Prove(or provide overwhelming evidence) to me the existance, or non existance of God

[ckweb]

Woah!



I wrote a post on page 5 just yesterday and suddenly boom 4 pages of posts! Yikes. The funny thing is that only one person commented on my post. Oh well.

Hey Ethel and Jack -- nice to see you guys again ( I assume your male ). You stopped posting to the other thread we had going so I thought you lost the appetite for religious discussions. Oh well, it was for the best . . . I was spending way too much time posting anyways and needed to stop.

Ethel, it's kind of weird agreeing on something here.

But, I did want to point something out. Within orthodox Christianity, the present day purpose of the Ten Commandments is not to prescribe good Christian living as you suggested a couple posts back (although, true, they are not totally irrelevant to this aim). The Ten Commandments are an indictment that holiness and righteousness are beyond the human grasp apart from faith and due to sin. In the NT, Jesus makes this point in his Sermon on the Mount. The Pharisees believed that through their legalistic adherence to the laws of the OT they made themselves righteous before God and hence were deserving of their place in his kingdom. Jesus points out that while they do practice the letter of the law, they do not practice its spirit. In fact, Jesus goes on to use hyperbole to reveal the extent to which they would have to go to follow the law perfectly, i.e. with the command of adultery, Jesus points out that they would have to cut out their eyes in order to avoid even lustful thoughts of adultery. Of course, God's message through Jesus is that salvation is not based on successful adherence to a set of moral principles, which are otherwise impossible for humans to follow perfectly. Rather, salvation is based on true faith in Jesus, whose righteousness then becomes our righteousness through Christ's substitionary sacrifice. Even in the OT it was recognized that salvation came not through adherence to the law but through faith. The purpose of the OT sacrificial system was to provide a outward ritual that reflected this inward reality. Anyways, just a point of clarification. No biggie.

Jack: The majority of the Bible was not written after or around 200 B.C.E. You are stating a minority opinion as fact. There are only a select group of minimalist scholars, i.e. Lemche, Van Seters, who adhere to such an outlandish theory. While they make some important contributions to our understanding of history and the biblical text, their theories simply cannot explain how the body of literature in the OT reflects on itself as if for centuries or what purpose would have existed around 200 B.C.E. to lead someone to write certain books. Only a few OT books could have been written after or around 200 B.C.E. Books such as Daniel and maybe Chronicles (though I'd date the latter around 300-400 B.C.E.). There are a few others to which an argument might be made. Anyways, not really relevant to the broader discussion but I can't help but pine away . . .

[loinburger]

Originally posted by ckweb
I wrote a post on page 5 just yesterday and suddenly boom 4 pages of posts! Yikes. The funny thing is that only one person commented on my post. Oh well.

Sorry bout that, I didn't think that anybody would care if it got a bit jacked...

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Sava
The Judeo-Christian perception of God likely doesn't exist. But nobody can say God doesn't or does exist. IMO, you shouldn't believe in anything you don't know is true (or a theory/idea that doesn't have loads of evidence supporting it). The only things I believe as truth is that "I exist", "I don't know why I exist", "I don't know the nature of my existence, i.e. if I was created by a being, or if I'm just a random occurance". It is foolish to believe in any religion as truth. I don't need a god to teach me morals, and I think its sad that god is the reason people defend their morals.

Sava, what if through personal experience I knew God existed? Would it be foolish to believe in God? Would it be foolish to seek out his/her/its guidance?

You may not have experienced God and so you refuse to believe. I have experienced God and so I believe. Why should your experiences take precedence over mine? Why should your experiences and consequently your beliefs serve as my guide? Why should I trust your interpretation of my experiences rather than my own interpretation?

