Hamelekin's Proof of The Bible [Archive]

Brian-M

5th October 2009, 10:41 PM

I'm starting this thread for discussion resulting from some of hamelekim's posts in the " A Little Friendly (Ish) Advice for the Prospective Proselytizer" thread, to prevent that thread from becoming too derailed.

I was being consistent. I use logic and reason to come to my beliefs, but it's a waste of time to give those reasons because those who are not religious disagree with the logic and reason.

I have reasons to support public healthcare, yet there are many people who disagree with reasoning, not because it is wrong, but because they just don't like it.

Anyone who uses logic and reason would be in full support of universal healthcare, yet I'm sure that there are many people on this board who would be against it, and they wouldn't have a let to stand on from any standpoint other than a feeling.

It is the same way with Christianity. there is plenty of evidence, but people deny the evidence because they don't like it. The fundamental rejection of Christianity is because it says you are flawed and sinful, and deserver punishment, and it says you should live your life a certain way.

Who's definition of irrational belief are we going by here? Skeptics have many irrational beliefs, just as all human beings do.

As for my reasons for believing. Bible prophecy is a strong evidence of Biblical accuracy. And if those prophecies are correct, especially prophecies dealing with the end times, then the rest of it can be trusted as well.

Let's deal with two prophecies specifically. They are found in the book of Daniel.

Daniel 12:4

4 But you, Daniel, j shut up the words and k seal the book, until l the time of the end. m Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.”

Two things will happen at thee time of the end.
1. Many shall run to a fro
2. Knowledge shall increase

There are two interpretations, and maybe both of them are correct, in regards to this verse.

1. running to a fro is a reference to the verse in Amos

Amos 8:12
They shall wander from sea to sea, and from north to east; they shall run to and fro, to seek the word of the Lord, but they shall not find it.

knowledge shall increase is in reference to the word of God. However if those two are taken together, and the first part is a reference to Amos, that makes no sense. People are running all over looking for God, because they cannot find it, yet at the same time the word of God is spreading?

The second interpretation, and the one that I think makes more sense is as follows.

2. Running to and fro is a reference to something that will happen in the last days. People travelling. Running specifies quickly, and to and fro references all over the world.

Up until the last 500 years people didn't travel much. You had smaller groups of traders and adventurers who traveled but nothing that could be said to match people moving quickly all over the place.

It wasn't until the last 100 years that we had the invention of motorized transportation. This is why many people believe that it is one sign we are living in the last part of the last days.

Secondly, knowledge increasing is fairly straight forward. It doesn't say that knowledge of the Lord will increase, it says knowledge will increase. The Bible is pretty specific when referencing knowledge of God, so we can be fairly certain to discount that.

So how much has knowledge increase over human history? Since the time of Jesus? It was relatively slow up until 100 years ago, when, thanks to exponential growth, we have seen an explosion of knowledge. In fact, we are increasing at a rate where we will hit an information singularity within most of our lifetimes.

Now, if you pair in the increase in travel and knowledge, with the birth pangs and increasing in intensity and distance as we get nearer to the end, it makes sense that we would continue to see more and more travel as well as an increase in knowledge. We used to have smaller breakthroughs in science, now we have breakthroughs almost daily. It just makes sense.

I think that is a logical explanation of those verses, and it goes a long way to proving that the Bible is the word of God.

Marduk

5th October 2009, 11:54 PM

I'm gonna wait til it comes out in paperback
:p

Brian-M

5th October 2009, 11:55 PM

I was being consistent. I use logic and reason to come to my beliefs, but it's a waste of time to give those reasons because those who are not religious disagree with the logic and reason.

If your logic was sound, why would the non-religious disagree with it? Are you saying that the non-religious reject logical arguments when it suits them, or that they are incapable of understanding the logic being used?

I have reasons to support public healthcare, yet there are many people who disagree with reasoning, not because it is wrong, but because they just don't like it.

Anyone who uses logic and reason would be in full support of universal healthcare, yet I'm sure that there are many people on this board who would be against it, and they wouldn't have a let to stand on from any standpoint other than a feeling.

I too support public healthcare, but I can see why some people would choose to reject it. It's not [always] that they are ignoring logic, just that they're basing their reasoning on different assumptions, and consequently getting different results.

In order to prove that your conclusions are valid, you first have to show that the assumptions made in your reasoning are correct.

I suspect that your logical proof of Christianity is based on assumptions that many of us would disagree with.

It is the same way with Christianity. there is plenty of evidence, but people deny the evidence because they don't like it. The fundamental rejection of Christianity is because it says you are flawed and sinful, and deserver punishment, and it says you should live your life a certain way.

Personally, my fundamental rejection of Christianity is based on the apparent lack of any evidence that the Christian belief system is an accurate reflection of reality.

Who's definition of irrational belief are we going by here? Skeptics have many irrational beliefs, just as all human beings do.

By irrational beliefs I meant beliefs not supported by rational thought. On a skeptic's site such as this all irrational beliefs, including those held by skeptics, are open to examination and criticism.

As for my reasons for believing. Bible prophecy is a strong evidence of Biblical accuracy. And if those prophecies are correct, especially prophecies dealing with the end times, then the rest of it can be trusted as well.

I'm certainly willing to look at biblical prophecies, assuming that the predictions in these prophecies are clear and unambiguous, and their "fulfillment" can be independently verified (I.E., by sources outside the Bible).

Ideally these prophecies would be ones that have not been fulfilled yet, where clear criteria can be stated in advance to determine unequivocally exactly what must occur for them to considered "fulfilled".

However, as you are simply cherry-picking prophecies that you can claim to be fulfilled - if interpreted in exactly the right way - while ignoring those which can't, attempting to use these prophecies as "proof" is an example of the fallacy of confirmation bias, and not evidence of biblical accuracy.

Let's deal with two prophecies specifically. They are found in the book of Daniel.

Daniel 12:4

4 But you, Daniel, j shut up the words and k seal the book, until l the time of the end. m Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.”

Two things will happen at thee time of the end.
1. Many shall run to a fro
2. Knowledge shall increase

There are two interpretations, and maybe both of them are correct, in regards to this verse.

1. running to a fro is a reference to the verse in Amos

Amos 8:12
They shall wander from sea to sea, and from north to east; they shall run to and fro, to seek the word of the Lord, but they shall not find it.

knowledge shall increase is in reference to the word of God. However if those two are taken together, and the first part is a reference to Amos, that makes no sense. People are running all over looking for God, because they cannot find it, yet at the same time the word of God is spreading?

The second interpretation, and the one that I think makes more sense is as follows.

2. Running to and fro is a reference to something that will happen in the last days. People travelling. Running specifies quickly, and to and fro references all over the world.

Up until the last 500 years people didn't travel much. You had smaller groups of traders and adventurers who traveled but nothing that could be said to match people moving quickly all over the place.

It wasn't until the last 100 years that we had the invention of motorized transportation. This is why many people believe that it is one sign we are living in the last part of the last days.

Secondly, knowledge increasing is fairly straight forward. It doesn't say that knowledge of the Lord will increase, it says knowledge will increase. The Bible is pretty specific when referencing knowledge of God, so we can be fairly certain to discount that.

So how much has knowledge increase over human history? Since the time of Jesus? It was relatively slow up until 100 years ago, when, thanks to exponential growth, we have seen an explosion of knowledge. In fact, we are increasing at a rate where we will hit an information singularity within most of our lifetimes.

Now, if you pair in the increase in travel and knowledge, with the birth pangs and increasing in intensity and distance as we get nearer to the end, it makes sense that we would continue to see more and more travel as well as an increase in knowledge. We used to have smaller breakthroughs in science, now we have breakthroughs almost daily. It just makes sense.

I think that is a logical explanation of those verses, and it goes a long way to proving that the Bible is the word of God.

Running to and fro can also mean great confusion and panic, but let's ignore that and stick with your interpretation.

The prophecy is: Before the end of the world we will experience...

Great Increase in travel
Great Increase in knowledge

Those indicators could apply to...

The Roman Empire
The Renaissance
The Industrial Revolution
The Present

This is at least the fourth time those conditions have been met and still we have no evidence that "the time of the end" is imminent. The prophecy is remains unfulfilled.

What you're arguing is...

This biblical prophecy could come true in our time, therefore The Bible is true.

This is not a logical conclusion, merely speculation.

You are arguing that the prophecy is true on the assumption that The Bible is true, and you are arguing that The Bible is true on the assumption that the prophecy is true. This is the fallacy of circular logic.

Could you please try and provide us with logical argument? You did claim to have one.

Hux

6th October 2009, 01:03 AM

It always amazes me when Christian apologists start to lecture us on the 'nature of reason' and what constitutes it. Reason, apparently, has different meanings to reality's reason. Logic, is a different animal to the one they might employ for anything other than their faith.

Why is it so many say I could tell you but you wouldn't accept it? Is their reason so different from reason?

And by the way, how would you describe a sceptic that holds irrational beliefs? Is this not a common plea to get us to accept their are different sets of reason?

