DarkBronzePlant

Odemus,

I'm actually blown away by your honesty here. I don't think I've talked with any other Christian here who has outright said they pre-supposed the existence of God based on what's said in the bible. Perhaps no other Christians do, or perhaps they are unwilling to admit it. (I suspect the latter, but then, I have no empirical evidence )

As blown away by your honesty as I am, I am equally blown away by your reasoning. I mean, holy cow! The bible, including the passage from Romans you cite, is simply a book. Centuries ago, someone sat down with a pen & paper (or chisle and stone tablet, or whatever they were using at the time) and created this story. You're saying that you read the passage you cite (and presumably similar ones as well) and decided as a result that it was your default position? Would you do the same after reading the Odyssey? The Book of Mormom? The Koran?

Something just doesn't seem to click...

Goliath

Odemus,

That right there is your problem.

Sincerely,

Goliath

PS On a seemingly unrelated note (but not at all unrelated in actuality), see if you can spot the following error in the proof of this "theorem."

Theorem: Given any two real numbers x and y, x=y.

Proof: If x=y, then x=x by substitution. Therefore x-x=x-x, whence 0=0. QED.

Now, do you buy the "Theorem?" Does 2=5? Does 1=232989284367089023*pi/23908429898.5987862? No? Then what's wrong with the proof?

daemon

How have you determined these things to be true? By science?

If so, what evidence do you have to support your hypotheses?

If not, why should your particular method be considered useful for determining what is true?

Koyaanisqatsi

That doesn't answer my question, nor does that coincide with what you said earlier. A magical "King" standing in some sort of universal void speaking the universe into existence can not possibly be considered a "natural" explanation for existence and the mountain of evidence against such a ludicrous concept truly is overwhelming to anyone with ability to see it, so unless you have a definition of "natural" that no one else does, how do you clarify that statement in light of my observations?

Ok, then at least we're getting more specific than some magical King "speaking" the universe into existence in order to worship him, yes?

So, all you're saying is "God" is the guy who lit the fuse on the Big Bang and not the guy who actually, literally created matter?

If that's true, then the simplest question is, where does this guy exist and how did he survive? Remember, he has a penis or else he isn't a "he" so, perhaps a better question would be, where is his penis (and I don't mean to be sophomoric or glib about this, I'm trying to deconstruct as specifically as possible your belief)?

If it's not true--that you do believe this guy created matter--then the simplest question is, how? You mentioned before the nonsense about "speaking" the universe into existence, is that what you meant? He said a magic word and presto chango?

If you answer "I don't know" to either one of those questions, then why in the world do you consider this scenario to be in any way more reasonable (or, to use your words, more believable) than Evolution, since Evolution cannot answer those questions either?

As you tried to point out, ultimately they are equal and although I don't agree with you, you seem to think this is the case and have therefore decided to default to "Goddidit," but for no reason whatsoever, other than what I would contend, operant conditioning.

So, I'll ask you. Why would belief in an impossible, ineffable, magical guy who speaks the universe into being be more believable than the overwhelmingly convincing evidence of Evolution?

Remember, neither one of us can answer "whence consciousness;" you can only claim "from my imaginary King," so, as you put it, let's grant that we're on equal footing. Evolution cannot explain "whence consciousness" (not that it ever pretended to, but anyway) and your belief in a magical King speaking the universe into being cannot ultimately account for "whence consciousness" either, since your magical King is ineffable and his ways are not known.

So, on the one hand compelling step-by-step evidence from many different fields of study all pointing conclusively to Evolution, but stops short of "whence consciousness" since that was never its mandate to begin with; and on the other, an imaginary creature that just magically *poofs* all matter into existence in a manner you cannot know or understand.

As others have asked you and to reverse what you were trying to ask us, why God? Why is that an acceptable explanation for you?