BTW, it is not as foolish as you suggest, even if God does not exist, to use religion as one source of truth. Religion as it has been institutionalized is built, at least in part, on the attempts of successive generations to perceive certain truths about human conduct. Anyone seeking morality would do well to study and consider how others have defined it, don't you think? I think its foolish to rely only on yourself for guidance in morals, especially when the world consists of so many other people with minds and actions superior to our own. It seems only natural to consult others. Its like anything in life: seek out authorities on a subject if you really want to know something. I'd say Buddha, having studied and examined morality all his life, had some very important insights that are worth your consideration. Not having this humility to seek help only means you worship at the shrine of Sava, which is as sad or moreso than the thing you condemn.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by loinburger


Sorry bout that, I didn't think that anybody would care if it got a bit jacked...

Hey, no worries. I just thought it was funny.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Ethelred
You DID make an assumption about before. You assumed the Universe needed a cause.

That depends whether you believe the cause is before, or at the same time. Given time starts at the birth of the universe it isn't before. Now if you were concerned about things being outside time, that's a different matter, but how the cause came about is not particularly relevant. the important thing is that it's there.

No. That was reducio ad absurdum not proof of a god. If your assumption leeds to an infinite regression you most likely have a bad assumption.

My assumptions didn't, your's did. (But who says something is absurd anyway, when considering things outside of this universe and time ? Not sure you can apply the same rules there.) Anyway, like I said, it isn't relevant. One God will do, your many are just a bonus. Just don't expect me to agree with your "Many Gods" theory.

I didn't lose a cause. I gave up an unjustifiable assumption. Your assumption results in an infinite regression unless you put a wholely arbritary stop on it. I just put the stop in earlier which is simpler. One less turn of the assumption machine.

The assumption was that there was a cause. Which I don't see how you can suggest is unjustifiable. If it is, show how a universe comes into existence without a cause. I can only say again that the infinite regression comes from your assumptions, not mine.

But in a nutshell, I can't see how you can argue with the idea that, assuming a cause, it can be called God and thus God exists. If you don't like the initial assumption, suggest an alternative, i.e. how a universe (or anything) comes into being without a cause. That would convince the gallery

[Robert]

Ethelred:

However considering that the Bible is often alleged to be at least be inspired by god in a somewhat direct manner the Bible should be quite a bit more accurate than it is.

I can see your point, but I think you mix 'inspired by God' and 'dictated by God' up too much. The bible is inspired in such a way that the message it brings to us is right. Just a silly example: "Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins under Pilatus." What if appears that Pilatus was not the ruler in those days, but he just changed position with "Hiromus" (all made up by me) and Marcus was wrong on that..... no problem. The message is "Jesus died for our sins"

Besides that, the bible is not dated. It doesn't try to bring over dated science or cultural morals. It does happen in these circumstanses indeed, but it stays away from it though so it's still of great use in the 21st century. The creation story does not even make any scientific statements. All it says is that God created it all in 6 steps. Not how he did it, why he did it or whatever. About all other creation stories come with strange god stories, trowing stones that become humans before they hit the ground, in example.

Its not written by one person.

big mistake by me. I don't know why I typed that. I meant 'by human'.

as can be seen in the many paired stories and in the two versions of creation at the very beginning of Genesis.

I don't see how they conflict. It's an old dated argument and it makes no sence.
They're two descriptions of the same event told from a different position. One is chronoligal, the other isn't.

But if you want to use the argument, go deeper into it, and explain why they contradict.

This no different than the Bible. The humans should pray. The humans should obey.

The bible compares the relation between humans and himself with a bride and her husband.
It does compare it between a father and his children (you're not slaves, you're children)
Do you know the story of the lost son? Do you see how the father waits for his son, how he welcomes him with open arms?

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

this is mankind before the fall.

Thats pretty clear that humans are in charge of the whole of life on Earth.

No, we're not in charge, we are representatives and we get the responsibility to upkeep it.
Thus, not the way we do it in the 21st century.

As Jack pointed out allready the Jews got their asses kicked an awful lot for the Chosen People of God.

because the jews did not listen to God and questioned his authority.
Not because God forgot to protect them or something.

Budism is about as from pride in oneself as it is possible to be.

I'm sorry, I don't get this. might be a language thing.

Make enough predictions and some will come true. Eventually some downtrodden group was bound to achieve their prediction of regaining what they claim they once had. It happened to be the Jews.

