Support NeoGAF

[Airola]

Sorry, the word has a nomeclature definition in english, unlike finnish. That is not something you can change by wishing it so.

Its a part of the English language.

It would be the equivalent of stating that a circle isnt round, or that a square isnt a square.

I saw your original post and wondered it for a while, and now it's edited to include acknowledgement that I'm Finnish and not a native English speaker so there might be things lost in translation, so thanks for that at least.

Still, this is one of the weirdest turns in a discussions about god that I've ever witnessed. I found the whole original attempt to argue against god's omnipotence/omniscience related to free will with the "car crash" and "blue sky" arguments very weird too, but this sudden "but blue is in the nomenclature of the word" goes to a whole another level.

I really don't understand much about the whole nomenclature system but wouldn't "woman" also be in nomenclature of "periods" or "pregnancy"?
If so, I truly don't get what your point is. I'm saying that just as there are people who seriously believe that men can get pregnant, there are also people who would make a claim that sky isn't blue. Which is already pretty pointless discussion on its own. And then you stop by to say that blue is in the nomenclature of sky.

I am really really unsure what you are aiming at there.

EDIT: Sorry, the quote above is what you edited your post into the first time and doesn't represent the current version of what you have written. But as I replied to that version I let that be there, to have the context I had when I wrote the reply.

 

[Rentahamster]

No, them being assholes is only one reason to say it. People aren't claiming men can have periods because they are assholes either. They believe in it.

Your original claim was that every single one would agree with you that sky is blue. You gave the sky is blue argument as an example of people believing a convincing persuasion, after the warning about the car example failed. Let's not move the goalposts any further.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm talking about beliefs. You're talking about actions. I'm concerned about beliefs because that's the whole point of my argument. Something that is persuasive changes someone's beliefs. I think you'd agree that belief in God is actually what matters, not actions and words. One can not believe in God yet say they do, or believe in God yet say they don't. God is concerned about belief and what's in our hearts.

The warning about the car example didn't fail. You didn't understand why that it is an example of a 100% compelling argument or refuse to see it that way, even though it is. Similarly, the sky is blue example does not fail. Don't try to overthink it, and give honest answers please.

 

[Airola]

Are you scandinavian by any chance?

Yes, Finnish as you already seemed to guess or recall in the previous version of your post.

 

[Airola]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm talking about beliefs. You're talking about actions. I'm concerned about beliefs because that's the whole point of my argument. Something that is persuasive changes someone's beliefs. I think you'd agree that belief in God is actually what matters, not actions and words. One can not believe in God yet say they do, or believe in God yet say they don't. God is concerned about belief and what's in our hearts.

The warning about the car example didn't fail. You didn't understand why that it is an example of a 100% compelling argument or refuse to see it that way, even though it is. Similarly, the sky is blue example does not fail. Don't try to overthink it, and give honest answers please.

Of course one can be and unbeliever who says he believes, and vice versa.
There are a lot of people right now who claim to believe in god, but don't, and probably are taking advantage of people who believe he believes in god.
And there are a lot of people who feel they don't dare to tell other people about their beliefs in fear of being ridiculed in the least and being murdered at worst.

But yes, that only applies to human to human relations. As you said, obviously god knows their heart and sees through lies. But it's really not belief that's key in the relationship. It's love. One can believe in god but hate him. I'm not talking about actions, I'm talking about a state of mind. Or perhaps a state of soul and/or spirit (still not really sure if soul and spirit are different things). Love is not an action, it is more of a state of mind. Choices and decisions are not actions.

 

[LisaMariaMartin]

Religion is the biggest and most profitable racket on the planet.

It's hard to look at things rationally and objectively when you're being indoctrinated at a young age. How can anyone be sure its their religion which is right?

1. the christian god is real and I believe in him -> I win
2. the christian god is not real and I believe in him -> I lose having lived a false life
3. some other god is real and I don't believe in him -> I lose

Now factor in all the other gods like Zeus, vishnu, allah, Odin, Ra, Buddha, Coatlicue...

There are thousands of popular gods many people believe in. Their belief is likely as strong as yours. Statistically, there is an extremely high probability that the god you believe in is not the right one. Which means, youre fucked.

 

[German Hops]

This would take us way off track, but I’d love to see you and German Hops ‘s best examples of contradictions in the Bible.

"... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26

"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19





"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30

"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18





"... the earth abideth for ever." -- Ecclesiastes 1:4

"... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2Peter 3:10





"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20

"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5




Galatians 2:16 -

"A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ."

Matthew 16:27 -

"For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works."

 

[showernota]

Im definitely not a fan of heavy redaction of Bible verses, nor literally interpreting poetic passages to make a point. Whatever website you got these from is very misleading.

Let’s clear this up.

"... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26

"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19

I’m not sure if you’re arguing “all things are possible” but God didn’t drive the people out of the valley, or God wasn’t able to do it.

To point 1, all things are possible. God also makes requirements very clear in this case of Judah(You have to read the Bible to know this, though):

Deuteronomy 20: 16 “But of the cities of these peoples which the LORD your God gives you [as] an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive,
17 “but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the LORD your God has commanded you,

But they didn’t:

Joshua 15: As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem to this day.

