Would We Believe This Time?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by monkspider
Don't listen to him Kit, continue to worship God and dont' be intimidated into not doing so, even though Ethel here may try to tell you otherwise, those stars, and everything else in the unverse couldn't have simply couldn't have popped out of nothingness. Don't give up, and god bless.

Come now, Ethelred has never advocated people stop believing in God. He's simply pointing out how one particular representation of God imagined by men (Jehovah) is a rather unflattering, contradictory and historically false representation.

He knows as well as I do it is 100% impossible to disprove the existance of God. It is, however, 100% possible to disprove Jehovah as described in the Bible, and it has already been done so.

Did you actually read the Bible? You sure seem to short on clues about the many innocents that were murdered in it. Jehovah once demanded that the Israelites kill everything in a city. Children and animals as well as adults.

Only an idiot needs to think for more than 2 seconds how this got in the Bible. The Israelites conquered a land and brutally slaughtered its people, and then after the fact made up a story that God told them to do it, hereby making it seem like the right thing to do and absolving them of any guilt in the matter. How those who believe the Bible can't see the contradiction in claiming Jehovah doesn't do evil, evil is man's free will and then look at Jehovah making people do evil is beyond me...

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by monkspider
I am not going to comment too much in this thread, but from just browsing over it I just want to comment on the archetypal "arguement from evil" some posters are presenting here. Essentially what some of the posters are are saying is If God does exist, why is there so much evil in the world? God is all-knowing, and of perfect morals, right? Why does he allow evil to exist?

Well I sure didn't say that.

I said if god is good why does he kill innocents. I think it is important to understand just what you are accepting if you believe the Bible is true.

The problem of evil is certainly the greatest obstacle to belief in the existence of God for most people, I presume even yourself Ethel ol chum.

You presume wrong. I compare reality and the claims about god and find the two are irreconcilable. The Bible and the world we live in do not match. Not even close on many things.

Logical Version
According to the logical problem of evil, it is logically impossible for God and evil to coexist. If God exists, then evil cannot exist. If evil exists, then God cannot exist. Since evil exists, it follows that God does not exist.

No one took that tack on this thread. So I am going to skip over most of what you invented here. I will just deal with your more egregious errors. How about your try dealing with what was REALLY said on this thread instead of digging up a straw man.

B. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and his purpose.

Only if the Bible is not the crock it so clearly is. I can't rebell against something that doesn't exist.

Rather than submit to and worship God,

Worshipping a god makes no sense. Why should a god need such a thing? That is human thinking. Weak human thinking.

D. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.

I see no good in a god that kills infants. Fortunatly the Bible is so false its clear there is no reason to believe in the god that is in the Bible.

To know God, the source of infinite goodness and love,

And murder and revenge and the slaughter of nearly everyone on
Earth if you actually believe the nonsense that is in Genesis and other parts of the Bible.

Wishfull thinking like this non-Biblical god you are hypothesizing is just that. Whishfull thinking.

These four Christian doctrines greatly reduce any improbability which evil would seem to throw upon the existence of God.

You haven't actually read the Bible have you?

You seem to be big on a non-Biblical god.

However, all this takes us to the emotional problem of evil. I think that most people who reject God because of the evil in the world don’t do so because of intellectual difficulties.

Straw man. There is no evidence to support the existance of your god. In fact your specific version of god sure isn't Jehovah. Doesn't even come close to matching his actions in the Bible.

Rather, it’s an emotional problem: they just don’t like a God who permits suffering, and therefore they want nothing to do with Him. Theirs is simply an atheism of rejection. Am I right on this Ethel et al? Does the Christian faith have something to say to these people?

Straw man. I suppose there are some Atheists that think that way. I however see no reason to believe a god that is clearly described as doing things that never happened.

It certainly does! It tells us that God is not a distant Creator or an impersonal Ground of Being, but a loving Father Who shares our sufferings and hurts with us. Professor Plantinga has written,

Has invented a god that is non-biblical. He carefully ignores all the actions of Jehovah in the Old Testament.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. (most atheists will agree on this point)

There are no objective morals. Even with your god since he clearly does not see fit to follow those morals and has even demanded his follower break them.

2. Evil exists.

Yes it does but we define it. I see evil as anti-life. That covers a god that slaughers nearly all of mankind and innocent children. Fortunatly your god doesn't exist since the attrocities attributed to him never happened. There was no Flood so there is no reason to believe in the God of the Flood.

3. Therefore, objective values exist. (Some things are really evil.)

Evil is just a word and not sign of objective moral values.