Setting aside that its all from an ancient collection of cult fairy tales, since it is abundantly clear that you simply threw the Bible in the trash where it belongs long ago and probably never read it anyway, since your indoctrination came from your parents and preacher, why is it acceptable for you to simply supplant one mystery with another, even greater and far more ridiculous mystery?

Why is a comic book hero a more reasonable explanation for you?

No, it does not. Have you ever studied any of the evidence of Evolution that was not corrupted by the christian cult and if so, what?

You are making grandiose proclamations regarding a literal mountain of research from many different disciplines, spanning decades of concentrated study by some of the most intelligent, dilligent scientists--men and women--the world has ever known, representing cultures from all over the world.

It would be nice if you could qualify your particular expertise regarding that research in order for any of us to evaluate how seriously to take your posts, yes?

For example, I know little about the actual science involved and have only read what people have posted in these fora and from what I've read and seen in popular culture (the Discovery channel; PBS; etc.), so I am by no means an expert on the technical details and as such, you won't find me making any comments one way or the other in that regard, as that would be a sign of me "speaking out my ass," as the colloquial would have it.

Obviously if you're speaking out your ass about this then any further conversations would be pointless, until you had a chance to actually read and comprehend what it is you are attempting to dismiss in favor of a magical King who lit the fuse on the Big Bang so that we could all worship him, yes?

My question was in regard to who the authors were of your research into Evolution that allowed you to be qualified enough to make such delcarations as you have here.

Oh, ok, then its settled. You just don't care about what you believe or how you've come to believe it or what it means for you believe. You're a sheep.

Enough said and thanks for dropping by.

I mean, you don't care about evidence, you don't care about logic, you don't care about the Bible, you don't seem to care about anything at all other than believing a magical King spoke the universe into existence.

We got it. Thanks and don't let the URL hit you in the ass on the way out.

Unless, of course, you actually do wish to explore this ludicrous belief you have, in which case you're going to have at least accept that logic and reason are also "god given," yes? That science is nothing more than a tool of cognition, not a threat to your magical King fantasy, yes?

Otherwise, you have no reason to be here and we have no reason to continue interacting, yes?

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but since you have no problem whatsoever being so brazenly ignorant, then what's the point? Go back to burrying your head and we'll move forward.

Well, other than the fact it does and you just chose to then discard those portions it did contradict, why? You've already told us in no uncertain terms that the Bible means nothing to you; that it's not meant to be taken literally, right?

Or is it only meant to be taken literally selectively, when it suits your position, but when it contradicts your position, you simply throw that part away?

What has evidence to do with faith? Faith means you believe in spite of the evidence.

When has life ever sprung from the "inanimate" and what has that got to do with your "faith?"

You believe a magical King spoke the universe into existence in order to worship him. You have faith in this belief.

So, how would such a ridiculous concept change even if a guy in a lab coat smashed to rocks together and caused a baby? Wouldn't you then just consider that guy in the lab coat your magical King?

By whom or what? Science? Yes.

Where did you get this belief from? Or those names?

It is irrelevant what you believe, you arrogant little maggot, GOD HAS TOLD YOU WHAT HAPPENED! Right?

That just means they are in denial and will go to as great a length as you are here going to (and further) to continue to cling in desperation to their cult indoctrination, not that such a blasphemous denial is permissable by God.

Regardless, whether you wish to just pretend some parts of Genesis aren't real because science proved them wrong, again, where do you draw the line and how do you draw it? Because you want to?

Then how do you reconcile Jesus' geneology in Luke? God sat around on Earth for billions and billions of years for no reason before creating Adam and Eve six thousand years ago?

Do you believe Adam was created out of dirt and Eve out of his Rib? Do you believe that an apparently bipedal talking snake "tempted" Eve who in turn told Adam about the Apple of the Knoweldge of Good And Evil and for no discernable reason Adam, a perfect being made in God's image out of dirt, just decides, "Oh what the hell, I'm hungry" and as a result he and Eve and their necessarily incestuous offspring are unjustly punished for all eternity until four thousand years later for some reason God decides it's time to trifurcate into flesh and send himself/his son down to Earth in order to be sacrificed to himself as a necessary condition for God to be able to grant his own creation salvation from his wrath?