So God made it clear things would be rough:

Judges 2:1 Then the Angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said: “I led you up from Egypt and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you.
2 ‘And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed My voice. Why have you done this?
3 “Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be [thorns] in your side, and their gods shall be a snare to you.’ ”

Point 2, ‘he’ in this case is not referring to God, but Judah. Judah couldn’t drive them out. Just like all of Israel can be referred to as masculine singular:

Jeremiah 31:10 “Hear the word of the LORD, O nations, And declare [it] in the isles afar off, and say, ‘He who scattered Israel will gather him, And keep him as a shepherd [does] his flock.’

"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30

"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18

Let’s see what is behind those ellipses:

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared [Him.]

Do you read that as meaning only Jesus has physically ‘seen’ God, thereby declaring Him, or that Jesus has come declaring God’s nature/mind/will, and that no one had yet understood Him?

1. (intransitive and transitive, figuratively) To see with the mind, understand
   ὁρᾷς; ὁρᾶτε;horâis? horâte?
   Do you see?

"... the earth abideth for ever." -- Ecclesiastes 1:4

"... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2Peter 3:10

Again, I’m going to peek at what those ellipses are hiding:

Ecclesiastes 1:
2 “Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher; “Vanity of vanities, all [is ]vanity.”
3 What profit has a man from all his labor In which he toils under the sun?
4 [One] generation passes away, and [another] generation comes; But the earth abides forever.

Does this sound like a poetic way to describe the futility/meaninglessness (vanity, in older English) of man’s lifetime in comparison to the length of history and future? Ecclesiastes is all about how life is meaningless without God. I don’t know the meaning of life for an atheist, there is none.

If you think this is some sort of random prophecy that the earth will last forever, there’s not much more I can say.

"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20

"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5

Those dang ellipses again. It’s like they’re always hiding context. Let’s see Ezekiel 18 in full context:

Ezekiel 18:
19 “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live.
20 “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.

TLDR: The wicked person who sins pays for their sins. If the father is evil, the righteous son won’t be accountable.

Now the ellipses in Exodus 20:5 are egregious. Straight up disgusting:

I, the LORD your God, [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth [generations] of those who hate Me,

That’s a big omission from your post. Do the children hate God? Guess what, they’re getting the iniquity. God doesn’t visit iniquity on all wicked people in their lifetime, this was a special occasion.
Let’s look at the very next verse:

Exodus 20:6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

There’s no contradiction here. Love God, receive mercy, even if your fathers were wicked.

Galatians 2:16 -

"A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ."

Matthew 16:27 -

"For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works."

This is just a misunderstanding of words.

Justified = saved. We are not saved by our works, we are saved by believing Jesus is the Son of God, took the punishment for our sins, that He is our savior, and rose from the grave. We can never be good enough for salvation without Jesus.

Guess what, we also get rewards:

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things [done] in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

There will be people who barely make salvation, let alone are rewarded:

1 Corinthians 3:
13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is.
14 If anyone’s work which he has built on [it] endures, he will receive a reward.
15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

These contradictions feel very much manufactured, and rely on obfuscation of the actual message the passages are getting across. Even if you disagree with my responses, if these are the ‘best’ contradictions that speaks loudly.

 

[German Hops]

showernota , you can't trust someone of deep faith to objectively dissect the apparent contradictions of the bible, when there is a grey area they are going to automatically take a reasonable view that supports their faith.

You can't trust someone, say an athiest who just doesn't believe in divinity or Christianity, to objectively dissect and analyze the bible, because they are going to look at the grey area evidence and automatically take a reasonable view that contradictions exist and the book is not devine.

Reasonable minds may differ. I always have a harder time with people of deep faith, they seem to act as if it's so logical and correct to believe in their religion, as if people of other faiths aren't just as educated and don't scrutinzie and study their religous texts just as greatly.

Plain simple fact, whether or not religion is real and god is true, if you want to believe in the Bible, no amount of evidence or reasoning is going to convince you otherwise. The opposite is also true.

 

[Rentahamster]

showernota , you can't trust someone of deep faith to objectively dissect the apparent contradictions of the bible, when there is a grey area they are going to automatically take a reasonable view that supports their faith.

You can't trust someone, say an athiest who just doesn't believe in divinity or Christianity, to objectively dissect and analyze the bible, because they are going to look at the grey area evidence and automatically take a reasonable view that contradictions exist and the book is not devine.

Reasonable minds may differ. I always have a harder time with people of deep faith, they seem to act as if it's so logical and correct to believe in their religion, as if people of other faiths aren't just as educated and don't scrutinzie and study their religous texts just as greatly.

Plain simple fact, whether or not religion is real and god is true, if you want to believe in the Bible, no amount of evidence or reasoning is going to convince you otherwise. The opposite is also true.

Confirmation bias is a helluva drug.

 

[Rentahamster]

Yeah. Except you don’t have any proof of abiogenesis. Which what we are talking about. Life has never even been synthesized in a controlled environment. Much less in an uncontrolled one. So you can convince yourself however you want. There is no actual evidence for it beyond your speculation.