Why is it so hard to produce the 'evidence' you say you have? Shouldn't it be , ahem, evident? Do you really need to tell us what constitutes evidence when to all intents and purposes and in most other circumstances, the nature of evidence is not even questioned? Do you suppose we can allow you to assert a different set of rules without giving any support to that?

Last of the Fraggles

6th October 2009, 01:47 AM

If the best evidence for the Bible's accuracy is a prophecy that as yet is unfulfilled then I think I will stick with my position.

Honestly, do people even think these things through?

dafydd

6th October 2009, 01:55 AM

I'm gonna wait til it comes out in paperback
:p

Don't spoil it by telling me how it ends.

~enigma~

6th October 2009, 03:17 AM

Proof of the bible...this is gonna be a nice trainwreck of extreme and utter failure.

Dancing David

6th October 2009, 04:14 AM

And it totally ignores the fact that the bible is self referencing and designed to support itself.

Last of the Fraggles

6th October 2009, 04:41 AM

And it totally ignores the fact that the bible is self referencing and designed to support itself.

If it was designed to support itself you'd think they'd have some better examples than this one don't you?

The above prophesy is the equivalent of me saying:

On the day I win the lottery I will go to work and it will rain.

Today I went to work and it rained, therefore my prophesy is true!

BobTheDonkey

6th October 2009, 04:48 AM

Proof of the bible...this is gonna be a nice trainwreck of extreme and utter failure.

Ahhh, the question thus becomes:

Can/will this thread out-fail Doc's Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124603) thread?

Beerina

6th October 2009, 07:28 AM

"to and fro" does not reference "all over the world". One would not be able to make such a prediction prior to the invention of rapid transit. Therefore it is not a prediction but a reinterpretation of a mundane, if descriptive phrase.

That the phrase existed prior to modern rapid transit indicates it had real meaning before said inventions.

And in any case, we're on, what, the 6th generation since worldwide rapid travel (say, steamship ocean liner) has been around? And we've exceeded the lifespan of every person who was alive when it started, so it's the "some alive will not taste death before the kingdom of Jesus, etc."

Darth Rotor

6th October 2009, 07:34 AM

Don't spoil it by telling me how it ends.
Amen.

For those who did not get the joke, the last line of Revelation 22 is "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen."

pakeha

6th October 2009, 07:39 AM

Ahhh, the question thus becomes:

Can/will this thread out-fail Doc's Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124603) thread?

Challenges.
That's what I love about the JREF forum.
The challenges.

joobz

6th October 2009, 07:42 AM

Amen.
For some reason when I read your post I heard a thunderclap and thought:
"It's Raining Amen!"

Hux

6th October 2009, 07:44 AM

Don't spoil it by telling me how it ends.

I want to wait until the film comes out. Oh wait. It did. If God has a voice it will be John Huston's. :p

Dancing David

6th October 2009, 07:52 AM

I want to wait until the film comes out. Oh wait. It did. If God has a voice it will be John Huston's. :p

Nu uh, it will James Earl Jones...

Hux

6th October 2009, 07:56 AM

You mean He's a Black Guy? Jeez the Christian right won't like that...........

Darth Rotor

6th October 2009, 08:00 AM

For some reason when I read your post I heard a thunderclap and thought:
"It's Raining Amen!"
:D

A Christian might have riposted "He's reigning, Amen!" Oh, wait, one did but I got no thunderclap.

Hey, who's hook is that pulling me off of the stage? :jaw-dropp

KingMerv00

6th October 2009, 08:15 AM

Cars exist, therefore God?

pakeha

6th October 2009, 08:21 AM

:D

A Christian might have rpiosted "He's reigning, Amen!" Oh, wait, one did but I got no thunderclap.

Might have, Darth, but would have forebourne from Christian charity.

Darth Rotor

6th October 2009, 08:47 AM

Might have, Darth, but would have forebourne from Christian charity.
Good thing Charity was retranslated into love in I Corinthians 13, post KJV, and I so love horrid puns --

Hey, wait, there's that hook dragging me off the stage again?

Is this an omen? A sign? A prophesy? :eek:

Deranged

6th October 2009, 01:18 PM

Darth Rotor

6th October 2009, 01:25 PM

The End of times is better acknowledged by "earthquakes in divers places" meaning in many places, and that Right will be wrong, Wrong will be seen as Right (celebrities' carryings on, divorce, abortion, gay marriage--all seen as right and cool). Wars and rumors thereof wouldn't count , of course. Also, extremes will be seen more than ever as in "the most, the biggest, the worst, the lowest" as in melting glaciers, earthquakes,
record fires, frequent hurricanes, snowfall, rainfall, floods, Katrina, WTC bombings, leaders will lead in the wrong direction and you won't be able to trust them, new diseases 'coming from animals' --I'm too tired to look them all up but feel free. Oh--and stock up on food and canned/bottled liquids. I would post the company that sells great freeze dried food but I don't want to get reprimanded?

Katrina was not the worst hurricane that ever hit anywhere. For example, Gilbert was much stronger, but since it didn't contribute to the levees failing in New Orleans, Gilbert gets dissed for that gutter tramp Katrina. (Heck, Andrew was a real sumbitch. )

Look up hurrican Gilbert, 1988, for an idea on how bad New Orleans might have been clobbered, had Gilbert not had a case of the ass for some places along the Northern Mexican coast.

DR

RoboTimbo

6th October 2009, 01:46 PM

Something is conspicuously missing from this thread, if I could only put my finger on it.

Lucian

6th October 2009, 02:37 PM

Amen.

For those who did not get the joke, the last line of Revelation 22 is "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen."

What, no spoiler box? Great, after weeks of reading, I'd just gotten to "In the begi..." (slow reader). Now that I know the end, it just doesn't seem worth the bother. Next I bet you'll tell me that the hero dies.

Gord_in_Toronto

6th October 2009, 02:45 PM

The post quoted in the OP to this thread concludes:
I think that is a logical explanation of those verses, and it goes a long way to proving that the Bible is the word of God.

Well, I don't. So what happens next? :confused:

aofl

6th October 2009, 02:49 PM

~enigma~

6th October 2009, 03:18 PM

Nu uh, it will James Earl Jones...
Your both wrong. They were George Burns and Morgan Freeman.

ETA - And Alanis Morissette

Correa Neto

6th October 2009, 04:01 PM

Two things will happen at thee time of the end.
1. Many shall run to a fro
2. Knowledge shall increase
Sorry to burst your bubble.

Its actually about faster than light travel, when humans shall be running to and fro across the galaxy.

Prove me wong.

KingMerv00

7th October 2009, 07:29 AM

People have been traveling fro and to for hundreds of thousands of years. Knowledge has been on the rise since the dawn of humanity. It is pure egocentrism to choose now as the end times.

twinstead

7th October 2009, 07:34 AM

Haven't religious experts declared the current time as the End Times quite a lot in the last couple thousand years?

Brian-M

7th October 2009, 02:32 PM

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Its actually about faster than light travel, when humans shall be running to and fro across the galaxy.

Prove me wong.

And "knowledge shall increase" is clearly about artificial intelligences reproducing. :)

Sun Countess

7th October 2009, 03:53 PM

2. Running to and fro is a reference to something that will happen in the last days. People travelling. Running specifies quickly, and to and fro references all over the world.
Running does mean quickly, but it doesn't say anything about boats, trains, or planes. To and fro generally references back and forth. People - from certain parts of the world - might be traveling more or moving to new locations, but not necessarily going back and forth. People from other parts of the world aren't traveling much at all.

<snipped>It wasn't until the last 100 years that we had the invention of motorized transportation. This is why many people believe that it is one sign we are living in the last part of the last days.
It's funny that the bible didn't say anything about motorized transportation. It said running.

Secondly, knowledge increasing is fairly straight forward. It doesn't say that knowledge of the Lord will increase, it says knowledge will increase. The Bible is pretty specific when referencing knowledge of God, so we can be fairly certain to discount that.
Knowledge has increased in certain parts of the world at different times. We may think that we're seeing a huge increase in knowledge right now, but what would our perception be if we lived in China or Greece or Rome in other centuries? What will the perception be of people who will be alive 1000 years from now? For all we know, we may be considered just a baby bump in the growth of knowledge. Remember, too, that some folks in certain biblical locations still use stones as weapons. Our increased knowledge isn't available world-wide.

Funny too how the biggest baddest bible thumpers of centuries past did so much to squelch the acquisition of scientific knowledge, because it was so often contradictory to the word of "God."

<snipped>I think that is a logical explanation of those verses, and it goes a long way to proving that the Bible is the word of God.
Except for the whole "last days" part of the prophecy. I'm pretty sure that part hasn't come true yet.

I bet I could find a few random verses from other works of fiction, interpret them in an non-traditional way which would fit my own limited perspective as a 21st century North American, and then claim them to actually be prophetic works of truth.

~enigma~

7th October 2009, 04:12 PM

People have been traveling fro and to for hundreds of thousands of years. Knowledge has been on the rise since the dawn of humanity. It is pure egocentrism to choose now as the end times.
Simple, obvious but most importantly....TRUE.

:bigclap

~enigma~

7th October 2009, 04:14 PM

And "knowledge shall increase" is clearly about artificial intelligences reproducing. :)
Nope...the first word was left out. The word is CARNAL. Hmm....maybe these are the end times :)

BobTheDonkey

8th October 2009, 05:53 AM

Running does mean quickly, but it doesn't say anything about boats, trains, or planes. To and fro generally references back and forth. People - from certain parts of the world - might be traveling more or moving to new locations, but not necessarily going back and forth. People from other parts of the world aren't traveling much at all.

I do quite a bit of "to and fro-ing" to work a couple times a week. As the world's population has increased exponentially since biblical times, there most definitely is more "to and fro-ing" between work and home. Thus, the prophecy is close to being fulfilled (I expect the rapture to be any day now... www.raptureready.com ).

(I was going to respond to the rest of your post...but that was about as much as I could Poe without going nuts...)

Hux

8th October 2009, 06:03 AM

Nope...the first word was left out. The word is CARNAL. Hmm....maybe these are the end times :)

Carnal knowledge is going to increase? Splendid. I'm in with a shout then.

Aepervius

8th October 2009, 06:46 AM

Let us look at this from another perspective : "knowledge shall increase".

Now let us look at what this means. That there are time when knowledge is decreasing or stagning. If not, then this would not be a statement indicator of anything.

But, as far as i can tell, except for a rare time in first millenium Europa, I do not think it can be construed that knowledge as a whole decreased.

Thus the statement is as valid in 1400 as it is now. Empty and meaningless. Next.

Correa Neto

8th October 2009, 07:11 AM

And "knowledge shall increase" is clearly about artificial intelligences reproducing. :)
Welcome, oh seeker of the truth, to the Al'i'en J'es'us c'ult.

I see you already managed to reach some enlightening. That would be U$ 350.00.

We need this for the temple's holy pr'os'tit'u't'es

Darth Rotor

8th October 2009, 07:28 AM

Next I bet you'll tell me that the hero dies.
He does, but on the third day, He rises from the dead ... but that's somewhere in the latter third of the book. :cool:

Darth Rotor

8th October 2009, 07:29 AM

Carnal knowledge is going to increase? Splendid. I'm in with a shout then.

... and out and in and out
Playin' all night,
And the music's alright ...

dudalb

8th October 2009, 10:45 AM

Good thing Charity was retranslated into love in I Corinthians 13, post KJV, and I so love horrid puns --

Hey, wait, there's that hook dragging me off the stage again?

Is this an omen? A sign? A prophesy? :eek:

"Charity" was pretty much a synomom for "Love" in Elizabethan English.
Without getting into a debate about the accuracy of the KJV, I don't think it is fair to accuse the KJV translators of "mistranslating" words because the meaning of a word in English has changed since 1609.

Darth Rotor

8th October 2009, 02:39 PM

"Charity" was pretty much a synomom for "Love" in Elizabethan English.
Without getting into a debate about the accuracy of the KJV, I don't think it is fair to accuse the KJV translators of "mistranslating" words because the meaning of a word in English has changed since 1609.

Yes, yes, here I was having a bit of fun, and you have to get all scholarly on me. :D

Brian-M

8th October 2009, 03:39 PM

tsig

8th October 2009, 05:21 PM

What, no spoiler box? Great, after weeks of reading, I'd just gotten to "In the begi..." (slow reader). Now that I know the end, it just doesn't seem worth the bother. Next I bet you'll tell me that the hero dies.

He does but then he gets better.

ETA: I see DR was there first.

joobz

8th October 2009, 08:20 PM

I wonder if Hamelekin is ever actually going to post in this thread.

I feel a little like a gunslinger in a Western, standing in main street at high noon, but the other guy hasn't bothered to show up. :)
That's better than feeling like the guy on his 4th cup of coffee and third helping of breadsticks waiting for his blind date to show up.:p

Correa Neto

9th October 2009, 06:04 AM

Dammit!

I just had an epiphany! The Bible is the first fight anime ever!
Hero gets beaten, beaten very hard, defeated, beated again for countless episodes then at last some internal force/power is triggered, the hero becomes über-mega-hyper-powerful and beats the bad guy. All of this, of course, happens with lots of babbling.

I want to see an anime-style Jesus

DANG!
http://vialogue.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/manga-messiah-japanese-anime-jesus/
Hard to be original these days...

hamelekim

10th October 2009, 01:20 AM

Cars exist, therefore God?

The universe exists, therefore God.

hamelekim

10th October 2009, 01:21 AM

I wonder if Hamelekin is ever actually going to post in this thread.

I feel a little like a gunslinger in a Western, standing in main street at high noon, but the other guy hasn't bothered to show up. :)

I didn't see the thread, but I'm not looking for a "fight" in any case. But I will freely discuss my views and you are free to dissect and disagree with them.

Brian-M

10th October 2009, 02:21 AM

I didn't see the thread, but I'm not looking for a "fight" in any case. But I will freely discuss my views and you are free to dissect and disagree with them.

Sorry, I thought that putting your handle in the thread title and putting a link in the "A Little Friendly (Ish) Advice for the Prospective Proselytizer" thread with a request to continue the discussion here would be enough. :rolleyes:

I'm not exactly looking for a 'fight' exactly, but I do expect to get in a heated argument. What I'm really interested in is understanding the logic you claim supports your assertion that The Bible is true / that God is real.

We probably won't ever agree with each-other's points of view, but I feel that debating the issue, and gaining a better understanding of each-other's position would benefit everyone.

Oliver

10th October 2009, 02:30 AM

The universe exists, therefore God.

God exists, therefore the Human mind exists. ;)

Last of the Fraggles

10th October 2009, 02:45 AM

The universe exists, therefore God.

I like these random statements:

Cheese exists, therefore you owe me 100 bucks!

RoboTimbo

10th October 2009, 06:17 AM

The universe exists, therefore God.

Humans have imagination, therefore god(s).

pakeha

10th October 2009, 06:41 AM

I'd go for:
Humans have imagination, therefore prophecies, myself.

RandFan

10th October 2009, 10:35 AM

The universe exists, therefore God.

Humans have imagination, therefore god(s).Very good.

Humans evolved to see patterns (and often see patterns where there is none).
Humans evolved to see intention (and often see intention where there is none).
Humans evolved to make things and then assume that patterns must have intention.
A snowflake is a complex pattern but no intention is needed to explain the snowflake.

"...they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator." --Napoleon

"I had no need of that hypothesis." --Laplace

HansMustermann

10th October 2009, 11:17 AM

Sort of. I would argue that actually the last two are really just consequences of our inclination to anthropomorphise. We ascribe intention to it just like we ascribe good/evil, fairness/unfairness, etc. Just because we can look at just about any thing or abstract concept and ultimately treat it as a human. We can personify the new year, father time, the flame (check out the original Vesta: she _was_ the flame), lady luck, death, justice, etc, and that's just the easy ones off the top of my head. Ascribing a mind and intention just comes with the territory from there.

It's not even just a human trait. Your dog is willing to follow and obey you because it can treat you like the alpha dog. Your cat treats you like the alpha cat. And I've seen a dog barking at a hot piece of food it tried to nick, as if that actually made any difference.

RandFan

10th October 2009, 11:30 AM

Sort of. I would argue that actually the last two are really just consequences of our inclination to anthropomorphise. The point is important but in this particular instance it is a somewhat trite distinction IMO. To simply attribute it to anthropomorphizing is to take a macro view. Sometimes the details are important.

We ascribe intention to it just like we ascribe good/evil, fairness/unfairness, etc. Just because we can look at just about any thing or abstract concept and ultimately treat it as a human. We can personify the new year, father time, the flame (check out the original Vesta: she _was_ the flame), lady luck, death, justice, etc, and that's just the easy ones off the top of my head. Ascribing a mind and intention just comes with the territory from there.

It's not even just a human trait. Your dog is willing to follow and obey you because it can treat you like the alpha dog. Your cat treats you like the alpha cat. And I've seen a dog barking at a hot piece of food it tried to nick, as if that actually made any difference.Agreed, though to be sure, the devil is in the details. Dogs have yet to start building alters to humans. Don't get me wrong though, you raise a very good point.

However, it is when we look closer at the detail that we begin to understand better how anthropomorphizing is significant, again, IMO.

HansMustermann

10th October 2009, 04:36 PM

I'm pretty sure that the only reason some dogs don't build altars to their masters, is because they don't have that concept :p

And having been brought dead mice and sparrows by more than one cat, I can't help notice a similarity to the early religion ideas of, basically, caring for one's god (e.g., feeding him via sacrifices) or bartering presents for favour. We acted towards supposedly immortal and eternal gods like, well, like the cat acts towards its human alpha :p

But seriously, nobody argued against studying the details as such. I'm just saying that it IMHO gets the order wrong. We don't have a need need or inclination to ascribe intention as such, we just ascribe that (and love/hate, moods, etc) because we instinctively treat everything like a human. Even if we don't go the full monte and actually imagine them as an anthropomorphic construct.

And I think it's an important notion to mention because, basically, it also covers stuff from "my computer hates me" to stuff like talking to your plants to make them feel better. There's a whole gamut of feelings and mental processes which are sorta assumed, not just intent.

