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

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb


I really appreciate your latter observation . . . it's a valid point, which bespeaks the fact that the growth of the field of science owes a great deal to the Christian worldview despite some infamous run-ins throughout history. The Christian worldview, of course, promotes the idea of an ordered world that can be the subject of study. Theology, IMO, is still the queen of the sciences . . .

Theology is often the antithesis of science.

What you claim is a Christian word view simply isn't at least till modern times. Its a scientific view that has only been adopted by christians in recent centuries although there were occasional Christians that believed that studying the world was studying the mind of god. However prior the Age of Enlightnement the usual Christian world view was that all things were created specially and there were no general principles to learn. Each plant had no relation to anyother because they didn't evolve but were created. Each rock was placed there by god rather than move over time by natural forces. This sort of thinking made progress in the Dark Ages almost non-existent.

There was an interesting popular news article on this once but I cannot find it on the Web anymore:

Helweg, Otto J. “Scientific Facts: Compatible with the Christian Faith?” USA Today (March 1997).

If somebody can find it, please let me know. I tried the USA Today website but to no luck. I initially found it here:

http://www.britannica.com/bcom/magaz...uery=worldview

I may or may not have seen it. I certainly have seen articles with similar titles. Fundamentalists and Creationists of all sorts would be less likely to agree. Cybershy and Lars clearly demand that science changes instead of their beliefs.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Adalbertus
The ancient Greeks/Romans never would have developed flight. Ikaros was punished.

That is more of a Greek problem in thinking about things than something inherent in that particular story.

If the story was American rather than Greek the moral would be very different even if the rest of the story was the same. Daedalus would be the hero of the tale. After all HE SUCCEEDED. It wasn't flight itself that was wrong it was his son's exceeding the design specs of the wings.

I gave my mother a plaque with Daedalus on it once. I wish it had come to me when she died. Its lost.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Adalbertus

Anyway, the Christian worldview doesn't have a God who punishes human only for knowing/wanting to know too much. Even in the more basic/ancient versions of Christanity, God punishes for a reason, which could be understood.
I wouldn't wonder if this is a heritage of Judaism, because it has put a lot of efforts into (empirically) finding what God punishes. Most of the apparently senseless laws can be justified for hygienic reasons (even the obligation to eat no porc. If you don't know how to protect against salmonelles(sp?) it's better not to eat it. Most ancient religions knew gods punishing for transgessing the usual human sphere. The ancient Greeks/Romans never would have developed flight. Ikaros was punished. Nevertheless, there are so many theologicians who tell pure nonsense - My theology is comprised in Mt 18,3.

You sound like a remarkably level-headed individual when it comes to Christian theology. God Bless!

Oh, about the laws, another reason for the laws was as a hedge around the religion. As the Bible itself testifies, the Israelites often had a problem with syncretism. Many of the seemingly "senseless" laws acted to distance Israelites from the traditions, religions, and cultures of the surrounding peoples. It helped the Israelites preserve their religion as it were. And given that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as the legacy of early Israelite religion, are three of a very few religions that survived the B.C.E. period of Mesopotamia, I'd say it worked.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by loinburger


I said "and/or," not "and," because I didn't know if Cybershy was a fundamentalist or not--nor do I particularly care, seeing as how he stopped answering my posts several pages back.



You're preaching to the choir...





I'm sorry. I was angry over apparently having my all of my posts interpreted by you in the worst possible light, and assumed (after it happened a second time) that there was a motive behind it.



I agree, you never did. However, when I said "It might help your worldview to believe that everybody who is skeptical is also narrow-minded, but unfortunately for you, it just isn't true", you did not try to disabuse me of the misconceptions I held over your beliefs, which I took as a confirmation given that your post struck me as inflammatory ("accused CyberShy of being a Fundamentalist" and whatnot).

Fair enough. All is resolved then?

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Its not an completely unreasonble assumption with Cybershy. He says he thinks the Bible must be interpreted but he clearly is a Young Earth (or at least a scientificaly impossible young Earth) Creationist. He might not agree on the 'Fundamentalist dates but he seems to believe in:

Adam and Eve

A World Wide Flood

Creationist propaganda and just plain lies about how evolution works.

