lpetrich

I wonder if Ed has ever studied the fossil record in any detail, because when one does, one discovers that the single-flood theory is forced into extreme implausibilities, to put it mildly.

Also, I suggest that Ed go to that talkorigins page, because it discusses Flood difficulties much better than I ever could. If he thinks that it contains serious errors, then he ought to tell us what those errors are.

Datheron

Oh, I'm sure he'll tell you. That is, he will make a claim in the generalest of all generalities, appeal to vague authorities, and then magically "don't remember" or "lost" his sources along the way. Fortunately, Rimstalker above has already dealt the fatal blow to that farce.

Ed

In a previous post I mentioned a magazine article from back in the 1950's where one of their "scholars" admitted that he didn't know greek or hebrew. And most of their theology is based on a faulty understanding of greek.

Quote:

Ed: How? Rim: Look up the definition of the term non sequitir. The fact that we do not have an "exhaustive knowledge of God" does not prove that something is possible, nor does it invalidate any of Newton's arguments.

It does not PROVE that something is possible but it does mean that it is POSSIBLE. And it does considerably weaken his argument because he is making a positive statement about something that he really has very little knowledge about.

Quote:

Ed: What I meant was that people with large egos often want to swim against the tide or go against the majority opinion. Sometimes thats good but more often it leads to errors. Rim: What this means, assborg, is that you are employing an argument ad hominem based on nothing more than an unfounded stereotype.

No while it may be a stereotype, it is not unfounded, it is based on personal experience and my years of reading biographies.

Quote:

Ed: Its importance was not realized until the 4th century. Sometimes the importance of a certain fact is not realized until years after its discovery. This happens in science all the time. Rim: SCIENCE is an invention of fallible human minds. Come on, Ed. Try harder. Why can't the ALL-POWERFUL, KING of the F-ing UNIVERSE get his message across? If he wanted us to know that he is a DinU, a Trinity, how is it possible that he needed four hundred years of theological debate for us to realise it? Why couldn't your god write more clearly?

Theology is also an invention of fallible human minds. And just like the other sciences some of its truths are learned later on after other facts are learned that help reveal the one that was not clear at first. For some unknown reason God didn't want to reveal to us this aspect of his nature until the 4th century AD.

Quote:

Ed: So now you claim to be a mind reader. Rim: Get off it, you horse's arse. The fact that your theological machinations are part of a predictable pattern that I recognize doesn't make me a "mind reader."

You are claiming to know my motivations and etc., that is an attempt at mind reading.

Quote:

Ed: Please provide evidence that you can read minds. Rim: LOL! You asking for evidence! How'd you like it if I gave you the same treatment you gave me when I asked for evidence? <ArgumentType:Ed>Because mind-reading has been backed up by years of intense documentation from both liberal and conservative pychic scholars, and the doubters are mostly arrogant asses who can't adequetly handle the occult data.</Ed>

There is one very significant difference, there is no such thing as psychic scholars! While there are definitely biblical scholars.

Quote:

Rim: Please provide a logical line of reasoning why an omnipotent deity must "progressively reveal" his truth. I'll deal with your first attempt: Ed: If the people are not at the stage to correctly understand a truth, withholding that truth to a later time when they can understand it better and will be of better use to them is hardly lying. Rim: This would be good if we're talking about fallable, limited humans trying to send a message, but since we're talking about the OMNIPOTENT CREATOR AND KING of all there is, it seems that God could find a way to avoid such culture shock. And, again, Occam's razor shreads this explaination up: What's the simpler explaination? God waiting for us to mature so we can understand him, or humans changing things around to meat their own ends? If the first, you beg the question of how man was somehow not "ready" to know that God is a DinU Trinity before the fourth century, and why is seems that, since the concept of the Trinity is absurd in any logical assesemnt, we are still not "ready" for it. After all, many epople are unconvinced by the Trinity because they see it as illogical and can't understand it. It seems that if we're "ready" for it now, or 1600 years ago, it would be less of a problem. ::Shaves off the unnessisary elements::

We don't really know why he reveals his truth progressively, but he does. What I mentioned is part of what most theologians think is the reason. Also, because he does not want automatons he will not force some truths on us when we are not ready because it may violate our free wills to make up our minds through study and research. Actually the trinity is not illogical when worded as originally formulated by Athanasius. A being that is three in person and one in essence(his divinity) is not a contradiction. Just as you and I are two in person and one in essence (our humanity). While not an exact analogy this is similar to God's nature.

This is the end of part I of my response.

LinuxPup

Rimstalker:

To clarify Titus 1:2 even more, the Greek word "aionios" is used, meaning:

1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and
always will be
2) without beginning
3) without end, never to cease, everlasting

So I think the idea of it referring to "their" time is unwarranted. It is *very* important that you study the scripture that you criticize carefully, as it's a common atheist/agnostic tactic to take scripture out of context without reading in on the actual meaning in the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek.

