correct by process of elimination. Ergo which god saves the child if ten gods exclusive of each other are prayed to? You've yet to attempt that in earnest either:
I've set you a topic for discussing your prophecy fascination already. have at it. But your prophecy isn't in the bible as you describe it, it takes someone else to add the rest in to get to your number, and as disgusted points out, once you do that it's no longer biblical. It's a person.
Created: