- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 26 2008,23:02) Quote (Cato @ Feb. 26 2008,23:58) Stuart, “So you are saying that Zeus was considered to be a god and now is not because people stopped believing he was, but that the Judeo-christian god really is there because people believe he is?”
This was not my point (though it may have some validity psychologically).
No my point was that Zeus was discarded because of his nature, he was no longer compelling, being anthropomorphic he could be examined and tested. The Judeo-Christian God however is the great unmanifest beyond the scope of examination and test so could not be discarded (again I stress this is not an argument for, only a reason why we can't discard when we don't see). I recognize this is a frustrating response as God is effectively undefined, so we are left with nonfunctional equations that neither prove nor disprove. As in all such arguments proof one way or another will not be forthcoming.
But I cannot let you away with your claim that you know the nature of Zeus. Can you tell me how you can test the nature of something that never existed?Being 'no longer compelling' would be the main reason for the emptying of the pews in mainstream churches on a scale never seen before.
Stuart
As far as “emptying the pews” goes, there is a major move going on where people ARE leaving the traditional church. The many various pagan rituals added to what Christianity started out as are starting to leave people feeling hollow. They want a true spiritual experience, not a bunch of “song and dance”.Quote (Stu @ Feb. 27 2008,16:02) Quote (Cato @ Feb. 26 2008,23:58) Stuart, “So you are saying that Zeus was considered to be a god and now is not because people stopped believing he was, but that the Judeo-christian god really is there because people believe he is?”
This was not my point (though it may have some validity psychologically).
No my point was that Zeus was discarded because of his nature, he was no longer compelling, being anthropomorphic he could be examined and tested. The Judeo-Christian God however is the great unmanifest beyond the scope of examination and test so could not be discarded (again I stress this is not an argument for, only a reason why we can't discard when we don't see). I recognize this is a frustrating response as God is effectively undefined, so we are left with nonfunctional equations that neither prove nor disprove. As in all such arguments proof one way or another will not be forthcoming.
But I cannot let you away with your claim that you know the nature of Zeus. Can you tell me how you can test the nature of something that never existed?Being 'no longer compelling' would be the main reason for the emptying of the pews in mainstream churches on a scale never seen before.
Stuart
“But I cannot let you away with your claim that you know the nature of Zeus. Can you tell me how you can test the nature of something that never existed?”We test by what we were told he was, a being born to parents with siblings, who had a job and who regularly interacted with humans. He even had a specific home with a physical locus. When we look to his home, parents, siblings and find nothing, when there were no longer reports of his interaction with humans then the results lead to the conclusion it was myth.
The Judeo-Christian God is undefined and there are many accounts of his supposed interaction with humanity, His home is omnipresent or outside of the measurable universe so conclusions one way or another are impossible.
I know in many ways this is fuzzy, in part because much of Christian literature is also mythic or allegorical and so looks no different from any other views of gods. I however speak of what I view as the Godhead as being an entity beyond measure and so unsupportable and unrefutable in the same light. Here unfortunately is one of the rare instances where rationality, reason and current science fall short. I understand your position that without more proof, the concept is not compelling and I unfortunately have not the means to objectively provide.
Hi Cato
Quote Here unfortunately is one of the rare instances where rationality, reason and current science fall short.
Of the two points of view, science is completely in accordance with mine and contradicts yours, but it is not as if there is any shortfalling of science here. Stephen Jay Gould was equivocal about the hypothesis of the existence of god calling the 'spritual world' and the material world two different 'magestaria'. I think his view is a cop out and fails to put the challenge to the religious about the exact nature of the thing they claim to know so intimately. The real problem is as you say the inability of those who postulate supernatural beings to actually define what they claim to exist despite the lack of evidence. If the god is 'beyond measure' then it must have no effect on us, in which case it is irrelevant whether it exists or not.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 28 2008,18:07) Hi Cato Quote Here unfortunately is one of the rare instances where rationality, reason and current science fall short.
Of the two points of view, science is completely in accordance with mine and contradicts yours, but it is not as if there is any shortfalling of science here. Stephen Jay Gould was equivocal about the hypothesis of the existence of god calling the 'spritual world' and the material world two different 'magestaria'. I think his view is a cop out and fails to put the challenge to the religious about the exact nature of the thing they claim to know so intimately. The real problem is as you say the inability of those who postulate supernatural beings to actually define what they claim to exist despite the lack of evidence. If the god is 'beyond measure' then it must have no effect on us, in which case it is irrelevant whether it exists or not.Stuart
Stuart,I disagree, science is not monolithic and rarely in complete agreement on anything much less cosmology and it's ilk. There is valid theory for extradimesional reality which then while hardly verifying any of my points would nonetheless open them to the level of possiblity which is all I claim.
From String theory and M-theory which predict that physical space in general has in fact 10 and 11 dimensions, respectively. To newer studies such as from mathematician George Sparling of the University of Pittsburgh (lifted from Phys.org) who offers an alternative idea: space-time may have six dimensions, with the extra two being time-like.
Sparling’s paper, was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A.My point being that the science is still being worked.
Hi Cato
String theory is not theory because it cannot (at least yet) make testable predictions. It works by adding as many dimensions as are required to make the maths work. It describes things that are smaller than the 'grain' of space-time, the things that would require more energy to see than would collapse into a black hole.
The science is always being worked, and you are right that it is not monolithic, but divine creation has never even been helpful in any of it.
I like your Paine quote.
Stuart
In an interview shortly before his death, Jacob Bronowski explained why evolution was such a profound idea. Does not evolution simply reduce human nature to an accident, the interviewer asked?
On the contrary, [Bronowski answered] it is those who appeal to God and special creation who reduce everything to accident. They assign to man a unique status on the ground that there was some act of special creation which made the world the way it is. But that explains nothing, because it would explain everything; it is an explanation for any conceivable world. If we had the color vision of the bee combined with the neck of the giraffe and the feet of the elephant, that would equally be explained by the “theory” of special creation.
Yet we do not have those features, and we do not believe they are biologically compatible. Therefore, our criterion of what is compatible sets a limitation on an acceptable explanation. That is why I say that to call in a special or miraculous act of creation reduces every conceivable world to accident.Stuart
I would say “No”
But there is that .o1% chance that that is the way GOD created life.We know that GOD created it from the Dust of the earth. He breathed Life in to the Dust of the earth quite literally…its right there on Page 1.
None of us knows exactly “How” GOD did what he did. We just know for a fact that he “Did” do what he said he did…GOD does not lie…that would be Satan's department.
GOD does what he says hes gonna do…we are living proof of that.
You want proof of GOD? …Look around man! haha.No man was standing there at “The Beginning”, the bible tells us that man was not made till everything else was made.
That means that we were the last thing made…for those of you that are having trouble understanding that.So…there is no way we were there when the “Big Bang” theory or which ever way GOD made things happened…when the first breath flew out of his mouth we just were not there yet.
I would love to have been…hopefully he has it “Video Recorded” where I can watch it with him some time. I would very much like to see that.
Anyway…the point I'm trying to make is (I know I babble alot sorry) that how can you possibly know what manner GOD went about doing things if you were not there? Its not written how he did them…other than the fact that he spoke and it just happened.
There is another wonderful quality that GOD has that makes me inclined to believe that he could have created us via evolution.
WITH GOD ALL THING ARE POSSIBLE
NOTHING IT TO GREAT FOR GODMatthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Mark 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men [it is] impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
Genesis 18 (King James Version)
10And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.
11Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.
12Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?
13And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?
14Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.
15Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh.
Nothing is to great for my GOD…he does what he says…and says what he does.
People get all bent out of shape about “Time” “Well the universe is 300,000 something odd-billion years old.”
GOD made Time..He is not is the limits of Time. We however are.
That why you've most probably heard people say “A thousand days with GOD is as one day on Earth” We don't know…for all we know GOD when he said in Genesis that it took him six 24-hour days…it could very well have been six 24-hour days.
That the problem with us we keep trying to put GOD on “Limits”He don't have any. He can do what he wants to do. He is self sufficient lacking of nothing. I know its very hard to understand but its true.
Look at the universe…all the planets orbiting around the sun, the Sun and everything in the Galaxy orbiting around the middle of the Galaxy…the Galaxies orbiting around each other in and outward expansion. Thats the largest “Clock” known to man. That is the largest and first clock. That clock was built right into the creation that it governed.
I don't know if GOD made other life in the universe. I know that spaceships from other life or what ever aren't exactly flying by everyday.
I know that he created several different types of angels…to do different jobs. Whats to say that he didn't create several different types of man?I mean in an artistic sense…this is a pretty big “Canvas” GODS got here.
Hi Samuel
Quote We know that GOD created it from the Dust of the earth. He breathed Life in to the Dust of the earth quite literally…its right there on Page 1.
But it is wrong. There is no way evolution can have moved so fast to produce the diversity of human life we see today, if you accept the chronologies of descent in the old testamant. Even if you contradict the chronology and add many thousands of years, you still run into severe difficulties with genetic diversity.Quote None of us knows exactly “How” GOD did what he did. We just know for a fact that he “Did” do what he said he did…GOD does not lie…that would be Satan's department.
Not very many christians seem willing to ask how. If you look too hard then Genesis is exposed for the fantasy tale that it is. Scientists have a very good idea of how it happened, and there is no need for god in that explanation.Quote GOD does what he says hes gonna do…we are living proof of that.
You want proof of GOD? …Look around man! haha.
If you have proof, why have faith?Quote No man was standing there at “The Beginning”, the bible tells us that man was not made till everything else was made. That means that we were the last thing made…for those of you that are having trouble understanding that.
That was about six days after there was only a void. Science says over 4.5 billion years. It of a difference.Quote So…there is no way we were there when the “Big Bang” theory or which ever way GOD made things happened…when the first breath flew out of his mouth we just were not there yet. Anyway…the point I'm trying to make is (I know I babble alot sorry) that how can you possibly know what manner GOD went about doing things if you were not there? Its not written how he did them…other than the fact that he spoke and it just happened.
Forensic science catches criminals. You don’t have to have been there to have a good idea of what happened. How can you know he spoke and it happened? There is no evidence for that.
Quote There is another wonderful quality that GOD has that makes me inclined to believe that he could have created us via evolution. WITH GOD ALL THING ARE POSSIBLE NOTHING IT TO GREAT FOR GOD
Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Mark 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men [it is] impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible. Nothing is to great for my GOD…he does what he says…and says what he does.
Is it possible for god to make a stone that he cannot lift?Quote People get all bent out of shape about “Time” “Well the universe is 300,000 something odd-billion years old.”
14 to 18 billion years old. Depending on where you are!Quote I don't know if GOD made other life in the universe. I know that spaceships from other life or what ever aren't exactly flying by everyday. I know that he created several different types of angels…to do different jobs.
You know there are angels? Have you seen or heard or touched one? Have you seen fossil evidence of one?Stuart
I am wondering now whether the joke long lifespans attributed to the ancients might not have been a reaction to the realisation of some early writers that the Earth must be much older than conventional lifespans would indicate following a line of descent from Adam.
Stuart
Hi Stu,
I remember how your line of reason goes.
What we see must have always been the case.
Anything recorded as being different must be false.Not so.
It is writtenQuote But it is wrong. There is no way evolution can have moved so fast to produce the diversity of human life we see today, if you accept the chronologies of descent in the old testamant. Even if you contradict the chronology and add many thousands of years, you still run into severe difficulties with genetic diversity.
I disagree…your not getting it…but thats ok.Quote If you have proof, why have faith?
Because GOD said to have faith…besides that…it also makes me feel good too. 😉Quote That was about six days after there was only a void. Science says over 4.5 billion years. It of a difference.
I don't believe that anything is actually that old as I've already stated. When they find a rock and say “Hmm…this rock is 4 billion years old” I may indeed appear that way to them. But that rock was probably created less than 10,000 years or so ago…it was already so many billion years old when it was made.Just like Adam and Eve…I believe they were “Full Grown” People.
So if you were to say no there is no way your only 20 seconds old…science tells me that you are 20 years old.You can't explain the “Super-Natural” with the “Natural”.
Quote Is it possible for god to make a stone that he cannot lift?
Oh how creative of you …trick questions? Thats rather “under-handed” don't you think?Quote 14 to 18 billion years old. Depending on where you are!
Stuff is not that old…but keep telling yourself that. Its cool.Quote You know there are angels? Have you seen or heard or touched one? Have you seen fossil evidence of one?
I believe the pages in the Bible…in case you haven't already figured that out. And, thus they tell me that there are angels.
Laugh Out Loud …el oh el Why would a spiritual being have a Fossil? Ok…nonetheless, you really over analyze things it seems to me. Its a wonder that you are able to come to any conclusions…or do you? You must always be confused and / or very uncertain.Your too funny. very very entertaining indeed.
Hi Stu,
Is there a theory of Devolution?
I think we see evidence of that every day as the thin veneer of civilisation wears off.
Men are returning to the animalistic roots you claim they have.
Should we be on the lookout for more stooping and treeclimbing behaviours again?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 30 2008,20:13) Hi Stu,
Is there a theory of Devolution?
I think we see evidence of that every day as the thin veneer of civilisation wears off.
Men are returning to the animalistic roots you claim they have.
Should we be on the lookout for more stooping and treeclimbing behaviours again?
Actually, as much as fundamentalists may hate this, humanity is more human than ever. I think if you really look at the past history of mankind, we are much less barbaric than in times past.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 31 2008,13:13) Hi Stu,
Is there a theory of Devolution?
I think we see evidence of that every day as the thin veneer of civilisation wears off.
Men are returning to the animalistic roots you claim they have.
Should we be on the lookout for more stooping and treeclimbing behaviours again?
At every point in history where religious worldviews were widespread and the clergy dominated in the culture, it has been the most miserable, disease-ridden time to live.The theocracies are the places that have the death penalty and restrictive miseries for their populations. If Western democracies are 'returning to animalistic roots' then let's have more of that. It is far healthier than the alternative.
Stuart
Hi Samuel
Stu: But it is wrong. There is no way evolution can have moved so fast to produce the diversity of human life we see today, if you accept the chronologies of descent in the old testamant. Even if you contradict the chronology and add many thousands of years, you still run into severe difficulties with genetic diversity.
Quote I disagree…your not getting it…but thats ok.
You have posted links to intelligent design videos, which completely agree with Darwin. They do add a god bit which is wrong, but I must assume you think Darwin was right at least about the parts he ‘knew about’. (This is a false argument, but let’s pretend). Do you accept Darwin, and if not why are you posting links to ID movies?Can you articulate what it is that I am “not getting”?
Stu: That was about six days after there was only a void. Science says over 4.5 billion years. Bit of a difference.
Quote I don't believe that anything is actually that old as I've already stated. When they find a rock and say “Hmm…this rock is 4 billion years old” I may indeed appear that way to them. But that rock was probably created less than 10,000 years or so ago…it was already so many billion years old when it was made. How can something be ‘already so many billion years old when it was made’? Read about radiometric dating:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_dating
Science is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of evidence. Do you just have faith that your prescription medicine works? How do you know it will work? Is it because it has been tested using the scientific method? Doesn’t exactly the same method tell us that the universe is up to 18 billion years old? You could accept that on faith too if you wanted but now you apply the most arbitrary criteria for belief, rejecting one and accepting the other with no reason to distinguish between then other than a religious book. There is no other reason to reject it. All the scientists on the videos who want to jam creationist ID into schools have exactly the same reason, Genesis. It has nothing to do with honest science. Ever heard of a successful libel suit on a creationist’s ‘scientific’ claims? They are liars, and are trying to dupe people. That can be shown to be a true statement, which is why they always lose in court.
Quote Just like Adam and Eve…I believe they were “Full Grown” People. So if you were to say no there is no way your only 20 seconds old…science tells me that you are 20 years old. You can't explain the “Super-Natural” with the “Natural”.
There are individuals who are ancestors to all of us, but there has never been a time in history when there were only two members of our species. Read Richard Dawkins’s brilliant book The Ancestor’s Tale.Stu: Is it possible for god to make a stone that he cannot lift?
Quote Oh how creative of you …trick questions? Thats rather “under-handed” don't you think?
Not really clever of me. The 'omnipotence paradox' has been around a long time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_ParadoxStu: 14 to 18 billion years old. Depending on where you are!
Quote Stuff is not that old…but keep telling yourself that. Its cool.
None of the stuff on earth is that old. Our sun is about 15 billion years old. These ages are facts that are corroborated by so many independent measurements that it is pointless to deny it. I am still fascinated at the ability of early christians to immunise later followers against reality so well that demonstrated facts are disbelieved in favour of things for which there is no evidence whatsoever. I suppose that is human nature.Quote Ok…nonetheless, you really over analyze things it seems to me. Its a wonder that you are able to come to any conclusions…or do you? You must always be confused and / or very uncertain.
Do I read as unsure or confused in what I write?Stuart
Quote Stu: Is it possible for god to make a stone that he cannot lift?
Quote
Oh how creative of you …trick questions? Thats rather “under-handed” don't you think?Not really clever of me. The 'omnipotence paradox' has been around a long time.
See…you are still having trouble seeing things “Outside” of the diminsions that we are in and / or controlled by.
Your comparing a Spiritual Being with Physical Matter.
Futhermore, such a paradox implies that the being is bound by the diminsions of “Time”. Which GOD is not bound by neither. Your paradox is broke.Quote (Samuel @ April 02 2008,05:27) Quote Stu: Is it possible for god to make a stone that he cannot lift?
Quote
Oh how creative of you …trick questions? Thats rather “under-handed” don't you think?Not really clever of me. The 'omnipotence paradox' has been around a long time.
See…you are still having trouble seeing things “Outside” of the diminsions that we are in and / or controlled by.
Your comparing a Spiritual Being with Physical Matter.
Futhermore, such a paradox implies that the being is bound by the diminsions of “Time”. Which GOD is not bound by neither. Your paradox is broke.
So are you saying that you can see things I cannot? Or do you just have a vivid imagination?Stuart
Quote How can something be ‘already so many billion years old when it was made’? Read about radiometric dating: –stu” target=”_blank”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_dating%5B/QUOTE%5D–stu
Quote What are you thinking of dating by radiocarbon methods?
kejonn is right. You need to update your knowledge of modern dating techniques.–stu
Why is it when I mention “radio carbon” dating (which is one type of radiometric or radioactive dating), all I get is smiley faces and you wetting your pants, but saying nothing, answering nothing, but here, you're telling people to read about radiometric dating….
Quote (david @ April 03 2008,11:33) Quote How can something be ‘already so many billion years old when it was made’? Read about radiometric dating: –stu
Quote What are you thinking of dating by radiocarbon methods?
kejonn is right. You need to update your knowledge of modern dating techniques.–stu
Why is it when I mention “radio carbon” dating (which is one type of radiometric or radioactive dating), all I get is smiley faces and you wetting your pants, but saying nothing, answering nothing, but here, you're telling people to read about radiometric dating….
Sorry David, I can't see what the problem is here. If you think there is something wrong with 14C dating, why don't you quantify for us the uncertainty you think it produces?'Otherwise you get
s from me; that is my geniune considered response to your post.Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
