Proof: God makes you stupid

[snoopy369]

You differ from most other christians, but certainly not all of them. Just to be clear

[MrFun]

Yeah -- when I typed "other Christians" I did not mean to say that I differed from ALL other Christians.


That could be read either way "other Christians" could be read to say some others, or it could be interpreted as meaning all others.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And why do you assume the aliens will not continue to progress too? Is there a hard cap out there?

I made no such assumption. You're assuming I did. All I said was that they will not necessarily be as advanced as magic in the future. This may turn out to be the case, and it may not. The point is that it is possible they will not be indistinguishable from magic to us.

I don't believe we can collect information on them without their consent. I think they would know long before we do whether we are approaching them, and they would likely take the first step to initiate contact.

Riddled with assumptions. Try again.

Dawkins isn't a reputable scientist?

Dawkins did not present this as a fact or even a claim. He presented it is as a possibility. Without evidence directly contradicting the possibility, it is perfectly legitimate for him to do so. Please discontinue implying that Dawkins believes aliens seeded life on Earth; it is disingenuous of you.

What, they haven't made monkeys out of soup and lightning bolts?

Nope. But scientists have only really been at this creating life thing for a little while. Given that it took the Earth 4.5 billion years to get to where it is now, you'll forgive scientists for not replicating the results in a few decades.

[Straybow]

No such theory exists, and no reputable scientist - as far as I know - has made the claim.

The panspermia theory was heartily endorsed (if not outright invented) by Nobel laureate Francis Crick. I read his book on it more than 20 yrs ago; it was from the '70s. I understand he has since distanced himself from the idea, citing greater evidence of smaller amino acid based molecules with self-replicating potential.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Straybow

No such theory exists, and no reputable scientist - as far as I know - has made the claim.

The panspermia theory was heartily endorsed (if not outright invented) by Nobel laureate Francis Crick. I read his book on it more than 20 yrs ago; it was from the '70s. I understand he has since distanced himself from the idea, citing greater evidence of smaller amino acid based molecules with self-replicating potential.

The panspermia theory has been around much longer than Mr. Crick. He presented one particular variant of the theory, which is the whole aliens seeding the universe thing.

Panspermia is generally just thought of as the idea that life - or the building blocks of it - could have come from other planets. There is little to no evidence to support this idea, though.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nope. But scientists have only really been at this creating life thing for a little while. Given that it took the Earth 4.5 billion years to get to where it is now, you'll forgive scientists for not replicating the results in a few decades.

Hence my point why it's more theology then science.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So because there is disagreement, that means none of them can be correct? That's a logical fallacy right there. Just because they all disagree doesn't rule out the fact that one is right and all the rest are wrong, or even that some of them are right about certain things, and others right about other things.

I would argue they are for the most part substantially in agreement with each other, which is what CS Lewis argues in the abolition of man.

Funny that, given your attitude towards Islam.....

The disagreement shows that systems of belief based on revelation or faith have no way of proving their validity logically, and thus they simply can never be verified.

The reason you have faith is not because of some rational exploration of the material world. You have an emotional connection to an idea, and you run with it. Fine and dandy for you, but you simply have no basis to claim that your alogical opinion has any bearing on material reality.

[Ben Kenobi]

Funny that, given your attitude towards Islam.....

How does that contradict my point that logically, just because they differ from each other does nothing to say whether one is right or wrong.

The disagreement shows that systems of belief based on revelation or faith have no way of proving their validity logically, and thus they simply can never be verified.

What claims does Christianity make? I'm going to call BS here because Christianity claims that Christ came to earth, that he was crucified on a cross and that he died, and rose again 3 days later.

That is two things. 1 it is verifiable, two, it is logically consistant. So the challenge is for you gepap, to show why Christianity is wrong about Christ.

The reason you have faith is not because of some rational exploration of the material world.

You are telling me why I have faith? That's a mite presumptuous.

I'll tell you what really happened, if you care to listen at all. I always was interested in astronomy, started looking at Sagan's assessment of the things that needed to happen with the earth in order for stable life to form. Sagan gave the argument that mathematically it should work out, I was skeptical. The list is quite long, including the earth having a moon about a quarter of the size of the earth. It's one of the better arguments in favour of God, and at that point I can basically say I believed in him.

The question of what took much longer. I remember in grade 12, thinking he lived up in the sky, and that he did nothing, perfect machine and watchmaker. Used to make fun of Christians, by asking them how walls could collapse just because people blew trumpets.