God itself isn't just showing intent, but acts like someone who's genuinely human. (And in many ways like what we'd expect from a human corrupted by absolute power.) We expect to get favours for basically brown-nosing him or his Junior. We expect to occasionally beg favours from him just because we called daily with praise, and I guess we must be best buddies by now. We expect to _barter_ with him for favours occasionally. We think that an omnipotent and eternal god actually needs our _help_, even if just to pass a message to the guy next door.

In short, not as much just because we needed intent, but because we needed something that acts like a human. Because IMHO for most people that's the only kind of thing they can really deal with.

RandFan

10th October 2009, 04:41 PM

In short, not as much just because we needed intent, but because we needed something that acts like a human. Because IMHO for most people that's the only kind of thing they can really deal with.Thanks. That's all well and good but if I had to do the post again I would likely do it the same for the reasons I stated. Otherwise we could simply state that we do it because we are human (anthropomorphizing being an attribute of being human).

Tebtenri

10th October 2009, 04:55 PM

Elizabeth I

10th October 2009, 05:06 PM

Methinks Brian M is confusing a philosophy with fact.
Daniel the Book of has found to be a fake in that it was written after the events, prophecy wise, (no I do not have a link).
The NT seems well like a collective of scribes tweaking a story to hold a Point of View which is promulgated as fact.
The Paul sections, are probably more the Bishops of Rome standpoint,[Prohibitions on women for religious rituals, etc] than some reformed bounty hunter, with a bent to subvert the original Messiah message being some what more fundamentalist in outlook.
The Revelation is apparently a lifted Mithraic? text (that is what a Jesuit told me anyway)

In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination.
Mark Twain

And this guy knows from prophecy:

Well having studied said texts, I think I have discovered something of interest.
Most commentators on the subject have poor educations and comprehension worse they follow each other in their conclusions.

Yes I have perused The Mask of Nostradamus which is probably the only text trying to debunk Nostradamus, however using just 10 selected Quatrains out of a possible 964 or 942, with claims of bias etc.

Now we have heard ad finitum about the vague nature of these rhymes, but dealing with an inquisition he had to couch his rhymes in a veiled way.
That and the fact the opposition would also be looking for loopholes and possible advantages in knowing a result beforehand.

Now I will start with the famous CXQ72 The misquoted King of Terror Quatrain, it is not Terror but Debt Payer and the implications are much greater than 911, though far less spectacular in vision.

So what is the Quatrain about?

It is (IMHO) a profile Quatrain about a man's life in power and his part in the scheme of things.
He literally came to power in Oct 1999 in coup and has had a chequered military career both before 1999, 5 wars no less and was the darling of the Bush/Blair WoT.
So who is this man destined to end the economic system as we know it?

Your serve:

:rolleyes:

tsig

10th October 2009, 05:54 PM

The universe exists, therefore God.

the universe exists therefore we exist that invents god.

tsig

10th October 2009, 06:01 PM

God exists, therefore the Human mind exists. ;)

God exists only in the human mind.

Brian-M

10th October 2009, 07:06 PM

AdinDraco

10th October 2009, 11:18 PM

The universe exists, therefore God.

The Universe exists, therefore transdimensional universe-creating pixies.

The universe exists, therefore the universe exists.

Unevidenced assertions are worth the paper they're printed on mate.

hamelekim

11th October 2009, 12:43 AM

Very good.

Humans evolved to see patterns (and often see patterns where there is none).
Humans evolved to see intention (and often see intention where there is none).
Humans evolved to make things and then assume that patterns must have intention.
A snowflake is a complex pattern but no intention is needed to explain the snowflake.

"...they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator." --Napoleon

"I had no need of that hypothesis." --Laplace

It's more like, God exists, and humans don't want to follow god so they make up their own, because they inherently are made to worship.

hamelekim

11th October 2009, 12:52 AM

I don't see how you can dismiss the idea of a creator for the Universe.

Given that it is literally impossible to know what is outside the universe, let alone what existed before the universe means that science can never answer whether or not God exists.

Given that we have intelligence is it so hard to believe that there are greater intelligences than us in existence? Or that all existence has a source, and it is the ultimate intelligence?

Science cannot answer why anything exists, or what existed before the universe, or even what caused the universe to form. These questions can never be answered by science, but are the realm of Philosophers and Theologians.

AdinDraco

11th October 2009, 01:55 AM

In other words, not knowing the answer means that we do know the answer? I'm ok with not knowing, I don't need to make stuff up to sleep at night.

pakeha

11th October 2009, 02:05 AM

I don't see how you can dismiss the idea of a creator for the Universe.

Given that it is literally impossible to know what is outside the universe, let alone what existed before the universe means that science can never answer whether or not God exists.

Given that we have intelligence is it so hard to believe that there are greater intelligences than us in existence? Or that all existence has a source, and it is the ultimate intelligence?

Science cannot answer why anything exists, or what existed before the universe, or even what caused the universe to form. These questions can never be answered by science, but are the realm of Philosophers and Theologians.

Anytime you delve into Philosophy and Theology for explanations for physical manifestations, you get woo. Entrancing, convincing and believable, but woo all the same.
And 'woo' isn't good enough as an explanation for a physical event.
'Why is it so hard to believe all existence has a source, and it is the ultimate intelligence?'
Because there's no evidence for it outside the Bible that I can see as yet.

hamelekim

11th October 2009, 02:10 AM

Anytime you delve into Philosophy and Theology for explanations for physical manifestations, you get woo. Entrancing, convincing and believable, but woo all the same.
And 'woo' isn't good enough as an explanation for a physical event.
'Why is it so hard to believe all existence has a source, and it is the ultimate intelligence?'
Because there's no evidence for it outside the Bible that I can see as yet.

Emotions and feelings are woo as well. So are moral arguments. Anything that isn't inductively reasoned is woo. Well sorry, but I don't base my reality and everything I do with that mindset.

pakeha

11th October 2009, 02:25 AM

Emotions and feelings are woo as well. So are moral arguments. Anything that isn't inductively reasoned is woo. Well sorry, but I don't base my reality and everything I do with that mindset.

The evidence for God is based on personal emotions?
On your feelings on the matter rather than evidence?

OK.
I can respect that.
But why then are people with different feelings the subject of your condemnation, based on a book which as yet to be shown as inaccurate?
This really confuses me.

AWPrime

11th October 2009, 03:08 AM

~enigma~

11th October 2009, 03:38 AM

God exists only in the human mind.
And the god in the mind is much more dangerous than any "real" god.

~enigma~

11th October 2009, 03:41 AM

It's more like, God exists, and humans don't want to follow god so they make up their own, because they inherently are made to worship.
Wow...a christian quoting Anton Zandor Lavey who founded the church of satan!!!!!!!

~enigma~

11th October 2009, 03:46 AM

Given that it is literally impossible to know what is outside the universe, let alone what existed before the universe means that science can never answer whether or not God exists.
What is outside the universe will forever stay outside the universe (or it would be inside the universe not outside). We can't know what is outside nor can it have any effect on us in the universe so if there was anything 'outside', it matters not one bit if we never even acknowledge it since it has no effect whatsoever on our daily lives. BTW, science and logic sure as hell can disprove the judeo-christian myth concerning the god of the bible just as well as it can disprove cubical spheres.

RandFan

11th October 2009, 03:49 AM

It's more like, God exists, and humans don't want to follow god so they make up their own, because they inherently are made to worship. Humans made up your god also. It's rather arrogant to claim to know the mind of god. BTW: Had you been born in the Mideast you would likely be a fanatic Muslim. You think you know the mind of god based on happenstance.

You are so arrogant to think that you are so special. Which is why so many people have been killed in the name of god. If god told you to kill it would be moral because god can do anything cruel and it is moral.

pakeha

11th October 2009, 04:03 AM

It's more like, God exists, and humans don't want to follow god so they make up their own, because they inherently are made to worship.

Could you explain why humans are inherently made to worship, please?

~enigma~

11th October 2009, 04:07 AM

Could you explain why humans are inherently made to worship, please?
Cause Anton Zandor Lavey said so in the satanic bible and it appears that hamelekim has committed that to memory.

pakeha

11th October 2009, 04:20 AM

Thanks, enigma.
I was hoping for an answer with some sort of backing to it, other than a holy book. Or 'unholy' as the case may be.
Ah, well.

Brian-M

11th October 2009, 06:02 PM

I don't see how you can dismiss the idea of a creator for the Universe.

Given that it is literally impossible to know what is outside the universe, let alone what existed before the universe means that science can never answer whether or not God exists.

What you are arguing here is that we shouldn't dismiss the existence of God because we can't prove that God doesn't exist.

No rational atheist (or scientist) is going to claim that we can prove that god doesn't exist... we can't.

A God that exists outside the universe without interacting with it would be neither provable nor disprovable. However, as all religions claim some knowledge of God which can only have been obtained if God had interacted with it and communicated with us, then this would mean that all religions, including yours, are wrong.

What you are claiming is that your God - a being that can defy the laws of physics (IE, magical) - does actively interact with the universe and, on occasion, communicates with us.