How many other 'downtrodden groups' that are scattered around the earth that still exist have these claims right now?
How many groups were actually scattered around the earth unvoluntairy?
How many groups actually prophecied about themselves that they would be scattered around the earth?
What about detail prophecies that forsee troubles with jews returning from the North (Russia) and from the south (ethyopia) while jews from the east and the west come easily?

What about Jerusalem prophecied to be a worldwide problem, about which all kings of the world have an opinion?

What about prophecies by Jesus about 135 AD, when the romans destroyed Jerusalem completely, and took every stone from the other stone of the temple (because the golden roof of the temple melted, and they wanted to scrap the gold from between the stones)

Those are not 'happy to be' prophecies either.

However it has many other parts that prove it wrong.

ok, let's get deeper into this, which parts? (I'm serious, let's discuss them.)

Only in the case of Persia and even that ignores the fact that the Persians are not quite the same as those of the Biblical times even without being Islamic these days.

Neither are the Jews for that matter. European Jews often are indistinguishable from other Europeans unlike full Semites who are very clearly not Europeans.

that's right, but I don't think it does matter.

That may change as well. Saddam Hussein will not live forever.

You expect the ME arabic countries to become friendly to israel soon? (or visa versa)

So does the Bible. That is what the Ten Commandments were for. YOU must obey them.

the 10 commandments (and the rest of moses' laws) are set by God as a standard for those who want to live a rightious life without the help of God.
It's like "Ok, you can have it the way you want it, try it yourself if you don't need me"

But with the coming of Jesus this all changes.
People who want to follow him are free from laws, but morely open their hearts to God's Spirit. They live through the love-law. Love God above all, and all people like you would love yourself.

Much christians want to make christianity a law-and-ritual religion as well. In fact that's what we, humans, like. rituals and laws. (not the western humans though)

And the Universe we see today does not have to follow the same rules of the Universe of the past. Indeed we have good reason to think that it did not. Its true that physics assume the laws of the universe are the same everywhere but there is ample evidence that the early universe had different rules.

rules for mass like gravity, appearance, for atoms electrons and all that might have been different in the past? Why?

Matter CAN pop into existence according to quantum theory and experiments.

these experiments offer a cause to this to happen.
These experiments do not take place under the same circumstanses as the very first beginning. It's impossible to reconstruct a complete empty space, and observe it at the same moment. Pherhaps right now particles and virtual-particles will pop out of nothing (or out of each other) and indeed, the theories about that if you combine all negative energy with positive energy it wil be exact nothing are good an nice. (thus: there is still nothing)

but than we still have the question left open: "What or who splitted all this energy up into positive and negative energy. positive mass and negative mass"
In fact it only brings more proof for creation ex nihilo, only with the same question left open: "What has the power to do it at the complete zero point"

Take in mind that this 'what' cannot be positive or negative mass or energy itself. It must be completely different.

I think the logical answer can only be desribed as "something completely different"
That doesn't mean I can give the logical answer, I can only desribe what it must be like more or less. I have faith that God is the answer.

Mathematics or at least the principles behind it would exist wether the Universe existed or not.

If there's nothing to add to something else, there's no mathematics.
For 1+1=2 you need at least '1'.
If there's no '1' there is no sum.
Like a 'year', what is a year? It is the time the planet earth needs to go around the sun. Without the earth or the sun, the 'year' would have had a complete different meaning.

You were the one that brought up monkeys earlier. Thats why I mentioned it.

that's right. I did that. I thought you refered to my last message.
I think the money-example is a valid one.

typing monkeys can be compared with evolution, BUT you need to put a 'human' with the monkeys who 'selects' the wrong parts they type and trow it away.
Is the example ok this way to you?

things you did not reply to:

CyberShy: it does, it says that if man and woman have sex and have sex with someone else after that, they commit adultery.