I'm not claiming I know the origin of life. You're misunderstanding exactly what I'm stating that I do and do not know. I'm not saying that abiogenesis is a verified fact or did I ever say that. I never claimed that life has been synthesized in a controlled environment. If you read what I typed, I outright acknowledged that fact. All I ever said is that there is research that points to that as a plausible explanation.

In the past we didn't know the Earth revolved around the Sun. We thought everything revolved around the Earth. However, there were observations made that made a plausible case that the Earth revolves around the sun. We didn't prove it definitively, but until that happened, we went where the evidence steered us, judging each candidate explanation on their own merits and flaws. This is the same concept. We don't know for sure what the origins of life are, but there are enough clues around that lead us to postulate several different candidate explanations that have their own merits and flaws, as well as many unknowns still waiting to be known.

It’s a theory you put faith in.

I have a feeling we might be operating on different definitions of what "faith" is. How are you using it in this context? Are you using it as a synonym for "confidence"? Or are you using the Hebrews 11 definition?

We have synthesized the building blocks?

Yes.

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So when those blocks assemble themselves into that skyscraper, let me know.

That's what we're still trying to understand. "Assembling themselves into a skyscraper" is not an accurate criticism. The first protocells weren't as complicated as modern cells. They only needed to fulfill the need to self replicate and undergo natural selection. It's more analogous to a mud hut than a skyscraper. The cellular equivalent of skyscrapers appeared on the scene after 3 billion years of evolution. 3 billion years is a lot of time to grow in complexity.


In the meantime, since you have a lot of issues with this candidate explanation, do you have a more plausible candidate explanation to put forward?


Here are some videos that explain our current knowledge of this subject very well.

 

[DeepBreath87]

I'm not claiming I know the origin of life. You're misunderstanding exactly what I'm stating that I do and do not know. I'm not saying that abiogenesis is a verified fact or did I ever say that. I never claimed that life has been synthesized in a controlled environment. If you read what I typed, I outright acknowledged that fact. All I ever said is that there is research that points to that as a plausible explanation.

In the past we didn't know the Earth revolved around the Sun. We thought everything revolved around the Earth. However, there were observations made that made a plausible case that the Earth revolves around the sun. We didn't prove it definitively, but until that happened, we went where the evidence steered us, judging each candidate explanation on their own merits and flaws. This is the same concept. We don't know for sure what the origins of life are, but there are enough clues around that lead us to postulate several different candidate explanations that have their own merits and flaws, as well as many unknowns still waiting to be known.


I have a feeling we might be operating on different definitions of what "faith" is. How are you using it in this context? Are you using it as a synonym for "confidence"? Or are you using the Hebrews 11 definition?


Yes.

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's what we're still trying to understand. "Assembling themselves into a skyscraper" is not an accurate criticism. The first protocells weren't as complicated as modern cells. They only needed to fulfill the need to self replicate and undergo natural selection. It's more analogous to a mud hut than a skyscraper. The cellular equivalent of skyscrapers appeared on the scene after 3 billion years of evolution. 3 billion years is a lot of time to grow in complexity.


In the meantime, since you have a lot of issues with this candidate explanation, do you have a more plausible candidate explanation to put forward?


Here are some videos that explain our current knowledge of this subject very well.

Faith to me is not wildly dissimilar from confidence. I’m not a big supernatural believer. But I recognize that I possess only a fraction of the knowledge necessary to have any confidence in fundamental questions like that. Humans in general make vast overestimations of the knowledge we possess. I look at life and the planet that we inhabit and struggle to rationalize that you could see that kind of complexity, just in what we see, arise by itself. Then I try to think about the universe outside of what we see and figure out whether I can accept that it just arouse out of natural law and chance.

We can go round and round on whether abiogenesis is how life arouse. We just don’t know. I would consider myself more of a Diest I guess. I subscribe more to the idea that the universe was created and set up to be a certain way. I see religions as people’s attempts to understand the nature of their existence and their place in it. I pretty much see science the same way, although it comes at the questions from another direction. I don’t see them as in conflict because I don’t subscribe to dogma in a way that would force me to object to anything science might indicate.

I look at religion, when working as it should, to be a thing that helps people live their lives in the way they “should”. It’s a record of the cumulative experience of usually thousands of years people living and thinking deeply about the nature of living. Whether or not some story is an allegory or a fact is pretty much irrelevant to me.

I do believe in a higher power I guess. But not in the sense that maybe a lot of people might. When I was younger I heard the analogy of the universe as a wind up clock and god as the clockmaker. I’ve always kind of subscribed for that line of thinking. The clock was set up, assembled, and goes without influence. People are just trying to understand the nature of the clock and at perhaps better understand it’s maker in the process.

 

[Rentahamster]

Faith to me is not wildly dissimilar from confidence. I’m not a big supernatural believer.

OK. Perhaps it is the text-only nature of messageboards, but why is it bad for me to have confidence in our current best explanation for how life could have started? Because that's what it sounded like you're getting at.

But I recognize that I possess only a fraction of the knowledge necessary to have any confidence in fundamental questions like that. Humans in general make vast overestimations of the knowledge we possess.

You don't have any confidence in the many scientists and researchers who've spent their whole lives studying and investigating this? We can't do everything ourselves. Everyone has a specialty.

I look at life and the planet that we inhabit and struggle to rationalize that you could see that kind of complexity, just in what we see, arise by itself.