Does that tremendous pile of fictional, mythological contrivances sound reasonable to you and if so, do you also believe that Paul Atreides really is the Kwisatz Haderach or that Luke Skywalker really is in a galaxy far, far away?

If no, then why not? You'll believe on "faith" that a magical King spoke the universe into existence in order to worship it, so why won't you believe that the Battlestar Galactica is right now leading a rag-tag group of settlers across the galaxy on a quest to find Earth?

Again, where's the line and how do you justify it? Whim? Operant conditioning?

What about Allah? Zuess? Apollo? Rah? Buddha?

Not meant by whom? God?

Again, who are you to make that decision and how do you make that decision? What are your guidelines? Faith? The same guidelines that the author of Genesis relied upon and the same guidelines the holy and revered copyists relied upon and the Popes and the Bishops and the Priests and Martin Luther and Joan of Arc and the Apostles and Jesus himself relied upon and believed in?

That's a mighty powerful faith you have that allows you to see things not even Jesus saw and he was a direct descendant of Adam, on Earth to save mankind from Adam's fall from grace after he ate the Apple from the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" in "paradise," from where he was unjustly banished and his incestuous offspring eternally punished throughout all generations, all because of a talking, walking snake!

Wow.

But, like I said, it's a good thing you don't need anything as icky as "evidence" for any of that! No sir!

Funny that you don't need any evidence to believe that nonsense, yet so casually and indifferently can dismiss hundreds of thousands of scientists' detailed studies, trials and tribulations over the decades when it comes to simply explaining what the evidence shows.

Yes, I've noticed. As I said before, you apparently have no problem believing anything at all, except for that which there actually is evidence.

Curious, don't you think?

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

And a little later in the same chapter, proof that their God is an unjust and sadistic bastard:

People who disobey their parents deserve death? Insolent, arrogant and boastful people deserve death? Gossips deserve death?

Would this be yet another example of your selective take on the bible, Od, or do you also believe you deserve death because you disobeyed your parents?

LinuxPup

*every* kind of wickedness... including murder.. yes, I think that's deserving of death.

Odemus

I probably wasn't explicit enough.I would do better to say that passage in Romans confirms an innate truth about the world, myself and my perception of both.In other words, my very sentience, that which I can knowingly say makes me what I am compells me to believe in a creator.

Why the Judeo-Christian God? That is the area which always leaves this argument stranded at a dead end.Rather than speak of personal experience and how I have come to know the greatest love and the truest security at great lengths I hope you will find it sufficient for me to say that the Bible, the living word of God, has helped me to know myself and what makes me who I am more than anything else could ever hope to. Personal, subjective, entirely irrational, and more than anything, foolish. Yet to me it contains wisdom unto eternal life.

So in the final analysis when you ask me to submit proof, as though I should be able to read a gauge, or a printout, or a ruler and turn the data over to you, I cannot. To me the ultimate test of proof has been the experience itself.That is my life and the only testimony to the truth I speak of that I am able to offer.

I stand corrected.God is a supernatural explanation for existence.

Regardless of whether or not the Big Bang theory is true and all matter was at one time the size of a golf ball or pin head or whatever, God still created everything from nothing.

I hope this definition of God from the 'Larger Westminster Catechism' answers your question:
There is my best possible effort towards describing the God I worship.

God does not need anything external to survive because He is sufficient unto Himself. God did not come from anywhere because just as time is dependant on change, he is forever unchanging. We refer to God in a masculine pronoun not because he has a penis but because he created man in his image.

I am unable to offer an explanation as to the mechanism by which God performs miracles.

I covered this in my response to DBP. I believe first in a creator because I am innately compelled to, I am second drawn to his word, and consequently I view the explanation for existence contained therein sufficient.