Other odd things about science that are promulgated by Creationists for the purpose of obfuscating reality so they might continue in their Fundamentalist beliefs.

So unless a person is keeping track pretty closely over time I can see where it is extremely easy to think of Cybershy as a Fudamentlist style Creationist as they seem to be his entire source of knowledge of science.

He walks like a duck and he certainly quakes like one MOST of the time. Every once in while he makes sounds that might not come from a duck. I think he is a mutant duck. Evolved from the Fundamentalist duck only because he is slightly more capable of adaptation to reality.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Theology is often the antithesis of science.

What you claim is a Christian word view simply isn't at least till modern times. Its a scientific view that has only been adopted by christians in recent centuries although there were occasional Christians that believed that studying the world was studying the mind of god. However prior the Age of Enlightnement the usual Christian world view was that all things were created specially and there were no general principles to learn. Each plant had no relation to anyother because they didn't evolve but were created. Each rock was placed there by god rather than move over time by natural forces. This sort of thinking made progress in the Dark Ages almost non-existent.

I would disagree with your assessment of the Christian worldview. While at times it was certainly true that Christianity and Science were at odds, I think it was more an issue of the RCC or other church hierarchies using religion as a social control. When Science offered something that "seemed" to undermine Christianity, it was condemned in order to maintain a status quo of power. The religious motives were often spurious at best.

I think you'd be surprised if you read some of the pre-Reformation and Reformation scholarship. They were remarkably enlightened. For instance, and I believe I'm correct on this (though its been awhile since I last read him), Calvin did not believe that Genesis 1-2 consisted of a "how" God created the world. Likewise, I believe, Augustine. Many Christian scholars in pre-Reformation and Reformation periods were rampant Platonists or Aristotleans, such that it often adversely affected their reading of Scripture. I think you'd agree that Aristotle was a scientist before science (at least, in some respects).

Christianity gave birth to the modern University system, which in turn gave birth to Science. Many of the private Colleges and Universities in Europe and the U.S. were founded by Christian groups. (ASIDE: Christianity is one of the only religious traditions that subjects its Holy Scriptures to rigorous academic study. It is forbidden in Islam and generally not pursued in Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Generally, only non-adherents will study the texts of these other religions with a critical eye.)

Also, in the course of my research, I've found that it is fair to say that most early scientists were Christians.

At the very least, I think you could probably admit that Monotheism was much more conducive to the eventual development of Science than was polytheism, where the Universe operated according to the haphazard whims of the gods.

The lack of progress during the Dark Ages was not a function of Christianity. It had political and societal underpinnings rather than religious ones. With the fall of the Roman Empire, there was a power vaccuum in the European and Mediterranean world. This power vaccuum was filled by warring barbarians. Progress disintegrated because advancement requires a political and social stability wedded to the benefaction of either the aristocracy or in the case of capitalism, the consumer. Without political and social stability, the Dark Ages saw little progress. This had little to do with Christianity.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by ckweb
Fair enough. All is resolved then?

Yup.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by ckweb
Likewise, I believe, Augustine.

I'm pretty sure that's correct. Augustine was extremely liberal for his time, even blending teleology with Christianity in ethical theory. IIRC, it was either he or Aquinas (or possibly both) who revived Aristotelianism. (My ethics professor in college was a tremendous fan of them both, at any rate.)

Also, I read a paper (I forget where, it was a coupla years ago) about the myth that Church officials tried to persuade Columbus not to attempt to sail around the world because it was flat. In fact, Church officials tried to persuade Columbus not to attempt to sail around the world because he was gravely underestimating the distances involved--Columbus assumed that the Earth's circumfrence was 15,000 miles (he was a poor scholar at best), while the Church officials well knew that the circumfrence was approximately 25,000 miles.

It is forbidden in Islam and generally not pursued in Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.

I'd thought that the Buddhists subjected their scriptures to analysis. Wasn't it a difference in scriptural interpretation that caused the split between the Theravada and Mahayana sects?

[ckweb]

Originally posted by loinburger
I'd thought that the Buddhists subjected their scriptures to analysis. Wasn't it a difference in scriptural interpretation that caused the split between the Theravada and Mahayana sects?

You make a good point; I'd have to look into the Theravada/Mahayana split again--it's been some time. But, from what I recall, the disagreement was about whether or not to accept Scriptures outside of the core that was attributed to Buddha.