So far, we have no evidence at all that your magic spirit God exists. We have no reason to believe that your religion is founded on fact and not fairy tales.

We have no more reason to believe your God exists than we have to believe that Zeus or Odin exist. Why should we believe that your God is real, when all the other Gods are just fairy tales?

I'm not saying this to be insulting... I'm actually interested in your honest answer.

Given that we have intelligence is it so hard to believe that there are greater intelligences than us in existence? Or that all existence has a source, and it is the ultimate intelligence?

It's certainly possible that greater intelligences than us exist somewhere in the universe, and many people hope that they do. But assuming they do, without any rational reason, would still be a little foolish.

There is no reason not to consider the possibility that the universe was created by a greater intelligence (in fact, it has been suggested by some that the universe might just be a simulation running in an alien computer). But to believe that the universe was created by an intelligent entity, with no evidence, no rational basis for this belief, would be very foolish indeed.

Science cannot answer why anything exists, or what existed before the universe, or even what caused the universe to form. These questions can never be answered by science, but are the realm of Philosophers and Theologians.

Anything that can be tested, checked, studied or logically proven falls in the realm of science. If philosophers and theologians are dealing with things outside the realm of science, then this means that they're just making it up as they go along, and nothing they say can be regarded as having a basis in fact.

But you're claiming that your religion is based in fact.

So show us the evidence.

~enigma~

11th October 2009, 06:22 PM

No rational atheist (or scientist) is going to claim that we can prove that god doesn't exist... we can't.
This isn't exactly true Brian-M. If anything by definition contradicts itself (such as the god of the bible or a square circle), it can be proven not to exist or be possible.

Akhenaten

11th October 2009, 09:28 PM

But, but . . .

http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Circular4.gif

hamelekim

11th October 2009, 09:39 PM

Could you explain why humans are inherently made to worship, please?

We do it all the time. If it isn't some politician, like obama, it's a celebrity, or some famous scientist, etc...

paximperium

11th October 2009, 10:03 PM

We do it all the time. If it isn't some politician, like obama, it's a celebrity, or some famous scientist, etc...
Wow, you've rendered the word "worship" into complete and utter irrelevance. I didn't realize your worship of your god is as insignificant as the Britney Spears Fan Club.

Akhenaten

11th October 2009, 11:29 PM

Wow, you've rendered the word "worship" into complete and utter irrelevance. I didn't realize your worship of your god is as insignificant as the Britney Spears Fan Club.

At least Britney's in the Bible, I think.

Jeremiah 46:4

Harness the horses; and get up, ye horsemen, and stand forth with your helmets; furbish the spears, and put on the brigandines.

Furbishing? Brigandines? Definitely a Britney reference.

hamelekim

11th October 2009, 11:55 PM

What you are arguing here is that we shouldn't dismiss the existence of God because we can't prove that God doesn't exist.

No rational atheist (or scientist) is going to claim that we can prove that god doesn't exist... we can't.

A God that exists outside the universe without interacting with it would be neither provable nor disprovable. However, as all religions claim some knowledge of God which can only have been obtained if God had interacted with it and communicated with us, then this would mean that all religions, including yours, are wrong.

What you are claiming is that your God - a being that can defy the laws of physics (IE, magical) - does actively interact with the universe and, on occasion, communicates with us.

So far, we have no evidence at all that your magic spirit God exists. We have no reason to believe that your religion is founded on fact and not fairy tales.

We have no more reason to believe your God exists than we have to believe that Zeus or Odin exist. Why should we believe that your God is real, when all the other Gods are just fairy tales?

I'm not saying this to be insulting... I'm actually interested in your honest answer.

It's a fair question, and the only answer I can honestly give, is that you just know. I could argue that Christianity has the most unique version of salvation and God, and that it had the greatest impact on the world, or that we have historical accounts from several authors of the events, which read like personal accounts of a single event would read.

I can give you all of these, but that won't make a person believe. There are only two things that would make a person believe:

1. They actually see a supernatural event occur before them.
2. They are called by God through faith.

Neither of those meets the requirements of a Skeptic in regard to evidence with is reproducible, so you have no reason to believe or follow.

This is why the Bible says that the message of Christ is a stumbling block of Jews, and foolishness to Greeks.

It fully admits that the message is foolishness, and only those who are called will believe, not because they reasoned that it was true, but because God gave them faith.

It's certainly possible that greater intelligences than us exist somewhere in the universe, and many people hope that they do. But assuming they do, without any rational reason, would still be a little foolish.

There is no reason not to consider the possibility that the universe was created by a greater intelligence (in fact, it has been suggested by some that the universe might just be a simulation running in an alien computer). But to believe that the universe was created by an intelligent entity, with no evidence, no rational basis for this belief, would be very foolish indeed.

What evidence would be proof that the universe was created by an intelligent being? What would be proof for you?

Anything that can be tested, checked, studied or logically proven falls in the realm of science. If philosophers and theologians are dealing with things outside the realm of science, then this means that they're just making it up as they go along, and nothing they say can be regarded as having a basis in fact.

But you're claiming that your religion is based in fact.

So show us the evidence.
Logically one can prove that there is no such thing as a square circle. One doesn't need anything but logic for that. You don't need to do scientific research to discover that truth. Not all truths are discovered through science.

It's based in fact, in that Jesus did live, and he was the son of God, because others saw what he did and wrote it down for us to read. So then it comes down to whether or not you trust the authors.

hamelekim

12th October 2009, 12:13 AM

You might find this worth reading. It's a short paper on the reliability of the OT and NT manuscripts.

http://www.eastsidecommunity.org/Statement_of_Faith_files/The%20Reliability%20of%20the%20Old%20Testament%20M anuscripts.pdf

The Greek NT, as it is known today, has approximately 138,000 words. The best estimate

is that there are as many as 400,000 textual variants among the manuscripts. That means
that, on average, for every word in the Greek NT there are almost three variants. If this
were the only piece of data available, it might discourage anyone from attempting to
recover the wording of the original. But the large number of variants is due to the large
number of manuscripts. Hundreds of thousands of differences among the Greek
manuscripts, ancient translations, and patristic commentaries exist only because tens of
thousands of such documents exist. Further, the vast majority of textual alterations are
accidental and trivial, and hence easy for textual critics to spot.

These textual differences can be broken down into four categories. The largest group
involves spelling and nonsense errors. The single most common textual variant involves
what is known as a movable “nu.” This is an “n” that is placed at the end of certain words
when the next word begins with a vowel. The same principle is seen in English: a book,
an apple. Nonsense errors occur when a scribe wrote a word that makes no sense in its
context, usually because of fatigue, inattentiveness, or misunderstanding of the text in
front of him. Some of these errors are quite comical, such as “we were horses among
you” (Gk. hippoi, “horses,” instead of ēpioi, “gentle,” or nēpioi, “little children”) in 1
Thessalonians 2:7 in one late manuscript.

The smallest category of textual changes involves those that are both meaningful and
viable. These comprise less than one percent of all textual variants. “Meaningful” means
that the variant changes the meaning of the text to some degree. It may not be terribly
significant, but if the variant affects one's understanding of the passage, then it is
meaningful. Most of these meaningful and viable differences involve just a word or a
phrase. For example, in Romans 5:1, some manuscripts read “we have peace” (Gk.
echomen), while others have “let us have peace” (Gk. echōmen). The difference in Greek
is but a single letter, but the meaning is changed. If “we have peace” is authentic, Paul is
speaking about believers' status with God; if “let us have peace” is authentic, the apostle
is urging Christians to enjoy the experience of this harmony with God in their lives. As
important as this textual problem is, neither variant contradicts any of the teachings of
Scripture elsewhere, and both readings state something that is theologically sound.
There are two large textual variants in the entire NT, each involving 12 verses: Mark
16:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11. The earliest and best manuscripts lack these verses. In
addition, these passages do not fit well with the authors' style. Although much emotional
baggage is attached to these two texts for many Christians, no essential truths are lost if
these verses are not authentic.

Should the presence of textual variants, then, undermine the confidence of ordinary
laypersons as they read the Bible in their own language? No—actually, the opposite is the
case. The abundance of variants is the result of the very large number of remaining NT
manuscripts, which itself gives a stronger, not weaker, foundation for knowing what the
original manuscripts said.

Garrette

12th October 2009, 12:58 AM

There are only two things that would make a person believe:

1. They actually see a supernatural event occur before them.
2. They are called by God through faith.

Neither of those meets the requirements of a Skeptic in regard to evidence with is reproducible, so you have no reason to believe or follow.

This is why the Bible says that the message of Christ is a stumbling block of Jews, and foolishness to Greeks.

It fully admits that the message is foolishness, and only those who are called will believe, not because they reasoned that it was true, but because God gave them faith.

...

What evidence would be proof that the universe was created by an intelligent being? What would be proof for you?

...

It's based in fact, in that Jesus did live, and he was the son of God, because others saw what he did and wrote it down for us to read. So then it comes down to whether or not you trust the authors.
There is a lot of inconsistency in that response.