I could ask for no other measure of progress than to at least see atheism make this admission.If you want a motive for my presence here at all, that is it.

I do not in anyway try to qualify myself as an expert in science or religion. As you have noted, and all I have been trying to say is that science is unable to answer the ultimate questions of existence. Me and you may differ as to why that is but neither one of us has to be an expert at anything to see it.

When the Copernican model of the solar system came into prominence in the 1600's the Christian church cried heresy. As you can obviously tell by Psalm 19:4-6 the sun clearly circles the earth:

According to your reasoning the Christian faith should be shattered by our discovery of the solar system. God told us what happened and man proved him wrong!

Many Christians have made the mistake of taking the Bible as a literal scientific document.It most certainly is not. I could go into more depth but your hostile tone is just a bit too much.

Does this seem less reasonable than the idea of supernatural creation anyway? God operates in the manner of His own choosing.If he created the universe a trillion years ago and Man only 6,000 years ago how does that coflict with Christian doctrine?

Yes.One of the most basic ideas Paul is trying to get across in Romans is that the curse of sin has spread to all men through Adam.We are born out of grace and willfully disobedient to God and totally unable to reconcile ourselves to Him through any effort of our own.As God said to Adam in the garden "The day you eat of it you shall surely die".That one act was enough to condemn not ony Adam but all men to the curse of sin and death (Incidentally, should my faith be shattered because Adam didn't die the literal day that he ate the fruit?).

I wasn't interested in preaching a sermon or anything but I did feel your question warrented a response.

Jobar

Koyaanisqatsi, at this point I think it would be pointless to edit out some of your post- but if I had been here to do so before Odemus saw it, I would have.

The short paragraphs between Odemus' quotes which includes the line about not letting the URL hit him in the ass, and also the comment about "arrogant little maggot", are completely unnecessary. Your logic would be more effective if you avoid angering those you debate with. Odemus, despite the fact that both you and I believe he is wrong in his beliefs, has not been anything but polite to us; if you cannot keep your temper, simply don't answer him.

Odemus, as the moderator here, my apologies. You may be unable to convince us that your version of God has anything to do with reality, but you have certainly convinced *me* that you are better mannered than some of our atheist members.

Ryanfire

That is a belief!!! You cannot equate a belief to truth. This is about as old school as you can get. This is the year 2002, things are a little different now thanks to evolution and science.

How about this?

Red cats are green, but our eyes cannot process the color green, we therefore conclude the cat is red. - Perception!

We cannot see the invisible(god), yet we must visualize the invisible. - Perception!

A better version of this statement would be:
"For what is known about the unknown, we shall create a supernatural being with human attributes to explain it. *He* will show you nothing and expect worship in return, for it's this invisible nature that will continue to play with your mind, cause you to believe in boogey man, his eternal power and deity has been clearly percieved in the things you can't explain."

Bingo!

And won't he feel stupid when it happens. In all probability it will. Truth and science will one day rid the world of religion, and if you still choose to believe in the concept of god, you can stay behind and cower to your self-delusional cave. Don't make others suffer for your delusions of the world because we don't live in yours. I could see religious people dying to protect their beliefs at any cost.


Answer me this:
What is more righteous?

Truth or Belief.

Ryan.

LinuxPup

If you mean to say that truth and science will someday rid the world of the plausability of the existance of God (which you may not, correct me if I'm wrong), then I'd have to not only disagree, but argue that modern scientific findings are giving a solid foundation for theism. The incredible fine-tuning of the universe, which sits on a razor edge is compelling enough to seriously question atheism's credibility. Of all the rebutals of the "fine tuning argument", I have yet to see a sound argument against it. The most reasonable explanation, based on the empirical evidence, is that an intelligent designer is behind the universe. I really like how Dr. Hugh Ross handles the debate... "let's not fight over it, let's put our scientific models to the test."

Out of curiousity, what evidence would falsify atheism?