Also, by a critical analysis I mean analyzing it on literary, philological, historical, archaelogical, anthropological, etc. grounds. . . Christians don't merely analyze the Bible for the sake of gleaning devotional insights; they put it through the wringer to see if it holds up as an historio-cultural artifact. They also constantly pursue studies in textual criticism as they try to recover, as near as possible, the original documents. Textual criticism, in particular, is banned in Islam. There is only one authorized version of Qu'ran. In Christianity, there is considerably more freedom. Obviously, alot of the scholarship does not filter down to the congregations and so the average Christian is as unaware about advances in understanding the Bible as the average person is about theoretical science. And, as in any field, you have peripheral quacks who are often the loudest and get the most attention; nevertheless, their views would not be accepted by the majority of scholars working in the field.

Incidentally, going back to other religions . . . often times, because these religions do not analyze their texts critically, the public continues to accept the official dogma of that tradition, which is misleading. For instance, imagine if Buddha were subjected to the same type of historical criticism launched against Jesus . . .

[leftover_crack]

Im laughing my ass off. Im reading through this and looking at all the flood stuff


Its funny you know. I see people try and explain away an ancient flood with all this and that. Look folks we all know that the writers of genesis didnt leave home often. We also know 10,000 years ago an ancient civilization thrived on the bottom of what is now, the black sea. We also know that about 9000 years ago. The bosporus broke open. We also know that Expeditions to the bottom of the sea have found ancient docks, and anceint cities. The flood story, which dates back to about this time. Sheesh, whats this!? Is it possible a flood did happen that was so devastating people thought it covered the world?

Lets dig deeper...

Oh wow. What the hell is this??? Its the EPIC OF GILGAMESH!!! Holy Crap! And look here.. the Sumerian journey of Homerash..and holy crap. NOAH's Flood story!

Wow... omg.. im really suprised none of you smart guys could figure this out

What probably happened:
A flood leveled an early civilization in the Black sea region (it once was a small lake only and planes). The civilization's survivors would of probably been so damn traumatized they thought this disaster surely came from God. Shoot.. If the lake near you started rising 16 feet a day as Geologists who studied the bosporus break indictate. What the hell would you think it was?? The survivors were so traumatized they told there kids. Never, ever Disobey God. Ever..Or you the world will be flooded again. Make sense? If not..your pretty stupid



2+2 is 4 (yes im mocking all you smart athiest types )

way too funny. For all your genius you still refuse to accept the fact that a massive flood could of destroyed a very early civilization.

God bless

[leftover_crack]

Surely none of you smart types could explain why 2 small city ruins and an ancient harbor are doing 200 feet below the black sea.

Surely you can explain why the first flood stories began emerging only hundreds of years later And continued to be passed down until writing?

Does this prove there is a god? No

Does it prove there was a Huge flood that killed alot of people 10,000 years ago? Yes

[leftover_crack]

Just remember this. Behind every ancient myth there is a grain a truth. Even if its a really small grain.


Trojan wars anyone?

[ckweb]

Originally posted by leftover_crack
Im laughing my ass off. Im reading through this and looking at all the flood stuff


Its funny you know. I see people try and explain away an ancient flood with all this and that. Look folks we all know that the writers of genesis didnt leave home often. We also know 10,000 years ago an ancient civilization thrived on the bottom of what is now, the black sea. We also know that about 9000 years ago. The bosporus broke open. We also know that Expeditions to the bottom of the sea have found ancient docks, and anceint cities. The flood story, which dates back to about this time. Sheesh, whats this!? Is it possible a flood did happen that was so devastating people thought it covered the world?

Lets dig deeper...

Oh wow. What the hell is this??? Its the EPIC OF GILGAMESH!!! Holy Crap! And look here.. the Sumerian journey of Homerash..and holy crap. NOAH's Flood story!

Wow... omg.. im really suprised none of you smart guys could figure this out

What probably happened:
A flood leveled an early civilization in the Black sea region (it once was a small lake only and planes). The civilization's survivors would of probably been so damn traumatized they thought this disaster surely came from God. Shoot.. If the lake near you started rising 16 feet a day as Geologists who studied the bosporus break indictate. What the hell would you think it was?? The survivors were so traumatized they told there kids. Never, ever Disobey God. Ever..Or you the world will be flooded again. Make sense? If not..your pretty stupid



2+2 is 4 (yes im mocking all you smart athiest types )

way too funny. For all your genius you still refuse to accept the fact that a massive flood could of destroyed a very early civilization.