You not only haven't read Genesis you haven't taken a logic class.

4. Therefore, God exists.

False premises AND bad logic both. No wonder you are asserting you have proved something you haven't.

And thus evil only calls into question God's existence on a superficial level. On a deeper philosophical level evil actually demonstrates the existence of God because evil, as such, could not exist without God.

Evil does not require a god no matter how much evil Jehovah is purported to have done in the Bible. Your logic is inept. Your premises are false. You have been argueing against something no one on this thread said.

How about you stop ignoring what was actually said and start dealing with it instead of Straw Men and using bad logic even then.

Thanks for hearing me outl .

Thanks for creating a Straw Man for you to argue against. You also used false premises and poor logic even though you made up both sides of your arguement.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by monkspider
Don't listen to him Kit, continue to worship God and dont' be intimidated into not doing so,

Didn't you just claim that christianity didn't require you to hide from reality. Now you are telling him to do exactly that.

even though Ethel here may try to tell you otherwise, those stars, and everything else in the unverse couldn't have simply couldn't have popped out of nothingness. Don't give up, and god bless.

God couldn't have simply popped into existence either. Claiming he always existed doesn't make him more likely. Its is EVERY BIT as likely that the laws of physics (or at least a metaphysics) existed without the specific Universe we live in. Mathematics does not need a Universe to be true. Math does not need space and time.

I am not claiming here that there is not god. Simply that an eternal god is no more likely than an eternal meta-verse. The god of the Bible however does not fit our universe or our world. That specific god does not exist. Heck YOUR version of Jehovah is quite different from the one in the Bible. You are no christian either.

[Boris Godunov]

Heck YOUR version of Jehovah is quite different from the one in the Bible. You are no christian either.

Now, Ethelred, that's not fair. One need not believe in the literal occurences of the Bible to be a Christian. It simply means one believes in the message and is a follower of Jesus Christ. One can even call one's self a Christian and not believe in Christ's being divine (I know a few like that). What one says is "Christian" is as subjective as what one thinks is "evil" or "good"

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Didn't you just claim that christianity didn't require you to hide from reality. Now you are telling him to do exactly that.

I'm not asking that Kit hide from reality, only from your deceit. Nothing personal of course Ethel ol' chum.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by CyberShy
You try to judge God on your own standards.

*IF* there's a god indeed that created this earth and the entire universe, the solar systems and the micro bacteria, do you really think that a pathatic human being like you (or me) has enough knowledge, wisdom and capacities to judge God on what he did, while you have no clue about why he did it and what the concequences are if he would not have done it ?

If God is so far above us and is so incredibly powerful that we cannot possibly understand his intentions and motives, why should we bother to listen to what he says? Why should we do anything he says without any proof that what he does is in anyway a good thing. If he is so far above us, how do we know he is not trying to destroy and won't tell us why he's doing this because he doesnt want us to find out. I can't possibly listen to someone who's reasoning is, "I'm not going to reason wiht, you wouldn't understand" which is what your God does.

I completely encourage every discussion about God or religion, but I'm growing sick and weary of the stupiditous and arrogant hoax of these days to 'blame god' and use this simplistic theory ass an excuse to be an atheist.

CyberShy

I think religious people need to prove the existence of God. When you really think about, the idea that an omnipotent, omniscient being created all of us for reasons we cannot understand and has done all of what he has done for inexplicable reasons is a laughable idea. The only reason we accept such an idea is because it is drilled into our minds almost the moment we are born. We only believe such a ridiculous tale because that's the way it's been for thousands of years and we're used to the idea now. But if you actually think about it, there is no proof that a god exists or that a god even need exist. Until he comes down and says to me, "Lookey lookey I'm here. I'll explode that tree for you if you want proof" I see no reason to believe something so ridiculous.

In case of editing: I did not edit this as I was in a hurry. After writing what I wrote, I think a lot of what I said isn't very logical, at least not the first part. Well umm, I didn't explain it fully that is. Too tired and in a hurry... anyways...