I agree again on the evidence thing. But I think I have a point that most ancient men would rather chose polygamy to be an option. It might mean that it has been written by gays or women as well indeed.

it would be nice for a healthy discussion if you would say "you're right" if you think I am. I think I do that all the time as well.
It will provide a more friendly atmosphere. To 'agree' with a counter-argument like this will not make your position less stable.

others:

Ethelred: Is that why Solomon was the blessed of Jehovah? Because he didn't really have hundreds of wives. So the Bible lied about that huh?

CS: the bible says that all man are sinners. So was Solomon, so was David. The bible is clear about that.

CS: Much parts of revelation might be about modern warfire, about globalisation and all that.
So far revelation is not an argument to use by me against others, for the simple reason that it didn't come true yet. But I can imagine it to come true though.

If you compare it to the middle ages, revelations couldn't become true in those days, simple for the fact that the world lacked globalisation. Globalisation was even beyond their imagination.

CS: Like I have said before,
a painter does not have to obey the same rules as a painting.
A baker does not need to same ingredients as a bread, and neiter does a god need to obey to the same rules of his creation.

I know the rules of the 'creation'. I agree that it's hard to imagine god according to these rules, but again, these rules don't have to apply.

your last comment was that you 'had raised the question' about 'the creation of god' before but I ignore it. I can't understand that you ignore my answer to the question, while you were that specific about me ignoring the question........

read the next quotes about that:

You: What would be good would be for you to stop repeating things like the Universe can't come from nothing when that clearly must also apply to any god.

Me: same counts for you. I do not repeat more or less than you do. I can't remember you every rebutted my former argument.

pherhaps you think my answer is a cheap answer.
I can see your point on that, but I can't give any better, and this answer will do.

I think that's it.

greetings,

CyberShy

Ps. to Jack theB, UR, again you guys left the discussion with my last arguments and answered unanswerd. Next time you guys will start again like I never came with those answers. It's getting boring.

Lemmy, will you answers?

[Ethelred]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by SlowwHand


You're as full of crap as Fez is, Big E.
We argued this subject extensively.

[QUOTE]

Usually after I accused you of trying to make another hit and run. You often anounce that you aren't going to respond after all.

This was my fault, for even posting in the thread.
All you and Fez like to do is bait, not discuss.
So shove your opinion of me right up your anal orifice.
Fez, you watch how it's done and do the same.

You bait, just as you did this time. I discuss. You have only trolled on this thread so far. Just because Fez is an easy mark that doesn't make me one.

I will call you on those hit and runs. You tried another. So I called you on it. If you don't like the results of your tactics then perhaps you should think about changing them.

That last goes for Fez as well. He is really lousy at debate and he is not an authoritarian, he is simply inept.

[Lemmy]

me anwsering?
anything specific, i haven't really been following discussion lately...

but let's get to the evolution thingie, i like that

typing monkeys can be compared with evolution, BUT you need to put a 'human' with the monkeys who 'selects' the wrong parts they type and trow it away.

Do you believe in genetics, and that your genes define your physical properties (strength, length, intelligence etc..), and maybe even part of your personality? And that your genes are passed to you from your parents?
Then assume you got todays monkeys, one is stronger then the other, one is more intelligent then the other.
Now suppose some sort of catastrophe hits, maybe another ice age, and food is really hard to get, maybe only the smartest monkeys can get food, so only the smartest monkeys survive.
A result of this would be that the average intelligence would go up among the monkey population. Given enough time, it could get as high as our avg intelligence today.



One other question, if god created the world, and the humans, how come the humans oldest religion is Hinduism?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
A freaking rainbow is what pissed him off so bad, but he's not irrational.

Congratulations on your troll. Fez sure took the bait.

There was at least some people trying to debate rationaly prior to that. You have succeeded masterfully in turning this into a crap fest.

Of course you had a master bait taker to help you.

Fez why can't you try to discuss ANYTHING with out it turning into the sort of crap that most people give up when they hit puberty. This 'I am rubber and you are glue' type of garbage should be something you should have outgrown long ago.

[Robert]

Ah, a post from Ethelred in this thread I completely agree with

[Robert]

Lemmy, my last reaction to you was: (with complete dialog)

Me: - The position and 'ressurrection' of israel in this world

lemmy: Self-fullfilling prophesy

Me: fine if you want to see it that way.
I see that israel still has an important position in this world, and so does the entire ME.
It has more to do with the fact that the largest ammount of oil is being found in the ME than with self-fullfilling.

I'll reply to your monkey reaction after lunch.

[Robert]

that 'monkey reaction' should not to be token as an insult

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by CyberShy

Ps. to Jack theB, UR, again you guys left the discussion with my last arguments and answered unanswerd. Next time you guys will start again like I never came with those answers. It's getting boring.

...Huh?

You attempted to use "fulfilled prophecies" as evidence for God, and you attempted to use "something cannot come from nothing" as evidence for God.

You have done this before, several times.

And I have pointed out the fact that the Bible contains many failed prophecies, and that something CAN come from nothing, and that if time began in the Big Bang then there never was a time when "nothing" existed, and so on.

Again, I have done this before, several times.

So who, exactly, "will start again like I never came with those answers"?

For as long as you keep citing the re-emergence of Israel as evidence for God, I will keep pointing out that the Bible has a very poor success rate for prophecies. And for as long as you use the same lame first-cause argument, I will keep pointing out the holes in it.

Yes, this IS getting boring. Are you ready to stop doing this?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
Woah!


Hey Ethel and Jack -- nice to see you guys again ( I assume your male ). You stopped posting to the other thread we had going so I thought you lost the appetite for religious discussions. Oh well, it was for the best . . . I was spending way too much time posting anyways and needed to stop.

That thread died because you had long left the initial reason for your starting it which was dubious at best. That is as I recall you were upset with me for using Fundamentalist ideas against Fundamentalist and seemed to feel that I was somehow obligated to use YOUR concepts of the Bible in a discusion with them but then you complained when I used your concepts in the discussion with you.

As a consequence there was nothing left to comment on without going over all the questionable remarks you made one by one and most of that was stuff I had little interest in. I did ask you to get to the point and you started hemming and hawing about definitions so it looked to me like you were going to drag things out rather get on with it.

Ethel, it's kind of weird agreeing on something here.

But, I did want to point something out. Within orthodox Christianity, the present day purpose of the Ten Commandments is not to prescribe good Christian living as you suggested a couple posts back (although, true, they are not totally irrelevant to this aim).

There is no such thing as othodox (lower case as opposed to the Orthodox Churches) Christianity, except maybe in comparison to the fringe groups like the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. There are far too many that disagree with your ideas on what constitutes orthodox especialy in the US where Fundamentalism is a major force.

The Ten Commandments are an indictment that holiness and righteousness are beyond the human grasp apart from faith and due to sin.

Well it may be beyond your grasp but morals are not beyond mine. Holiness is another matter as that can't exist without a god and after all that is what is open to question on this thread.

Jack: The majority of the Bible was not written after or around 200 B.C.E. You are stating a minority opinion as fact. There are only a select group of minimalist scholars, i.e. Lemche, Van Seters, who adhere to such an outlandish theory.

Obviously that only pertains to the Old Testament. It wasn't assembled as a cohesive whole till after the Diaspora in any case but at least most of it appears to have written initially long before that. It might be that at least some of the individual parts were not in their present form till after the end of the Babylonian captivity.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Jack: The majority of the Bible was not written after or around 200 B.C.E. You are stating a minority opinion as fact. There are only a select group of minimalist scholars, i.e. Lemche, Van Seters, who adhere to such an outlandish theory.

...Yes, I should have addressed that.

The word I used was "much", not "most". Of course, "much" is a subjective term, but the recent stuff includes the Book of Daniel, often cited as "prophecy" of events that took place half a millennium earlier.

Also, a lot of the older stuff has been rewritten since. Particularly the stuff written prior to the Babylonian captivity (700 BC or thereabouts) when the Jews were still polytheistic. People who describe Judaism as an "ancient" religion often don't appreciate that Judaism as we know it today isn't much older than Christianity, even though parts of it are much older.