Why? You see the evolution of fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals over millions of years right? Just extrapolate back even more. Life has had 3 billion years to develop complexity. The first "living" things didn't have to be complex at all.

Then I try to think about the universe outside of what we see and how figure out whether I can accept that it just arouse out of natural law and chance.

Why shouldn't you? The way to know as many true things as possible in life is not to start with an assumption and find work your way backwards. It is to see the evidence first and then create an explanation from that. If the evidence points to something unbelievable, then check and recheck. New discoveries are oftentimes unbelievable, but if the evidence is solid, it should be strongly considered.

We can go round and round on whether abiogenesis is how life arouse. We just don’t know.

We don't have to go round and round. I've already said this multiple times. I don't know. I have already acknowledged that, but that's not sinking in yet.

I subscribe more to the idea that the universe was created and set up to be a certain way.

How do you know that? How can you test for that to ensure that it's real and not just your imagination?

I see religions as people’s attempts to understand the nature of their existence and their place in it. I pretty much see science the same way, although it comes at the questions from another direction.

The tools available to science are much more accurate at figuring out reality than the tools available to religion. Religion didn't develop your smartphone.

I don’t see them as in conflict because I don’t subscribe to dogma in a way that would force me to object to anything science might indicate.

You seem to object to the idea that perhaps life or the universe wasn't created by a creator, even though that's what all of our current science indicates.

I look at religion, when working as it should, to be a thing that helps people live their lives in the way they “should”. It’s a record of the cumulative experience of usually thousands of years people living and thinking deeply about the nature of living. Whether or not some story is an allegory or a fact is pretty much irrelevant to me.

It is, but they're still open for improvement. No religion is perfect. The Bible has some nice stuff in it, but I could write a much better version of the Bible no problem.

I do believe in a higher power I guess. But not in the sense that maybe a lot of people might. When I was younger I heard the analogy of the universe as a wind up clock and god as the clockmaker. I’ve always kind of subscribed for that line of thinking. The clock was set up, assembled, and goes without influence.

OK, but you have to ask yourself what level of understanding of the universe are you comfortable with? Sure you heard that story about the universe but how do you know that's actually true? Are you really interested in the truth? Or are you merely fine with accepting an unverified story that makes you feel good?

 

[DeepBreath87]

OK. Perhaps it is the text-only nature of messageboards, but why is it bad for me to have confidence in our current best explanation for how life could have started? Because that's what it sounded like you're getting at.


You don't have any confidence in the many scientists and researchers who've spent their whole lives studying and investigating this? We can't do everything ourselves. Everyone has a specialty.


Why? You see the evolution of fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals over millions of years right? Just extrapolate back even more. Life has had 3 billion years to develop complexity. The first "living" things didn't have to be complex at all.


Why shouldn't you? The way to know as many true things as possible in life is not to start with an assumption and find work your way backwards. It is to see the evidence first and then create an explanation from that. If the evidence points to something unbelievable, then check and recheck. New discoveries are oftentimes unbelievable, but if the evidence is solid, it should be strongly considered.


We don't have to go round and round. I've already said this multiple times. I don't know. I have already acknowledged that, but that's not sinking in yet.


How do you know that? How can you test for that to ensure that it's real and not just your imagination?


The tools available to science are much more accurate at figuring out reality than the tools available to religion. Religion didn't develop your smartphone.


You seem to object to the idea that perhaps life or the universe wasn't created by a creator, even though that's what all of our current science indicates.


It is, but they're still open for improvement. No religion is perfect. The Bible has some nice stuff in it, but I could write a much better version of the Bible no problem.


OK, but you have to ask yourself what level of understanding of the universe are you comfortable with? Sure you heard that story about the universe but how do you know that's actually true? Are you really interested in the truth? Or are you merely fine with accepting an unverified story that makes you feel good?

You are pretty invested in the idea that there is no creator. Obviously. You’ll probably deny that and say “you are a rationalist” but I think you’re clearly invested. The idea there is a creator isn’t disproven by evolution. I can look at the laws of the universe and wonder, “how did those get established?” When I play a game, I always assume that someone made the rules for the game. Why should the universe, which has rules, be any different? My view of a creator is the forces that set up universe and established its rules is what we consider god.

Considering we know almost nothing about the fundamental universe, to the point where we can’t even say it is actually “real” vs a simulation, I don’t think we should be all the invested in what we know vs what we don’t. Because what we don’t know VASTLY outweighs what we do. Human beings have seen a pin prick of the universe. We can make judgements and theories. But we are like ants trying to figure out how the moon got in the sky.

Oh and spare me the ego, please. “I could write a better Bible” might have been clever when Hitchens or Sam Harris said it, but it’s hardly smart. The Bible was written 2000 years ago. Congratulations on being full of yourself.

 

[Rentahamster]

You are pretty invested in the idea that there is no creator.

No I'm not. I'm fine with that idea, if there's evidence to support it.

Obviously.

You might be reading into things more than you should.

You’ll probably deny that and say “you a rationalist” but I think you’re clearly invested.

Let's concentrate less on what you think I'll do, and more on what I actually do. Deal with me. Don't deal with your imagination of me.

The idea there is a creator isn’t disproven by evolution.