A being that exists before time, must logically transcend time. Why? Because that being which exists before time did can exist independently of time's existance. And I can think of no reason why a God who transcends time cannot interact with those inside of time... there is no contradiction there.

Actually, once again, if you look at their tense in the Hebrew, you'll find most of them are in the Participle Active mood, but even if only one was making this claim of continous, ongoing expansion of the universe, that's enough to state the Bible condones this theory.

The idea of space being a fabric, something to be spread out is very accurate. Mass causes spacetime fabric to bend, and the dimensions of space and time are literally stretching out as we speak. This is all part of Einstein's theory of Relativity. And as far as the "foundations of th Earth", the earth is at rest with respect to us... the earth is our physical foundation which we lay and build everything on.

Isaiah 40:22 says "Isa 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." Ok, let's take a look at this verse. First, the reference frame (which is crucial) is clearly looking at the earth from a far distance. We, being 3 dimensional creatures, see everything in 2 dimensions. A sphere would be seen as a circle from this frame of reference. You'll notice the claim of the spreading of the heavens also says "like a" curtain, or as the KJV says, "as a" curtain. This is not saying that the heavens are a tent, but simplying trying to relate the idea of the expansion of the heavens in human terms.

Again, the Hebrew would disagree, this is also in the Participle Active mood.

The Bible is all about the nature of the First Cause, from Genesis to Revelation.

Ed

It is not that he can't do it, it is that he chooses not to.

Quote:

Rim: In any case, this is a weak, deeply flawed analogy. If you told your child that sex was kissing with the tougne and let him believe that until he was 11 or 12, THAT would be lying. It would also be closer to the situation at hand.

No it is not closer to the situation at hand. Withholding a truth is not the same as telling a bald faced lie.

Quote:

Ed: And my last statement is a rational one if there is a real God. Your argument hardly demonstrates its irrationality. It is more of a veiled ad hominem attack. Rim: Watch Ed play the victim. Your last statement is an irrational one if we're to assume that god is a worthwhile topic to consider. If you can't be sure of any of his motives, than you can't be sure of anything, especially what you think he's told you. After all, how can you be sure if what the Bible tells you is the whole Truth, or just one step on the "progressive" chain to it? Because he said so? We could belive him if we expect god to be honest, but, as you say, he defies our expectations. Your statement is an attempt, and a sloppy one, I might add, to make anything you say about god unfalsifiable. As such, it is an irrational concept. Further, it is irrational because it is paradoxical. "What we can expect from a real god is for him to be unpredictable." But, wait, if this is true, how can we expect anything at all?

One thing that you learn from experience is that he most definitely is honest and he keeps his promises. So while we don't always understand why he does some things because he is not one of us and is not going to do things exactly the way we would because he knows all the facts behind a situation, we do know that everything he does is honest and just.

Quote:

Ed: Ad hominem attack. Not a rational arguement. Rim: Hey, doofus, here's a quick tip: "Ad hominem" attacks (what other type would I use, I wonder...) are not logical fallacies. Arguments from ad hominem attacks are. If you take a careful look at what I said, you may find a rational arguement. You may have already, but felt it safer to play the victim than to deal with it...

Basically all you did was say that theists are mentally ill, I would hardly call that a rational argument. Especially given that the sociological evidence points to the opposite. Studies have shown that regular church goers commit less crimes, live longer, have happier marriages and etc.

Quote:

Ed: I would hardly call the existence of the universe a simple problem! Rim: I would think you could stay on topic and not veer off wildly into terain I never covered in order to respond to me. Just what the hell are you blabbering about? My argument was about "progressive revelation," not the existence of the universe.

Actually the whole argument goes back to the existence of the universe because its existence demonstrates the existence of a personal God and once you have established that with the Law of Causality then revelation from that God becomes quite plausible.

Quote:

Ed: Just because the scriptures have been twisted and distorted by evil doers hardly falsifies them. Rim: Oh, stop it, Ed! You're just making an even greater ass of yourself! First, the Scriptures are "progressively" revealed, now they've been "distorted?" Which is it? You have no argument in the later case. In order to prove the the Scriptures have been "distorted," you must prove that you know what they were supposed to say. That's a pretty tall order. Let's try to stay on track, brfore you get in over your head, and I have to let you drown for your own good.

As we learn more and more about the scriptures' historical context and the original languages we DO learn what they are supposed to say.

Quote:

Ed: Did the Nazis distortion of evolution falsify it? I think most atheists would say no. Rim: Most people familiar with the actual theory of evolution would say "no" also. But, woah, lookie here, we HAVE the actual theory of evolution to compare Hitler's eugenical distortions to! You have no such parallel. Nice try though.