[monkspider]

Also Ethel I think your main problem in accepting Christianity is the fallacies of the flood story , at least this is a problem that you seem to reiterate. I have done some research on the flood story, and I now am quite certain that it was, in fact, a localized flood. In fact, I'm fairly certain that it was the legendary Black Sea Flood. Here is are a few quotes from the Washington post. "WASHINGTON — Scientists have discovered an ancient coastline 17 meters below the surface of the Black Sea, providing dramatic new evidence of a sudden, catastrophic flood around 7,500 years ago" Skipping ahead a bit in the article. "An apocalyptic deluge followed, inundating the freshwater lake below the dam, submerging thousands of square kilometers of dry land, flipping the ecosystem from fresh to salt water practically overnight, and probably killing thousands of people and billions of land and sea creatures, according to Ryan and Pitman. " (source: http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news165.htm)
Now it is interesting to note that this is at about the exact time and place of Noah . But the Bible makes it clear that it has to be a worldwide flood..or does it? Let's examine the verses a bit.
Those who argue a biblical case for a local Flood believe that Scripture can support this position. They believe terms used in Genesis do not force one to believe in a universal Flood.

1.All Does Not Always Mean All
Though the word all is found throughout the Flood account, it is not necessary to assume that it is used in a universal sense. There are many places in the Bible where all does not mean every last one. For example.

Joel 3:2 reads:



I will gather all nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. There I will enter into judgment against them concerning my inheritance, My people Israel, for they scattered My people among the nations and divided up my land (Joel 3:2).
Though the Scripture says all nations, we know from the context that the nations are limited to those around Judah and Jerusalem.

Another example can be found in the statement of Cyrus.
Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the LORD his God be with him! Let him go up (2 Chronicles 36:23).
His kingdom, though great, did not encompass the entire globe.

Therefore all does not mean every last one. Therefore when we find the term all in Scripture, the context has to tell us if it means every last one. It is not always necessary to assume that it is used in a universal sense.

2.Universal Language Is Often Hyperbolic

In Scripture, universal language is often hyperbolic - deliberate exaggeration for effect. For example, the Apostle Paul wrote:



If you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant (Colossians 1:23).
This is obvious exaggeration. Not everyone, everywhere in the earth had heard the gospel at this time.

This is another indication that universal expressions in Scripture are not necessarily universal. The context must be the determining factor. Statements which sound universal in the English Bible may have a local reference.

The universal terms could have been used to emphasize that this was no normal flood. Though local in extent, it nevertheless was devastating in its destruction.

3.The Hebrew Word Earth Can Be Translated Land

The Hebrew term eretz translated earth in Genesis 6-8 should be translated land instead of earth. The word eretz is used more than 2,500 times in the Old Testament with 80% of the time being translated land rather than earth. Therefore, the Hebrew writers employed the wordrather than earth. Therefore, the Hebrew writers employed the word with its much more restricted meaning about four times as frequently as they employed it with a broader meaning. What is in view, in the Flood account, is not the entire earth, but the land around Noah.

If the word land is substituted for earth in the Flood account then the passage has an entirely different sense. Consider how the passage would then be understood.



Now the land was corrupt in God's sight, and the land was filled with violence. And God saw that the land was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the land. For my part, I am going to bring a flood of waters on the land, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the land shall die (Genesis 6:11,12,17). The point is as follows: the extent of the Flood cannot be decisively settled based upon the Hebrew word for earth.
4.Hebrews Had Better Word For Entire Earth
When the Hebrews wished to convey the idea of the whole habitable earth, they used the word tetel, as in Psalm 24:1.



The earth is the LORD's and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it (Psalm 24:1).

This word is not found in the Genesis Flood account – another indication that the entire earth is not in view.

Not As Clear As It Seems
Consequently, the words all and the whole earth, which are found throughout the Flood narrative, may not really be as widespread in their implications as the text seems to state. The Hebrew language cannot, by itself, be decisive in determining the extent of the Flood.

5.Emphasis On Promised Land
The writer of Genesis was mainly concerned about God's covenant people and the land which they were promised – it was not on the entire globe. Old Testament authority, John Sailhamer, writes.



Two primary themes dominate the Creation account: the land and the blessing. In recounting the events of Creation, the author has selected and arranged the narrative to allow these themes full development. The preparation of the land and the divine blessing are important to the author or Genesis (and the Pentateuch) because these two themes form the basis of his treatment of the patriarchal narratives and the Sinai covenant. In translating the Hebrew word eretz (earth) in 1:1-2, the English versions have blurred the connection of these early verses of Genesis to the central theme of the land in the Pentateuch. Although eretz can be translated by either earth or land, the general term land in English more closely approximates its use in chapter 1. Thus from the start the author betrays his interest in the covenant by concentrating on the land in the account of creation.

Consequently a local Flood that covered the Promised Land is consistent with his emphasis.


Therefore, I think your qualms with the biblical flood are illfounded, in fact, I think this account of the black sea flood gives the bible even more clout as being historically accurate. I hope that perhaps this information will help you view the bible in a more positive light in the future Ethy.