I never said it was. God could have totally created the first living beings and then through His divine properties of the universe set in motion all the initial settings needed for life to evolve without any more input.

I can look at the laws of the universe and wonder, “how did those get established?” When I play a game, I always assume that someone made the rules for the game. Why should the universe, which has rules, be any different?

A game is a human construct. We know someone made it. We don't know anything about a creation of the universe, and just because something has rules, doesn't mean it has to have been created. That's how it's different. You use these analogies of games and skyscrapers, but they are flawed analogies because they are nothing alike.

My view of a creator is the forces that set up universe and established its rules is what we consider god.

Why use the term "god", if it's synonymous with "the universe"?

Considering we know almost nothing about the fundamental universe, to the point where we can’t even say it is actually “real” vs a simulation, I don’t think we should be all the invested in what we know vs what we don’t.

Actually we know quite a lot about the universe. Compare what the human civilization knew about the universe 1000 years ago compared to what we know know. Big difference. Our knowledge is only accelerating with technology. We still don't know everything and perhaps we never will, but that doesn't mean the search for knowledge isn't important or profound or meaningful.

Because what we don’t know VASTLY outweighs what we do.

So what? Humans are curious beings. We have a lot of work ahead of us to unravel the mysteries of the universe and it sounds like fun.

Human beings have seen a pin prick of the universe. We can make judgements and theories. But we are like ants trying to figure out how the moon got in the sky.

So what? We do things because they are hard and we like the challenge. We've gone from cave paintings to putting a man on the moon. We can go much further given enough time.

 

[Sorcerer]

He wasn't a white male. And he's dead so he's not coming back to save anyone. Been a few thousand years, time to move on.

Jesus will be back... In Bond 26... Time To Die, Time to Return...

 

[DeepBreath87]

No I'm not. I'm fine with that idea, if there's evidence to support it.


You might be reading into things more than you should.


Let's concentrate less on what you think I'll do, and more on what I actually do. Deal with me. Don't deal with your imagination of me.


I never said it was. God could have totally created the first living beings and then through His divine properties of the universe set in motion all the initial settings needed for life to evolve without any more input.


A game is a human construct. We know someone made it. We don't know anything about a creation of the universe, and just because something has rules, doesn't mean it has to have been created. That's how it's different. You use these analogies of games and skyscrapers, but they are flawed analogies because they are nothing alike.


Why use the term "god", if it's synonymous with "the universe"?


Actually we know quite a lot about the universe. Compare what the human civilization knew about the universe 1000 years ago compared to what we know know. Big difference. Our knowledge is only accelerating with technology. We still don't know everything and perhaps we never will, but that doesn't mean the search for knowledge isn't important or profound or meaningful.


So what? Humans are curious beings. We have a lot of work ahead of us to unravel the mysteries of the universe and it sounds like fun.


So what? We do things because they are hard and we like the challenge. We've gone from cave paintings to putting a man on the moon. We can go much further given enough time.

The point isn’t to stop learning. That is how we find out more about the nature of our existence. Science to me is just as religious to me as any other endeavor could be. If I think the universe is created, then finding out more about it will help us to understand it’s creator. Why would I oppose that? Who is even suggesting that? What I suggest is that we don’t make statements of certainty about things we know almost nothing about.

Saying we know a lot about the universe is ridiculous, btw. Sure, compared to the Dark Ages, we know a lot. Compared to the vast knowledge that exists entirely outside our grasp, we know nothing. We are trying to make sense of shadows and dust.

 

[Rentahamster]

The point isn’t to stop learning.

Compared to the vast knowledge that exists entirely outside our grasp, we know nothing. We are trying to make sense of shadows and dust.

You sound awfully pessimistic about the pursuit of knowledge for someone trying to convince me that their point isn't to stop learning.

Science to me is just as religious to me as any other endeavor could be.

Could you please define what you mean by "science" and "religious" in that sentence? The way I understand these terms, that sentence doesn't make any sense.

If I think the universe is created, then finding out more about it will help us to understand it’s creator.

Why do you think the universe is created? What evidence do you have that justifies that belief?

Why would I oppose that? Who is even suggesting that?

Considering that you are hardly considering any of the sources I've linked you that help to explain the origin of life, I'm not sure how eager you are to learn.

What I suggest is that we don’t make statements of certainty about things we know almost nothing about.

Great. You haven't been listening to what I've been saying because I've also been saying that we don't make statements of certainty about things we know almost nothing about. Please try to understand this time. Ctrl+f my posts for all the times I said "I don't know". However, you seem to be certain that a god created the universe. Is that okay?

Saying we know a lot about the universe is ridiculous, btw. Sure, compared to the Dark Ages, we know a lot. Compared to the vast knowledge that exists entirely outside our grasp, we know nothing. We are trying to make sense of shadows and dust.

Again I say, "so what?" The challenge and the ability to learn about our world further make this task meaningful and worthwhile. What is so bad about trying to make sense of shadows and dust, Proximo?

 

[Rentahamster]

Oh and spare me the ego, please. “I could write a better Bible” might have been clever when Hitchens or Sam Harris said it, but it’s hardly smart. The Bible was written 2000 years ago. Congratulations on being full of yourself.