What is the ACTUAL theory of evolution? Has everything about evolution been discovered? Is there nothing new to be discovered or rejected? I don't think so. The same thing applies to God's written revelation. Biblical scholars have made erroneous interpretations in the past just as evolutionists have made errors in the past and continue to make errors. And biblical scholars have made new discoveries in the scriptures just as scientists have made new discoveries about living things.

[b] I think I have made many well thought out arguments.

lpetrich

As if LinuxPup can fluently speak Hebrew, Aramaic, and NT Greek.

I personally don't enjoy arguing about translation details; having to do so suggests that the original text is ambiguous, which is something unworthy of an omnipotent being.

The Bible pictures the sky as something like a tent; God thus acts like someone setting up a tent. I can't resist a chortle or two, because the Bible is supposedly universal truth and not culture-dependent truth.

(a lot of stuff from LinuxPup on how he coughs General Relativity out of the Bible)

One could also prove from it that Jesus Christ had been homosexual, if one has sufficient creativity in doing interpretation.

Which studies? Those done by the Mohammed Atta School of Aviation? :-P

The most that such "studies" prove is that religion is desirable as the opium of the people; the next question is which is the most suitable and least obnoxious kind of religion.

Ed

Mythologies require much greater time than 15 years to develop, so your analogy fails.


[b] Of course there is going to be such things as inscriptions and coins considering Caesar being a major general of the largest empire on the earth at the time.

Quote:

lp: And the conflicts are serious; look for "Biblical Errancy" in the Library section of this site.

I have, and my statement still stands.

Quote:

Ed: There are other bases by which documents can be questioned such as literary style. Mythology has a certain style while historical documentation has a different style. lp: I'm not sure how Ed proposes recognizing each kind of style, but a variant would be to see how well the life of Jesus Christ fits a composite "Mythic Hero" profile worked out by Lord Raglan, Otto Rank, Joseph Campbell, and others. Jesus Christ makes a very good fit, while Moses, Krishna, the Buddha, and Mohammed fitting less and less, going down the list. Mohammed fits less than half as well (8 vs. 18.5), meaning that this historicity criterion supports Islam much better than Christianity. So when are you converting to Islam, Ed?

The gospels have much more psychological depth and are much more realistic than mythologies.

Quote:

Ed: Actually I probably could say with a pretty high degree of certainty NO other religion has that judeo-christian characteristic. See my response to LP's analysis above. lp: Ed, you have not provided any counterarguments at all. You've simply asserted what you believe, as though that is an unshakable argument. Even a cursory look at different cosmological beliefs reveals a widespread belief that the familiar Universe had had a beginning.

Yes, but they all have a pre-existing space time universe. While only the bible teaches that only a non-space-time existing creator existed prior to this universe.


[b] The law of causality is one of the primary laws of logic. No, an eternal quantum gravity soup is impersonal and therefore is unlikely to produce a universe with personal beings, according to the Law of Sufficient Cause.

lpetrich

I wonder how Ed came up with that number, because there is one major modern mythology that has developed at a similar speed, if not faster:

Conspiracy theories about the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

But where are the inscriptions describing people's direct acquaintance Jesus Christ? There are temples to Asklepios, Greek god of medicine, in various places, and they have lots of testimonials written on their walls.

You must have done a lot of reading; what errors did you find in the Biblical-Errancy discussions?

How so? And why does Jesus Christ fit Lord Raglan's Mythic-Hero so well?

Which the Bible nowhere explicitly states. Genesis 1 certainly does not state that; G1 could refer to creation from formless matter, and some of the creation in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is explicitly described as using pre-existing matter. Thus, in G1, God commands that plants and trees are to grow from the land, and in G2, God makes Adam from some dirt and Eve from Adam. G1 is more ambiguous about pre-existing matter than G2 is, but I note in passing that this is more evidence that G1 and G2 are two separate creation stories and not one.

Says who, Ed?

A "law" which does not really state anything. It is an assertion that "impersonal" entities cannot give rise to "personal" ones; an assertion presented with absolutely zero support.

Infinity Lover

Infinity exists, thus existence is infinite!

Created? God? Why are we still bickering about this? Was NOBODY on this planet EVER exposed to geomotry? (or provided with a brain for that matter?)

When you're done applying boundaries in vain, do me a favour and mail the top line to Stephen W.Hawkins. I think it's about damn time mankind stopped this bullshit discussion!

GunnerJ

Poisoning the well already? There's a good case to be made that it's a big Christian tactic to take verses out of context, especially when discussing the supposed "prophesies" of Christ. I'm sure you wouldn't want the shit to flow back your way, now would you?