God bless

You mock with all the humility of a good Christian . . .

The only problem is that your answer isn't good enough for Fundamentalists, as Ethelred so repeatedly points out. For them, 9000 yrs. ago is too early; the world is only 4000 yrs. old for a Fundamentalist. Second, the Bible says the whole world was covered such that even the Mountains of Ararat were underwater. The flooding of the Black Sea simply does not qualify as a flood of those kind of proportions. So, as Ethelred rightly argues, your explanation doesn't cut it for Fundamentalists.

As for non-Fundamentalists, sure . . . it's as good a reason as any to explain the proliferation of ANE flood stories.

One thing I find curious is that flood myths aren't limited to the ANE. Practically every civilization has one. Now maybe this is because floods, of varying proportions happen all the time (just look at what's happened this year in Europe and Asia). They would have been all the more frightful to a pre-modern civilization. Flood myths, I think, represent a almost universal fear of drowning, of being wiped away, of losing one's livelihood. Here's a link to some of the many flood myths around the world:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

Another explanation might be that the stories reflect a common unconscience; a preserved memory of an ancient and universal flood. Of course, geology provides little evidence for such a flood. But, science is a work in progress so who knows what scientists may yet learn about the world we live in.

The critical lesson of the Genesis Flood Myth, IMO, is that God is ultimately the lord of weather and he will not allow all of humanity to suffer its end through a flood. For pre-modern civilizations, this would have been a comforting thought amidst an uncertain world of capricious gods.

BTW, the really smart (which might be questionable ) atheist guys on this thread, as well as myself, are all well-aware of the story and theory you are proposing. It has been discussed many times.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by leftover_crack
Just remember this. Behind every ancient myth there is a grain a truth. Even if its a really small grain.


Trojan wars anyone?

There's a grain of truth in what you are saying.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by leftover_crack
Im laughing my ass off. Im reading through this and looking at all the flood stuff


Its funny you know. I see people try and explain away an ancient flood with all this and that. Look folks we all know that the writers of genesis didnt leave home often. We also know 10,000 years ago an ancient civilization thrived on the bottom of what is now, the black sea.

Maybe YOU know that but most people know that it was around 5000 BC and that there is no signs of a civilization. People yes. A culture maybe. Some fishing villages almost certainly. A civilization no.

This is what you are thinking of:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html

What probably happened:
A flood leveled an early civilization in the Black sea region (it once was a small lake only and planes).

Well some fishermen and sheepherders anyway.

The civilization's survivors would of probably been so damn traumatized they thought this disaster surely came from God. Shoot.. If the lake near you started rising 16 feet a day as Geologists who studied the bosporus break indictate. What the hell would you think it was?? The survivors were so traumatized they told there kids. Never, ever Disobey God. Ever..Or you the world will be flooded again. Make sense? If not..your pretty stupid

Of course it does in general. But its not the Flood in described in Genesis and that is what Creationists inisist is real in all particulars including the world wide covering the highest mountain part.

2+2 is 4 (yes im mocking all you smart athiest types )

So you are making yourself look foolish by telling people here things they not only know but know better than you do. After all you are wrong on the date and there is still no signs of a civilization, as in cities. There may have been some but there is still no sign of even one.

way too funny. For all your genius you still refuse to accept the fact that a massive flood could of destroyed a very early civilization.

God bless

Except it didn't. Not even the Black Sea Flood nor is that flood the on described in the Bible which killed everyone on Earth except eight people if it had really happened. It MAY have inspired the story. It is in no way the same story. There are LOTS of flood stories for the simple reason that most places on Earth have had local floods.

I have no problem with the idea that the Bible has some stories that may or may not be based in some fashion on real events. That doesn't make the god of the Bible real. Nor does it make evolution non-existant.

Now if Noah's Flood had actually occured as described in the Bible than I would have consider that Jehovah, if not an actual creator, was at least an entity with god like powers. But that specific flood did not happen.