Since only god can create the supernatural occurrence and will only do so for those he wishes to see it, your two scenarios amount to exactly the same thing: People will believe when god goes out of his way to make them believe.

For those who have not been called to faith and have witnessed no supernatural event, why do you object that they have no faith? More importantly, why would god object?

laca

12th October 2009, 02:06 AM

I don't see how you can dismiss the idea of a creator for the Universe.

Not everyone dismisses that idea. It's just that even if we assume a creator for the universe, it leaves us nowhere in regards to your god.

Given that it is literally impossible to know what is outside the universe, let alone what existed before the universe means that science can never answer whether or not God exists.

If you had said "science can never answer whether or not a god exists", I'd agree with you. But since you said "whether God exists", I'm assuming you're referring to your version of a god, with the whole bible as it's infallible word, etc. Now that god can be dismissed very easily. You're just making it too easy by stating that the whole bible is true.

Given that we have intelligence is it so hard to believe that there are greater intelligences than us in existence? Or that all existence has a source, and it is the ultimate intelligence?

Believing it is not so hard. Knowing with any degree of certainty on the other hand is.

Science cannot answer why anything exists, or what existed before the universe, or even what caused the universe to form. These questions can never be answered by science, but are the realm of Philosophers and Theologians.

As stated by someone before, 'why' is the wrong question. 'How' is a much more appropriate question, and one that is in the realm of science.

Rasmus

12th October 2009, 02:11 AM

Wow, you've rendered the word "worship" into complete and utter irrelevance. I didn't realize your worship of your god is as insignificant as the Britney Spears Fan Club.

I could have told you that.

laca

12th October 2009, 02:11 AM

We do it all the time. If it isn't some politician, like obama, it's a celebrity, or some famous scientist, etc...

Wow, you've rendered the word "worship" into complete and utter irrelevance. I didn't realize your worship of your god is as insignificant as the Britney Spears Fan Club.

Nice one, pax :D

laca

12th October 2009, 02:38 AM

It's a fair question, and the only answer I can honestly give, is that you just know.

That's just great. What if you don't?

I could argue that Christianity has the most unique version of salvation and God, and that it had the greatest impact on the world, or that we have historical accounts from several authors of the events, which read like personal accounts of a single event would read.

Most unique version of salvation? Well, if I had to choose, I'd go for the virgins. ;)

I can give you all of these, but that won't make a person believe. There are only two things that would make a person believe:

1. They actually see a supernatural event occur before them.
2. They are called by God through faith.

1. That's called a "delusion". There are no supernatural events, at most currently unexplainable.
2. Calling through faith? Is that cheaper than mobile?

Neither of those meets the requirements of a Skeptic in regard to evidence with is reproducible, so you have no reason to believe or follow.

Exactly.

This is why the Bible says that the message of Christ is a stumbling block of Jews, and foolishness to Greeks.

And a pile of garbage to some.

It fully admits that the message is foolishness, and only those who are called will believe, not because they reasoned that it was true, but because God gave them faith.

They could have made better use of some more brainpower.

What evidence would be proof that the universe was created by an intelligent being? What would be proof for you?

What a stupid question. Well duh, any proof that rests on observable facts and valid logic.

Logically one can prove that there is no such thing as a square circle. One doesn't need anything but logic for that. You don't need to do scientific research to discover that truth. Not all truths are discovered through science.

Oh, really? Please give me an example of truth that hasn't been discovered through science.

It's based in fact, in that Jesus did live, and he was the son of God, because others saw what he did and wrote it down for us to read. So then it comes down to whether or not you trust the authors.

Even if we assume that Jesus existed (which is NOT a fact), and in addition that the NT is an accurate description of his deeds (also NOT a fact), any second-rate magician could replicate those. And then some.

In addition, there is no reason whatsoever to trust the authors.

devnull

12th October 2009, 03:34 AM

In addition, there is no reason whatsoever to trust the authors.

Any more than we would trust that Harry Potter is a factual account 2000 years from now.

BobTheDonkey

12th October 2009, 03:58 AM

Any more than we would trust that Harry Potter is a factual account 2000 years from now.

Interestingly enough, the accuracy of the NT has been discussed at a fairly great length here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124603

No substantial evidence has been provided (and all bits of unsubstantial/circumstantial "evidence" provided have been thoroughly refuted).

HAM: Claiming that your God chooses who will believe and who won't by:

a) Who he performs supernatural events in front of
b) Choosing who he will and will not provide faith to

makes him unjust and not worthy of worship. He has set out to doom people simply by not giving them the necessary elements required to become un-doomed. It's not my fault I don't believe, I was simply never chosen by your god to believe. Therefore I deserve hell? That is hardly a fair and just god.

AdinDraco

12th October 2009, 04:20 AM

Interestingly enough, the accuracy of the NT has been discussed at a fairly great length here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124603

No substantial evidence has been provided (and all bits of unsubstantial/circumstantial "evidence" provided have been thoroughly refuted).

HAM: Claiming that your God chooses who will believe and who won't by:

a) Who he performs supernatural events in front of
b) Choosing who he will and will not provide faith to

makes him unjust and not worthy of worship. He has set out to doom people simply by not giving them the necessary elements required to become un-doomed. It's not my fault I don't believe, I was simply never chosen by your god to believe. Therefore I deserve hell? That is hardly a fair and just god.

Well said.

Elizabeth I

12th October 2009, 04:24 AM

This is why the Bible says that the message of Christ is a stumbling block of Jews, and foolishness to Greeks.

You have never answered this: if God didn't lie to the Jews about their being His chosen people, then that means He changed His mind. Since, according to you, He has changed His mind at least once, how do you know He won't do it again? How do you know that He won't decide that this Christianity thing wasn't such a good idea after all - like the chosen people thing - and some other way is really THE way? Then, as the fundamentalists are wont to say, where will you be?

pakeha

12th October 2009, 04:54 AM

Hmmm.
That would compare present-day Christians to 'second wives', then, with that fearful notion:
If he cheated on his first spouse, then he probably will on his second, too.

Interesting.

RoboTimbo

12th October 2009, 05:32 AM

It's a fair question, and the only answer I can honestly give, is that you just know.

The two words, 'know' and 'believe' don't mean the same thing. I seem to recall having this discussion before.

Akhenaten

12th October 2009, 10:40 AM

You have never answered this: if God didn't lie to the Jews about their being His chosen people, then that means He changed His mind. Since, according to you, He has changed His mind at least once, how do you know He won't do it again? How do you know that He won't decide that this Christianity thing wasn't such a good idea after all - like the chosen people thing - and some other way is really THE way? Then, as the fundamentalists are wont to say, where will you be?

Naughtypooword Creek in a barbed-wire canoe and no havingsex paddle?

Cleon

12th October 2009, 11:32 AM

It's more like, God exists, and humans don't want to follow god so they make up their own, because they inherently are made to worship.

Well, that's obviously false, or you wouldn't have people like this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_dawkins).

shuttlt

12th October 2009, 01:46 PM

Well, that's obviously false, or you wouldn't have people like this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_dawkins).
Doesn't he worship this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin)? :D

Mr Clingford

12th October 2009, 01:52 PM

Surely he worships Richard Dawkins?

Marduk

12th October 2009, 02:04 PM

Doesn't he worship this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin)? :D

nobody worships Darwin thesedays, thats just what YEC claim when they are pretending that people are inherently are made to worship.

Theres a big difference between worship and respect, people who respect pay attention, people who worship don't, like how many christians paid attention when Jesus said
“Yes, and I can be even more explicit. You’re hopeless, you religion scholars! You load people down with rules and regulations, nearly breaking their backs, but never lift even a finger to help.”
;)
fact of the matter is that Darwin was just the start, he didn't prove evolution in his lifetime because he didn't have enough data, that happened later fairly recently
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

GrandMasterFox

12th October 2009, 03:54 PM

I don't see how you can dismiss the idea of a creator for the Universe.

Okay, this one is problematic all on its own. Define "creator for the universe" that could describe God and the big bang at the same time.

Given that it is literally impossible to know what is outside the universe, let alone what existed before the universe

Quite a few assumptions here. First you're assuming that science can't say what's outside the universe. You know, about 1000 years ago people assumed that science won't ever let you fly and nobody considered those magical metal boxes in the sky possible. Maybe in 1000 years people will answer this question too. Maybe even sooner than that.

Second, you're assuming that there is even something outside the universe. That has yet to be proven.

means that science can never answer whether or not God exists.
So? I can't prove that Obama isn't really a time traveling alien that is the real jack the ripper. Does that make it true? No.

"I don't know how to disprove something" is not the same as "it cannot be disproven".

Given that we have intelligence is it so hard to believe that there are greater intelligences than us in existence? Or that all existence has a source, and it is the ultimate intelligence?

Yes it is. Einstien was a smart man. Was his father as smart as him? Smarter? I'm guessing probably not (haven't checked the facts). Smart people can give birth to REALLY stupid people and vise versa.

An intelligent life form does not have to originate from another greater intelligent life form. If you wish to state this as a fact, then prove it first...

But the truth is, not only can you not really prove it - it is actually self contradicting and makes no sense.

if God is the ultimate intelligent life form that no other intelligent life form can surpass it - Then how did God come to exist in the first place?