Besides, we're not talking about context with Titus 1:2, we're quibbling about definitions of the original language. I find it interesting that in his original post, LinuxPup's Big Point was that the word used is "chronos," or "time." Now it's "aionios." I wonder why the discrepancy... It seems that Linux is just copying from online sources without actually looking into the claims to verify them.

Yes, surely he trancended time then, but there's no reason for him to still be doing so. In fact the whole idea of god being "before" time requires god to be in time; there must be a "then" (before time) and a "now" (during time.)

Straw man. I never suggested that god could not interect with beings in time, however, in order to actually talk about God's "actions" there has to be a temporal framework for those actions to be sequenced in. The very act of creation suggests that at some point there was no Universe, and then there was one. This requires time. Otherwise, the Universe was not created and exists infinately as a four-dimensional construct co-eternal with God, and "time," as we see it, is just our own finate observation fo our consciousness moving in a fourth-dimentional direction. Every time I have seen this brought up, without fail, a theist will respond, "no, I don't think this is true; causality does not require time, time requires causality" or some other such meaningless assertion. I hope for a more substancial responce from you, Linux.

I can neither confirm nor deny this assertion, not being well versed in Hebrew. What I can do, though, is look at the translation. In every case where I said the verb, "to spread" was not in present tanse, it was not, in the translation. And usually, when it was in present tense, it was phrased "spreadeth," or "spreads." This difference will clear up my comment: I'm sure that you know the grammatical difference between "spreads" and "spreading." For example, how does the phrase, "Jack cleans tables," differ from the phrase, "Jack is cleaning a table,"? In the first, the suggestion is that Jack cleans tables regularly and periodically, like something done every day; it suggests that Jack's job is to clean tables, and that he does so on a regular basis. The second phrase suggests that Jack is doing his job right now. The use of the word "spreads" suggests that the "spreading" is done by God on a regular, periodic basis, e.g., "He spreads the stars out each night." If the phrase was actually "spreading," i.e., it's going on right now, then there'd be a better case. But then, there's still that pesky problem of the stationary Earth...

This is, of course, pure horsepucky. Why is it that it's so important for God to really, literally, be "spreading the Heavens out" when it supports your idea of the Bible's scientific accuracy, but when problems arise, everything must be considered relative, and metaphors must be made? The word foundation hasn't changed much in its meaning in 3000 years. It means a constructed base designed to keep something in one place. The Earth is moving in a fairly even orbit about the Sun, which is in a fairly even orbit about the Milky Way galaxy's center, which is moving as well. Where would such a foundation be built for the Earth?

However, the idea of a spacetime fabric isn't an accurate description, but another analogy! Your mention of mass bending the fabric around mass gives this away: it invokes the famous rubber sheet with a ball bearing placed upon it. This is an analogy to a two-dimentional Universe with mass in it. But our Universe is three-dimensional, and so there can be no "fabric," only a space. The problem here is that you are equivocating analogies. The Hebrews used the term fabric because they though of the sky sometimes as a tent. We use the term "fabric of spacetime" because we liken our Universe's structure to a two-dimentional Universe for the sake of education. To say that the Ancient Hebrew's use of the word fabric is a reference to Einstein's Relativity is one of the sloppyist modern re-interpretations I've ever seen. If you try to counter that the Hebrews may not have known about it, but God did and was telling the Hebrews about it, you must then explain why god has to use such poor analogies to explain the Earth's shape. I mean, really; the round Earth and the heliocentric theory are much simpler concepts than General and Special Relativity.

More bullplop. From God's perspective, the Earth is a sphere. From our perspective, it looks like an endless plain, not a circle. Again, if god can explain the bendable nature of spacetime with accurate analogies, why must he use such sloppy, inaccurate terms to describe the shape of the Earth? Is the Earth's spherical nature such a hard thing to understand? If you're already telling these guys about Relativity, a spherical Earth should be a cinch.

The problem is, "the Heavens" are not at all like a curtain, nor is the Universe, as I have already detailed. These phrases only make sense if you view the Sky as a solid, physical object, as the Ancient Hebrews did, modern revisionism aside.

When you have a substabtial reply to my statement that this conjecture about the possible mention of Big Bang cosmology in the Bible has to do with determining the nature of the First Cause, let me know. So far, I have seen no actual mention of BB cosmology, only very sloppy revisionism of Scripture to make it kinda, sorta look liek it mentions Relativity. If you want to continue this chain of argumentation, do it <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000059" target="_blank">HERE</a> as it is becoming a digression.

You have also failed to show, in your argument about trancendence, how this claim is unique to the Xian god. Even if you establish the Bible's mention about YHWH/Trinity being trancendent, you must deal with other religions claims about their god(s) being so as well. Remember the main point of this thread: whether the First Cause argument can prove any specific god. You have proposed that it can prove the Xian god, and so you must make unique claims for it.