What ego? I'm giving it to you straight. Do you think you can't write a better version? I'm pretty sure you could. Most people could. No need to get upset.

Congratulations on missing the point. Please try again without the preconceived antagonism this time, thank you.

 

[nightmare-slain]

that would've been ideal yeah. not just jesus but any other prophet. seems pretty convenient that they all appeared when they did.

 

[DeepBreath87]

You sound awfully pessimistic about the pursuit of knowledge for someone trying to convince me that their point isn't to stop learning.


Could you please define what you mean by "science" and "religious" in that sentence? The way I understand these terms, that sentence doesn't make any sense.


Why do you think the universe is created? What evidence do you have that justifies that belief?


Considering that you are hardly considering any of the sources I've linked you that help to explain the origin of life, I'm not sure how eager you are to learn.


Great. You haven't been listening to what I've been saying because I've also been saying that we don't make statements of certainty about things we know almost nothing about. Please try to understand this time. Ctrl+f my posts for all the times I said "I don't know". However, you seem to be certain that a god created the universe. Is that okay?


Again I say, "so what?" The challenge and the ability to learn about our world further make this task meaningful and worthwhile. What is so bad about trying to make sense of shadows and dust, Proximo?

Not pessimistic. Humble. I can see why you might confuse the two, however.

Science to me is a process people use to understand the nature of our existence in physical terms. It has obvious limits. It cannot tell us whether human lives are valuable, for example. There are all kinds of questions science is ill equipped to answer, as much as Sam Harris pretends that is not the case. But science can help us understand the fundamental realities of our physical existence. I find the information about the creation helpful in understanding the nature of the creator.

I’ve already stated why I think the universe was created. It has defined rules. Those rules aren’t self generating. I explain that to you already. When I play a game with rules, I clearly understand the game didn’t generate its own rules. I know you are trying to say that’s different than the rules of the universe. It’s not.

I haven’t engaged with your sources because I don’t have the time and it’s honestly irrelevant to me. I’m not interested in your YouTube videos. Sorry. I’m generally aware of the theories regarding the creation of life. I’m also aware that we’ve never been able to come close to replicating them in a controlled environment, much less them springing forth from an uncontrolled one.

What ego? I'm giving it to you straight. Do you think you can't write a better version? I'm pretty sure you could. Most people could. No need to get upset.

Congratulations on missing the point. Please try again without the preconceived antagonism this time, thank you.

As for this, your standing on the shoulders of the past and pretending you’re a giant.

 

[nkarafo]

Science to me is a process people use to understand the nature of our existence in physical terms. It has obvious limits. It cannot tell us whether human lives are valuable, for example.

Philosophy should be what you need for anything non-physical.

Religion doesn't answer anything.

 

[DeepBreath87]

Philosophy should be what you need for anything non-physical.

Religion doesn't answer anything.

Religion and philosophy are pretty much the same thing to me. One just dresses there’s up with supernatural trappings and one often ends up in nihilism.

 

[showernota]

showernota , you can't trust someone of deep faith to objectively dissect the apparent contradictions of the bible, when there is a grey area they are going to automatically take a reasonable view that supports their faith.

Which is why I’m always including walls of Scripture in my posts. My commentary wasn’t meant to be a dissection.

Ignore my comments and read the Scripture (in context), it’s very clear.

You can't trust someone, say an athiest who just doesn't believe in divinity or Christianity, to objectively dissect and analyze the bible, because they are going to look at the grey area evidence and automatically take a reasonable view that contradictions exist and the book is not devine.

I don’t trust anyone, which is why I go to the available evidence of the argument. In this case, contradictions in the Bible meant the Bible.

I certainly don’t trust whoever completely cut up Ecclesiastes 1:4 into ‘...the earth abideth forever...’ to support an argument. If the Bible is just the product of 40 guys living in caves and the desert thousands of years ago, there should be no need to be so incredibly biased in presenting what they wrote. It should be full of holes.

Reasonable minds may differ. I always have a harder time with people of deep faith, they seem to act as if it's so logical and correct to believe in their religion, as if people of other faiths aren't just as educated and don't scrutinzie and study their religous texts just as greatly.

I’d like to stay focused on what we’ve discussed. The Scripture presented(in context) follows the logical line of reasoning present throughout the entire Bible. You could argue that the logic is illogical, since it’s supernatural. However, the internal logical consistency of the text does not break.

There is no rule that someone can only know what one religion claims. I’m very familiar with the quran, and I can assure you (and show you) what a ‘religious text’ full of contradictions looks like. The Bible doesn’t have those, and that is not affected what other people believe.

Plain simple fact, whether or not religion is real and god is true, if you want to believe in the Bible, no amount of evidence or reasoning is going to convince you otherwise. The opposite is also true.

Certainly the ‘contradictions’ presented here did not, and should not convince anyone that God is not real.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

I tell you what, this thread deserves a longer and more thought out response but the world needs more positive things to lean on.

It's too woke or politically correct or the balance is way off.

I'm against, hate, negativity, prejudice, racism, and bad things in general.