My reason for accepting Christ came later. I was confronted by other Christians who saw all the earlier connections I did and had better arguments. They challenged me to read scripture, to understand what happened during the resurrection, the historical evidence to defend the thesis, the inadequacy of all the other explanations.

That is when I can say I believed, but I didn't decide to follow Christ later until I honestly believed that I could not go at it myself. I accepted him, and I've walked with him since.

As far as I'm concerned, Christ is just as real to me as Napoleon is to you, and it's ludicrious to claim that my faith is not based on verified historical evidence 2000 years ago.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Hence my point why it's more theology then science.

I guess I'm just more patient than you are. Also more correct.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What claims does Christianity make? I'm going to call BS here because Christianity claims that Christ came to earth, that he was crucified on a cross and that he died, and rose again 3 days later.

That is two things. 1 it is verifiable, two, it is logically consistant. So the challenge is for you gepap, to show why Christianity is wrong about Christ.

That there could have been a man called Jesus born in Bethlehem and then put to death by Roman authorities does not in any way verify Christian claims about that man. Saying that someone being half-diety and coming back to life are "logically consistent" is insane.

Christianity is a religion built upon a Jewish cult built around the teachings of one specific Jewish "prophet" and then the teachings of those who called themselves his disciples. As for what claims Christianity makes, regarding the nature of the universe it maintains the same myths as the earlier faith (Judaism) that is is an offshot of.

You are telling me why I have faith? That's a mite presumptuous.

I'll tell you what really happened, if you care to listen at all. I always was interested in astronomy, started looking at Sagan's assessment of the things that needed to happen with the earth in order for stable life to form. Sagan gave the argument that mathematically it should work out, I was skeptical. The list is quite long, including the earth having a moon about a quarter of the size of the earth. It's one of the better arguments in favour of God, and at that point I can basically say I believed in him.

And I am supposed to find this an example of "logic" behind your faith? It is not logical to decide that complexity MUST come from some guiding intelligence, specially because that becomes only a loop that feeds upon itself, given that this only moves the question back, since what created the intelligence that created this order that you claim must come from intelligence?

My reason for accepting Christ came later. I was confronted by other Christians who saw all the earlier connections I did and had better arguments. They challenged me to read scripture, to understand what happened during the resurrection, the historical evidence to defend the thesis, the inadequacy of all the other explanations.

And what evidence about the validity of said scripture did they provide? Scripture asks to be believed based purely on faith, especially given all blatant logical problems in that book.

That is when I can say I believed, but I didn't decide to follow Christ later until I honestly believed that I could not go at it myself. I accepted him, and I've walked with him since.

As far as I'm concerned, Christ is just as real to me as Napoleon is to you, and it's ludicrious to claim that my faith is not based on verified historical evidence 2000 years ago.

You have said nothing that counters my statement that your faith is based on emotion and feeling, not reason. You came to believe, fine, good for you, but don't pretend your faith is built on logic, cause it ain't.

Finally, there is a difference between Jesus and "Christ". Jesus is a dude, and perhaps one day someone will find definitive recorded evidence of his existance. I am apt to believe that he existed, just as someone who is the model of Moses probable existed, and Mohammed certainly existed. But that does not mean there ever was a "Christ", for "Christ" is not a name, but a title, an opinion, that Jesus was "the annointed one."

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by GePap
Saying that someone being half-diety and coming back to life are "logically consistent" is insane.

How so? I don't think you know what the meaning of 'logically consistent" is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logically_consistent

A belief that the moon is made of cheese, or in the flying spaghetti monster could be logically consistent depending on other beliefs and assumptions.

Additionally, many people (including myself and other scientists) don't find anything logically inconsistent between (some forms of) Christianity and science. This has been defended in many books, and even many strongly atheist scientists agree.

Now if you are just saying that Ben is not logically consistent, I might agree.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

That there could have been a man called Jesus born in Bethlehem and then put to death by Roman authorities does not in any way verify Christian claims about that man.

That's a starting point. Do you believe that there was a man named Jesus born in Bethlehem who preached to the masses in Jerusalem and was crucified by the Romans?

Saying that someone being half-diety and coming back to life are "logically consistent" is insane.

Where do Christians call him a half diety? We believe he was God made flesh, fully God and fully man.