[Boris Godunov]

[SIZE=1]
I think religious people need to prove the existence of God.

Well, no they don't, at least not for reasons of their own personal beliefs.

However, the second they try to shove their religious beliefs on others via public policy, then yes, they have to not only prove the existence of their god, but that he is also a benevolent god who has the best interests of society in his heart.

Jehovah doesn't, IMO, measure up.

And since it is impossible to either prove or disprove God, then it is time for the religious folks who are fanatically trying to get evolution out of the schools, or put creationism in, or put the 10 Commandments on Federal Buildings, to kindly shut up and go away.

[Boris Godunov]

Monkspider:

While interesting, that certainly doesn't explain the lunacy of the Ark. All it shows is that a great flood happened in that region. No one is denying that such a flood may be the BASIS for the Biblical flood story, just as one was probably the BASIS for the flood of Gilgamesh.

However, the Bible is quite specific in giving the Ark's dimensions, and saying that Noah took 2 of every living creature on board, they floated for 40 days and nights, etc. This is all patently absurd and physically impossible. A 500 foot-long all-wood vessel couldn't be made today to be seaworthy, and certainly not then. And given the timeframe the Bible says it took to construct, the wood of the Ark would have rotted to ruin as fast as they were building it. And again, all those animals on one boat for 40 days? Not a chance.

[Lincoln]

You fail to consider Boris that the God of the Bible claims to perform miracles. Why do atheists ignore this when they claim to be refuting the claims of scripture? A miracle by definition ignores or supercedes the laws of physics so unless you can prove that Jesus did not claim to walk on water of raise the dead or make the universe then you are barking up the wrong tree. If God can create life and create the universe then surely he can keep wood from rotting etc. Obviously there is a claim of miracles that defy the laws of physics so it is foolish to argue from that point of view.

On the other hand, I don't understand creationists who try and defend a supernatural being by resorting exclusively to the laws of nature. The essence of God defies the laws so there will never be a reconciliation by resort to them alone. For one thing God claimed to have spoken light into existence. If he controls light then he controls time and the laws of physics.

[Lincoln]

Anyway in answer to the question the answer is, no. People will not believe because they like darkness rather than light. "They profess themselves to be wise so they have become fools."

[Bereta_Eder]

I was reading about a quest by some scientists to discover the "limits" of the laws of the material world.

In other words, when, if ever, does chance or "divine interferance" take over.

They ended up in the sub-molecular atomic substance of a metal IIRC the name of which escapes me at this moment.

The nucleus of this atom is very unstable.
It has EXACTLY a 50% propability that it will destabilize something that will lead to the rotting (don't know the word in english) of the metal.

And of course it has EXACTLY 50% propability that it will remain stable and the metal will remain intact.

It was at this point that they said they "discovered" one point where "God" can actually interfere and change the course of the material world without violating the laws of physics.

Or plain luck.

It was somewhat interesting.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln
You fail to consider Boris that the God of the Bible claims to perform miracles. Why do atheists ignore this when they claim to be refuting the claims of scripture? A miracle by definition ignores or supercedes the laws of physics so unless you can prove that Jesus did not claim to walk on water of raise the dead or make the universe then you are barking up the wrong tree. If God can create life and create the universe then surely he can keep wood from rotting etc. Obviously there is a claim of miracles that defy the laws of physics so it is foolish to argue from that point of view.

On the other hand, I don't understand creationists who try and defend a supernatural being by resorting exclusively to the laws of nature. The essence of God defies the laws so there will never be a reconciliation by resort to them alone. For one thing God claimed to have spoken light into existence. If he controls light then he controls time and the laws of physics.

Such a God is, of course, stupid. Why would Jehovah, in all his supposed omnipotence, bother creating a universe with such complex laws of physics and matter, only to have to violate them at every turn? Any smart God would have, since he is omnipotent, known from the beginning of time that the Flood was going to happen, and planned accordingly. He thereby would have made it so it wasn't necessary to waste his time with miracles, the laws of physics just would have accomadated what he wanted to happen.

Instead, by his own piss-poor planning, he must act like the plate spinner, making miracle after miracle just to get a decent story for his Bible. What a schmuck. This is how a lot of federal employees work. Jehovah should have worked smarter, not harder. A little bit of planning on his part would have saved him a lot of trouble.

I would much rather put faith in a less inept deity, thank you very much.

[Lincoln]

I think the word you are looking for is "decay". Metal and wood can decay but only wood can "rot". Anyway that is my English lesson for today.

[Bereta_Eder]

Ok thanks