I had this discussion with a friend of mine like 4 months ago, I swear. I told him that religion is basically withering and as much as I can tell you I'm more rational, I've become more spiritual as I've aged. I think if you extrapolate the parts which enhance and teach, the bible is a good book. It's kind of like what I always say, you are what you eat. Surround yourself with good things and vibes. Listen to positive music and enlightened yourself with some Ted talks and feel good stories. Build a garden and make your own peaceful environment.

I don't know, I'm simple. The world needs so much healing right now.

 

[Roni]

If the Bible is just the product of 40 guys living in caves and the desert thousands of years ago, there should be no need to be so incredibly biased in presenting what they wrote. It should be full of holes.

An interactive resource to explore Bible contradictions, cruelty and other detrimental aspects of the Bible.

A beautiful and interactive resource to explore Bible contradictions, cruelty and other detrimental aspects of the Bible

www.lyingforjesus.org

 

[Rentahamster]

Not pessimistic. Humble. I can see why you might confuse the two, however.

Your position is humble? Are you sure? I will remind you that I'm the one whose position is "I don't know", which is most congruent with your statement that the universe is so vast and complex that it's hard to understand. On the other hand, you are the one who is claiming to know what the origin of life and the universe is.

I said "I don't know" and cite how we can't yet investigate everything. You said "God did it" and cite someone who told you once that that's what happened without any proof. That's not very humble at all.

Science to me is a process people use to understand the nature of our existence in physical terms. It has obvious limits. It cannot tell us whether human lives are valuable, for example.

Not sure why you'd need help determining whether human lives are valuable.

There are all kinds of questions science is ill equipped to answer, as much as Sam Harris pretends that is not the case. But science can help us understand the fundamental realities of our physical existence. I find the information about the creation helpful in understanding the nature of the creator.

Again you assume a creator based on no evidence.

I’ve already stated why I think the universe was created. It has defined rules. Those rules aren’t self generating. I explain that to you already. When I play a game with rules, I clearly understand the game didn’t generate its own rules. I know you are trying to say that’s different than the rules of the universe. It’s not.

Yes you did state why. You said that someone told you it was like a clockmaker and that convinced you.

"Those rules aren't self generating". - you don't know that for sure. The fabric of reality is not analogous to a mere game. You need to prove that these two things are the same before I take your analogy seriously.

haven’t engaged with your sources because I don’t have the time and it’s honestly irrelevant to me. I’m not interested in your YouTube videos. Sorry.

For someone who claims to not be against learning, you sure refuse to learn, even when I make it easy for you.

I’m generally aware of the theories regarding the creation of life. I’m also aware that we’ve never been able to come close to replicating them in a controlled environment, much less them springing forth from an uncontrolled one.

If you're so generally aware of these things, you'd also be aware of how painfully irrelevant your second sentence is to the meat and potatoes of this discussion.

As for this, your standing on the shoulders of the past and pretending you’re a giant.

Don't dodge the hard questions by saying someone else did it first. That's irrelevant. Engage with the actual substance. You don't see me complaining that all you're doing is regurgitating bits of William Paley, do you? We as individuals can have our own thoughts, thank you very much.

I'd still like you to answer the questions that I asked of you earlier.

Do you think you can't write a better version of the Bible?

Why is trying to make sense of shadows and dust such a bad thing?

You claimed that we shouldn't make claims of certainty. I'm not. Yet you are. Is that okay?

Why are you using the term "god", if it's synonymous with "the universe" in the way you use it?

 

[showernota]

An interactive resource to explore Bible contradictions, cruelty and other detrimental aspects of the Bible.

A beautiful and interactive resource to explore Bible contradictions, cruelty and other detrimental aspects of the Bible

www.lyingforjesus.org

Pick one. We can discuss it.

 

[fran.fernandez]

Nah, some Rovers are flying to Mars so, if a dude start walking on water will be barely a Netflix stunt show.

what else he did that David Blaine can not do? Wait a second……

 

[DeepBreath87]

Your position is humble? Are you sure? I will remind you that I'm the one whose position is "I don't know", which is most congruent with your statement that the universe is so vast and complex that it's hard to understand. On the other hand, you are the one who is claiming to know what the origin of life and the universe is.

I said "I don't know" and cite how we can't yet investigate everything. You said "God did it" and cite someone who told you once that that's what happened without any proof. That's not very humble at all.


Not sure why you'd need help determining whether human lives are valuable.


Again you assume a creator based on no evidence.


Yes you did state why. You said that someone told you it was like a clockmaker and that convinced you.

"Those rules aren't self generating". - you don't know that for sure. The fabric of reality is not analogous to a mere game. You need to prove that these two things are the same before I take your analogy seriously.

For someone who claims to not be against learning, you sure refuse to learn, even when I make it easy for you.


If you're so generally aware of these things, you'd also be aware of how painfully irrelevant your second sentence is to the meat and potatoes of this discussion.


Don't dodge the hard questions by saying someone else did it first. That's irrelevant. Engage with the actual substance. You don't see me complaining that all you're doing is regurgitating bits of William Paley, do you? We as individuals can have our own thoughts, thank you very much.

I'd still like you to answer the questions that I asked of you earlier.

Do you think you can't write a better version of the Bible?

Why is trying to make sense of shadows and dust such a bad thing?

You claimed that we shouldn't make claims of certainty. I'm not. Yet you are. Is that okay?