If you're saying that God originated from a greater intelligent then by your defnition he isn't God - Contradiction to your basic assumption.

If you're saying that God did not originate from a greater intelligent then by admission you're saying that not all intelligence has to emerge from a greater intelligence - Contradiction to your basic assumption.

Feel free to correct me if there's a third option I'm missing here.

Science cannot answer why anything exists, or what existed before the universe, or even what caused the universe to form. These questions can never be answered by science, but are the realm of Philosophers and Theologians.
Okay, so you're going to theologians. Fine. Which ones?
Why is Jesus more likely to have the answer than Muhamad or Budha?

This is the part that I really find funny in most religious disscussions. In the actual bible, God actually understand this significance. More than his current followers it seems.

And he does in fact prove his existence over and over again with those lovely miracles and prophecies. And not some insanely vague thousands of years accross prophecy or barely comprehensive miracles - But those that are clear and are actually quite convincing and take place even the next day.

[Disclaimer, english isn't my native language]
Moses tells God that people won't believe him without proof. God agrees and shows him how to turn his staff to a snake.

Gideon predicted that the following day rain will drop by and cover everything but the fleece and the following day it will be the other way around.

I could go on to cover them all but I'm guessing you're familiar with them enough as is.

So the biblical God realized that it's not up to theologists. It's about actual facts right before our eyes. Saying otherwise... Is actually going against your own God's words.

Brian-M

13th October 2009, 01:12 AM

It's a fair question, and the only answer I can honestly give, is that you just know. I could argue that Christianity has the most unique version of salvation and God, and that it had the greatest impact on the world, or that we have historical accounts from several authors of the events, which read like personal accounts of a single event would read.

"Christianity has the most unique version of salvation and God"

There's nothing particularly unique about the Christian version of salvation and God. It basically comes down to "Believe in our great and powerful God and follow His laws and you will be rewarded in the afterlife. Don't, and you will be punished in the afterlife". Many religions come down to exactly the same thing.

"and that it had the greatest impact on the world"

Um, what impact would that be? Holding back progress during the middle ages? The Spanish Inquisition? Convincing people in countries plagued by AIDS that condoms are evil? This is nothing to boast about.

I suppose you think that Christian religion has some great moral superiority to other religions, but this isn't true. Most religions teach similar basic values.

The only thing "special" about Christianity is that it is so widespread. You can thank Emperor Constantine I for that.

"or that we have historical accounts from several authors of the events, which read like personal accounts of a single event would read."

Amazing that. After a century or two of sorting through a great bunch of folk-tales written long after the events supposedly happened, and arguing over which ones to include, they just happened to choose accounts that mostly agreed with each-other? What a coincidence. :rolleyes:

I can give you all of these, but that won't make a person believe. There are only two things that would make a person believe:

1. They actually see a supernatural event occur before them.
2. They are called by God through faith.

Neither of those meets the requirements of a Skeptic in regard to evidence with is reproducible, so you have no reason to believe or follow.

If God actually wanted people to believe and go to heaven, it would be a very simple matter to convert most of the non-believers in the world either by undeniable supernatural events or "calling" them to him.

If your religion is true, then God has done both at various times in the past. The fact that He doesn't do so now suggest either he does not care if we spend all eternity in Hell, or that he doesn't exist.

It fully admits that the message is foolishness, and only those who are called will believe, not because they reasoned that it was true, but because God gave them faith.

So the only people who believe in your religion are fools and those God chose to have faith? Since God clearly hasn't given us faith... that means we would be fools to believe.

Do you think we are fools?

What evidence would be proof that the universe was created by an intelligent being? What would be proof for you?

There are many things that would convince me. Personally, Douglas Adams' idea of mountain ranges arranged to spell out "We apologize for the inconvenience" would be nice, and completely awesome at the same time.

Logically one can prove that there is no such thing as a square circle. One doesn't need anything but logic for that. You don't need to do scientific research to discover that truth. Not all truths are discovered through science.

Here is one definition of science from Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/science):

A particular discipline or branch of learning, especially one dealing with measurable or systematic principles rather than intuition or natural ability.

This would include logic as a branch of science. Not all truths are discovered by science, but only science can determine whether they really are truths.

It's based in fact, in that Jesus did live, and he was the son of God, because others saw what he did and wrote it down for us to read. So then it comes down to whether or not you trust the authors.

What authors? Nobody knows who the authors were. Are you going to trust folk-tales told by story-tellers who weren't even there as fact?

In those days, people didn't have TVs, Computers, Radios. Books were extremely rare and valuable items. People passed the time by telling stories. They made up stories, retold stories they'd already heard, embellishing and inventing as the went along.

There were many stories told about other people (such as Mithras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras)) similar in nature to those told about Jesus in those days. Jesus just happened to be the most popular story of the day, the same way Arthurian legends were popular in the Middle Ages.

________________________________________

This isn't exactly true Brian-M. If anything by definition contradicts itself (such as the god of the bible or a square circle), it can be proven not to exist or be possible.

Sorry... I should have been more specific. For "god" I should have written "a god". There is no way to prove that a god who does not interfere with the universe does not exist, because his existence would make no measurable difference. It's only when dealing with specific Gods, such as the Christian God that things get interesting.

cyborg

13th October 2009, 03:40 AM

What evidence would be proof that the universe was created by an intelligent being? What would be proof for you?

First: what is intelligence?

hamelekim

19th October 2009, 02:56 AM

Originally Posted by hamelekim
Secondly, in the future Christians will be perfect, we will have a nature like God, unable to sin. At that point God won't need all the rules and regulations because by our very nature we will be unable to sin.

This is a contentious claim. Please provide evidence or reasoning to support your claim.

This isn't contentious at all. The Bible is clear that some day Christians will be perfect as God is perfect and incorruptible. Adam and eve were not incorruptible, but some day the saved will become incorruptible.

So they will have the nature of God, being unable to sin because God's nature does not allow him to sin.

Originally Posted by hamelekim
He's the only being in existence that deserves praise and glory. He's infinite and perfect. The creator of everything in existence. He definitely deserves Glory, respect, and worship.

This is a contentious claim. Please provide evidence or reasoning to support your claim.

Not really contentious at all. God wants to be glorified. That is part of his nature. He deserves it because he created everything in existence, because he is perfect, because everything he does is perfection. He is perfect in every single way and perfection deserves glory and worship.

You respect your mother and father, don't you? So why would you not respect the creator of everything in existence even more so?

God is also obviously perfect. God's nature is the only infinite absolute in existence. His nature has always been, and it has always been the same, and always will be the same. Because of this it can be said to be an absolute basis for all morality.

Trying to argue that you are somehow moral and God is not is like trying to argue that gravity is wrong or trying to change the planck length. It is the fundamental essence of existence, unchanging from all eternity, and you cannot do anything about it, and neither can God.

Originally Posted by hamelekim
God owns everything in existence, including our souls, so if he chooses to remove us from this earth, he can do so. We know that everything he does is righteous, so it cannot be wrong.

All of this is being done for a specific purpose and plan that God laid out before the foundation of the earth.

This is a contentious claim. Please provide evidence or reasoning to support your claim.

I already gave a partial answer above, so I will continue here.

Since God's nature is a universal absolute, that has always existed, and always will, anything God does is by his very nature "right". What exactly makes your finite morality correct while God's morality, which always existed and always will exist, wrong?

God has infinite knowledge, wisdom, and intelligence, along with his nature which is absolute, while you have...? Or very natures are an abomination to the universe, which is reason enough to destroy us outright. It's like matter and anti-matter. But God has decided to allow such an abomination to exist in order that his will is done.

Given God's nature is perfect, since it is the basis of everything in existence, anything God does is inherently perfect. So God cannot do anything that is wrong, according to the absolute morality that is God's nature.

Originally Posted by hamelekim
There's plenty of evidence, but you don't believe it is valid. It isn't fact that it isn't valid.

Please show us some of this evidence you keep telling us about.

Assuming, of course, that such evidence actually does exist.

The Bible is evidence for one. It is evidence from personal experience of the writers, but it is still evidence. It is certainly enough evidence to win a court case, although not reproducible evidence to be scientifically valid.

You have philosophical arguments which are valid.

I would argue that cellular complexity is evidence of God, but you can come up with any explanation for that, as long as it isn't God. God isn't an acceptable answer, to you, in that case, which doesn't make it a wrong answer.

Twiler

19th October 2009, 03:10 AM

If whatever YHVH does is perfect, then the universe will turn out however he/she wants, thus it doesn't matter whether we worship him/her or not.

hamelekim

19th October 2009, 03:18 AM

If whatever YHVH does is perfect, then the universe will turn out however he/she wants, thus it doesn't matter whether we worship him/her or not.

That isn't an excuse. Those who are saved will worship God, and those who aren't, will not.

Twiler

19th October 2009, 03:23 AM

That isn't an excuse. Those who are saved will worship God, and those who aren't, will not.

How do you know that's not just a ruse by YHVH to bring about the correct series of events?

Remember, YHVH can lie, and that would be morally correct.