Christianity is a religion built upon a Jewish cult built around the teachings of one specific Jewish "prophet" and then the teachings of those who called themselves his disciples.

They also make specific claims about Christ. Christ never claimed he was a prophet, he claimed to be God himself, sent to the earth to redeem the Jews. Christians claim he died on the cross and then rose again 3 days after. We believe it to be as historical as any other event that has occurred, so your challenge is to show why the Christian accounts are wrong.

Saying he was a Jewish prophet shows your ignorance of the Christian claims.

As for what claims Christianity makes, regarding the nature of the universe it maintains the same myths as the earlier faith (Judaism) that is is an offshot of.

True, but you were challenging Christianity, not Judaism, and you asserted that my faith was not based on any material proof or evidence.

And I am supposed to find this an example of "logic" behind your faith? It is not logical to decide that complexity MUST come from some guiding intelligence, specially because that becomes only a loop that feeds upon itself, given that this only moves the question back, since what created the intelligence that created this order that you claim must come from intelligence?

The question then becomes how does this complexity arise? Entropy would say the opposite that the order of the system ought to decline, not rise.

As for the chain of intellegences, that's easy enough. You have a first mover that exists outside of the universe, and has always existed. Uncreated and immortal.

And what evidence about the validity of said scripture did they provide?

Christ died on the cross and the Jews said the Christians stole the body. They did not say that the body was there in the tomb. They admitted the empty tomb, so the question then becomes why the Christians would become martyrs if they had spirited the body away.

The second one is how they could have taken the body out of the wrappings, which were intact, or why the women were the first back to the tomb.

Scripture asks to be believed based purely on faith, especially given all blatant logical problems in that book.

We can be more sure the events in scripture in the Gospels happened then of any other historical event.

You have said nothing that counters my statement that your faith is based on emotion and feeling, not reason. You came to believe, fine, good for you, but don't pretend your faith is built on logic, cause it ain't.

I've said many things. Just because you disagree doesn't make them illogical. You need to do more then just say, "hmm, I don't like it therefore it is wrong".

Finally, there is a difference between Jesus and "Christ". Jesus is a dude, and perhaps one day someone will find definitive recorded evidence of his existance.

There is recorded evidence of his existence in both Roman historians and in the bible. The bible is the best history we have of the ancient period in terms of both the manuscripts and the eyewitness accounts.

But that does not mean there ever was a "Christ", for "Christ" is not a name, but a title, an opinion, that Jesus was "the annointed one."

If he existed, and the accounts of him in scripture are true, then why would he not be the Christ?

[Straybow]

I am not so much interested in logic or consistency, but in truth. Something can be true even though we don't have sufficient knowledge to support it logically or scientifically. You certainly can't scientifically "prove" love, and love is hardly known for its consistency.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
True, but you were challenging Christianity, not Judaism, and you asserted that my faith was not based on any material proof or evidence.

No, I am challeging theism, meaning Judaism and Christinianity are in the same boat.

The question then becomes how does this complexity arise? Entropy would say the opposite that the order of the system ought to decline, not rise.

As for the chain of intellegences, that's easy enough. You have a first mover that exists outside of the universe, and has always existed. Uncreated and immortal.

As, so a Deux Ex Machina that explains nothing. HOw convinient. Problem is, if that is your solution, any such device works equally as well, meaning that any device I were to invent just now would be as logical as your faith in Yaweh.

If he existed, and the accounts of him in scripture are true, then why would he not be the Christ?

First, you have no evidence that the scriptures as writen are any more historically accurate than the Da Vinci Code or a Harry Potter book, or the Q'uran.

Second, just the mere existance of someone does not validate or claims about them; the fact I acknowledge that Mohammed does exist, and the historically evidence of his existance is solid, does not mean that I believe him to be the last true prophet of god.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Straybow
I am not so much interested in logic or consistency, but in truth. Something can be true even though we don't have sufficient knowledge to support it logically or scientifically.

While this is true, you are left the issue of explaining what you are willing to believe, and what you are not, and why. Why believe that Jesus is Christ as opposed to the idea that he wasn't the Messiah, or that Mohammed was in fact the last true prophet. Or that life was placed here by space aliens?

You certainly can't scientifically "prove" love, and love is hardly known for its consistency.

What are you talking about? Love is an emotion, though a complex one, and as such we can certainly see it in action, just as much as any other emotion like sadness or anger.