Is your mind perfect? Do you know everything? Is it perfect compared to YHVH?

BobTheDonkey

19th October 2009, 03:55 AM

This isn't contentious at all. The Bible is clear that some day Christians will be perfect as God is perfect and incorruptible. Adam and eve were not incorruptible, but some day the saved will become incorruptible.

So they will have the nature of God, being unable to sin because God's nature does not allow him to sin.

Not really contentious at all. God wants to be glorified. That is part of his nature. He deserves it because he created everything in existence, because he is perfect, because everything he does is perfection. He is perfect in every single way and perfection deserves glory and worship.

You respect your mother and father, don't you? So why would you not respect the creator of everything in existence even more so?

God is also obviously perfect. God's nature is the only infinite absolute in existence. His nature has always been, and it has always been the same, and always will be the same. Because of this it can be said to be an absolute basis for all morality.

Trying to argue that you are somehow moral and God is not is like trying to argue that gravity is wrong or trying to change the planck length. It is the fundamental essence of existence, unchanging from all eternity, and you cannot do anything about it, and neither can God.

I already gave a partial answer above, so I will continue here.

Since God's nature is a universal absolute, that has always existed, and always will, anything God does is by his very nature "right". What exactly makes your finite morality correct while God's morality, which always existed and always will exist, wrong?

God has infinite knowledge, wisdom, and intelligence, along with his nature which is absolute, while you have...? Or very natures are an abomination to the universe, which is reason enough to destroy us outright. It's like matter and anti-matter. But God has decided to allow such an abomination to exist in order that his will is done.

Given God's nature is perfect, since it is the basis of everything in existence, anything God does is inherently perfect. So God cannot do anything that is wrong, according to the absolute morality that is God's nature.

The Bible is evidence for one. It is evidence from personal experience of the writers, but it is still evidence. It is certainly enough evidence to win a court case, although not reproducible evidence to be scientifically valid.

You have philosophical arguments which are valid.

I would argue that cellular complexity is evidence of God, but you can come up with any explanation for that, as long as it isn't God. God isn't an acceptable answer, to you, in that case, which doesn't make it a wrong answer.

Do you believe, since God condones slavery, rape, murder (of your enemy/children), that despite whatever our current society believes these things (rape, murder, slavery, et al) are in all actuality morally good?

Does it concern you at all that while you propose that your god is morally perfect and we cannot question his morality, his morality (if you believe that Jesus is part of the Holy Trinity) changes from the OT to the NT? (For instance, OT God says: "Destroy your enemies, rape their women, enslave their children, etc" NT God says: "Love thine enemy/Turn the other cheek"). Or, like the other resident proselytizers, do you simply ignore such inconsistencies within the bible?

Correa Neto

19th October 2009, 05:29 AM

...snip...
Not really contentious at all. God wants to be glorified. That is part of his nature. He deserves it because he created everything in existence, because he is perfect, because everything he does is perfection. He is perfect in every single way and perfection deserves glory and worship.
...snip...
Whoa! Looks like a severe case of Pride - the first and most serious of the seven deadly sins, the ultimate source of sin.

pakeha

19th October 2009, 05:42 AM

...This is the part that I really find funny in most religious disscussions. In the actual bible, God actually understand this significance. More than his current followers it seems.

And he does in fact prove his existence over and over again with those lovely miracles and prophecies. And not some insanely vague thousands of years accross prophecy or barely comprehensive miracles - But those that are clear and are actually quite convincing and take place even the next day.

[Disclaimer, english isn't my native language]
Moses tells God that people won't believe him without proof. God agrees and shows him how to turn his staff to a snake.

Gideon predicted that the following day rain will drop by and cover everything but the fleece and the following day it will be the other way around.

I could go on to cover them all but I'm guessing you're familiar with them enough as is.

So the biblical God realized that it's not up to theologists. It's about actual facts right before our eyes. Saying otherwise... Is actually going against your own God's words.

An interesting post and your English is excellent.

My only issue would be:
What is the source for those miracles and prophecies? Something written after the event?

RoboTimbo

19th October 2009, 05:54 AM

The Bible is evidence for one.

You should note the title of the thread.

laca

19th October 2009, 06:09 AM

You should note the title of the thread.

Exactly... hamelekim, that's a major FAIL...

tsig

19th October 2009, 07:24 AM

That isn't an excuse. Those who are saved will worship God, and those who aren't, will not.

Can't see worshiping making a lick of difference. God chooses who he wills and condemns those he wills. Unless you're trying to convince yourself.

Paulhoff

19th October 2009, 09:30 AM

That isn't an excuse. Those who are saved will worship God, and those who aren't, will not.
So, what is the down side of not worshipping your poor idea of a so-called god.

Paul

:) :) :)

Elizabeth I

19th October 2009, 11:09 AM

This isn't contentious at all. The Bible is clear that some day Christians will be perfect as God is perfect and incorruptible. Adam and eve were not incorruptible, but some day the saved will become incorruptible.

But only some Christians, right? Just the elect? How do you know you will be among them? What if you have done all this worshipping and witnessing and praying and praising and you wind up damned with all the atheists?

After all (for at least the fourth time), God has already changed his mind at least once. He made a promise to the Jews, then changed the terms of the deal. So what if he's just fooling you? Or what if he changes his mind again?

Not really contentious at all. God wants to be glorified. That is part of his nature.

So God is a cosmic emo kid?

Brian-M

19th October 2009, 04:55 PM

First of all, thank you hamelekim for taking the time to actually respond. I wasn't sure you would.

(For everyone else, this is continued from the free will (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=156707&page=3) thread. I asked him to post his responses here because it seemed more appropriate.)

This isn't contentious at all. The Bible is clear that some day Christians will be perfect as God is perfect and incorruptible. Adam and eve were not incorruptible, but some day the saved will become incorruptible.

One definition of "contentious" taken my copy of The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is "Given to contention; prone to strife or dispute; quarrelsome"

Most non-Christians (and there are many on this site) would strongly disagree with your statement, some of whom would feel inclined to dispute it, or even quarrel with you over it. This makes your statement, by definition, contentious.

(And while I may not agree with your statement, by calling it "contentious" I wasn't saying you're wrong, I was giving the reason why you should provide evidence or argument to support your statement. I'm still waiting to hear it.)

To convince us of the validity of your statement you should at the very least tell us the source of your information (in this case, I'm guessing it's Revelations 21 from The Bible).

If your source of information is The Bible, then we have a problem. Many of us consider The Bible to be little more than a collection of ancient folk tales. If you want us to accept The Bible as a source of factual information, you must first demonstrate that The Bible can be relied upon as a source of factual information.

All assertions based on Biblical claims share this same problem, we have yet to see any evidence that the Bible is true.

God is also obviously perfect. God's nature is the only infinite absolute in existence. His nature has always been, and it has always been the same, and always will be the same. Because of this it can be said to be an absolute basis for all morality.

How can he be "obviously perfect" when we have no reliable information about him, not even reliable evidence that he even exists?

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that The Bible is true, then many things God does, such as mass murder, would be considered immoral, and even evil, if it were done by men. So God's actions cannot be a basis for moral behavior. in fact some of the laws that your God supposedly gave to us directly are not not generally considered to be morally acceptable, such as Exodus 31:15 which tells us to kill anyone who works on the Sabbath, or Exodus 21:20-21, which tells us that beating a slave with a stick so severely that he can't even stand up is fine, as long as he doesn't die, and is up and about after a day or two.

So, if neither your Gods words nor his actions are absolutely moral, how can he possibly be regarded as an absolute basis of morality?

God has infinite knowledge, wisdom, and intelligence, along with his nature which is absolute, while you have...?

While I have a verifiable factual existence in reality. :p

Given God's nature is perfect, since it is the basis of everything in existence, anything God does is inherently perfect. So God cannot do anything that is wrong, according to the absolute morality that is God's nature.

If God's nature is the basis of everything in existence, and anything God does is inherently perfect a reflection of God's nature, wouldn't the existence of imperfections in nature mean that God is imperfect?

The Bible is evidence for one. It is evidence from personal experience of the writers, but it is still evidence. It is certainly enough evidence to win a court case, although not reproducible evidence to be scientifically valid.

Leaving aside the fact that witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, the fact is, to the best of our knowledge, none of the stories of The Bible are first-hand accounts. They are just hearsay, and hearsay is not admitable as evidence in a court of law.

The Bible is oral tradition in written form, which puts it in the same category as Grimm's Fairy Tales and the legends of King Arthur in terms of "evidence".

I would argue that cellular complexity is evidence of God, but you can come up with any explanation for that, as long as it isn't God. God isn't an acceptable answer, to you, in that case, which doesn't make it a wrong answer.

Complex structures can and do form naturally all the time. Why would we assume God had anything to do with it?

It's not a case of "any explanation except God", it's a case of "a natural explanation if far more likely than a supernatural one".

We have no reliable evidence that God exists.
We have vast mounds of evidence for natural processes.

So do we accept the carefully researched and meticulously checked explanations based on demonstrable natural processes as probably true, or should we just give up and say "God Did It"?