Why are you using the term "god", if it's synonymous with "the universe" in the way you use it?

I’ve made no claims of certainty. I have beliefs. You seem really hung up on the fact I believe there is a creator. You believe there is not. Clearly a belief you are very invested in, as much as you pretend not to be. Belief isn’t certainty. It’s belief. There is no system that has defined rules where those rules self generated from nothing. I don’t interact with your sources because I really just don’t care about your silly YouTube videos. I have an actual life and don’t really need to concern myself with your playlist. Feel free to keep harping on it though.

I guess if I’m not willing to give you, a random on a message board, more of my time than it takes to reply, that means I’m against learning. Could be that. Or it could be I don’t take you seriously enough to devote time to your silly videos.... (it’s the latter)

You’ve already said you don’t know. Neither do I. Unlike you keep claiming, I have never said I know with certainty. I have my inclinations, you have yours. Show me where I said I know.

I have said I find out inability to recreate life in a lab has me doubt it could’ve happened spontaneously in nature. To use your mud hut (a gross oversimplification of how complex even simple life is) example, it would be like if human beings couldn’t build mud huts at all, but we are expect to accept that one built itself billions of years ago.

I said I don’t believe the laws that govern the universe were self generated by the universe. Those aren’t statements of certainty, so I’m not sure why you’re hung up on that. But you seem to be.

But I enjoy your silly memes. Between that and your attempts to mischaracterize what I’ve said, I think this conversation has run its course. I appreciate the YouTube videos, although I’m just not that interested in your bedtime playlist. Have fun jerking off to Sam Harris videos.

 

[Rentahamster]

I’ve made no claims of certainty.

I believe there is a creator.

You seem really hung up on the fact

Clearly a belief you are very invested in

Internet mind reading is a sign of projection.

There is no system that has defined rules where those rules self generated from nothing.

You don't know that. And besides, the theories for the scientific origins of the universe colloquially call it "nothing", but it's not actually nothing.

I don’t interact with your sources because I really just don’t care about your silly YouTube videos. I have an actual life and don’t really need to concern myself with your playlist. Feel free to keep harping on it though.

I guess if I’m not willing to give you, a random on a message board, more of my time than it takes to reply, that means I’m against learning. Could be that. Or it could be I don’t take you seriously enough to devote time to your silly videos.... (it’s the latter)

Congratulations on not wanting to learn. As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water. . .

You’ve already said you don’t know. Neither do I. Unlike you keep claiming, I have never said I know with certainty.

You're uncertain about your beliefs? How can they be beliefs if you're not certain of them?

Show me where I said I know.

OK

the universe was created and set up to be a certain way.​

​

When I was younger I heard the analogy of the universe as a wind up clock and god as the clockmaker. I’ve always kind of subscribed for that line of thinking.​

​

My view of a creator is the forces that set up universe and established its rules is what we consider god.​

​

I believe there is a creator.​

Good enough? Like you said, "What I suggest is that we don’t make statements of certainty about things we know almost nothing about." Yet, you keep on claiming that a creator created the universe, based on nothing more than your feelings. I haven't quoted Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens once at all in my conversations, so I don't know why you keep on bringing them up, but I will quote Ben Shapiro: "Facts don't care about your feelings".

I have said I find out inability to recreate life in a lab has me doubt it could’ve happened spontaneously in nature. To use your mud hut (a gross oversimplification of how complex even simple life is) example, it would be like if human beings couldn’t build mud huts at all, but we are expect to accept that one built itself billions of years ago.

Given your lack of knowledge on the subject, I'm pretty sure you don't know what "simple life" would consist of and how simple a structure it could actually be, and how its constituent parts could be created via natural processes. (You'd know if you watch the videos! )

I said I don’t believe the laws that govern the universe were self generated by the universe. Those aren’t statements of certainty, so I’m not sure why you’re hung up on that. But you seem to be.

You're ignoring the statement of certainty where you said that a god created the universe. That's the one I'm pointing to.

But I enjoy your silly memes. Between that and your attempts to mischaracterize what I’ve said, I think this conversation has run its course. I appreciate the YouTube videos, although I’m just not that interested in your bedtime playlist. Have fun jerking off to Sam Harris videos.

I'm glad you enjoy the memes.

If you bow out without answering my questions, that's not a good look for your contribution to this conversation.

Do you think you can't write a better version of the Bible?

Why is trying to make sense of shadows and dust such a bad thing?

You claimed that we shouldn't make claims of certainty. I'm not. Yet you are. Is that okay?

Why are you using the term "god", if it's synonymous with "the universe" in the way you use it?

 

[German Hops]

 

[Rentahamster]

 

[DeepBreath87]

Internet mind reading is a sign of projection.


You don't know that. And besides, the theories for the scientific origins of the universe colloquially call it "nothing", but it's not actually nothing.


Congratulations on not wanting to learn. As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water. . .


You're uncertain about your beliefs? How can they be beliefs if you're not certain of them?


OK

​

​

​

Good enough? Like you said, "What I suggest is that we don’t make statements of certainty about things we know almost nothing about." Yet, you keep on claiming that a creator created the universe, based on nothing more than your feelings. I haven't quoted Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens once at all in my conversations, so I don't know why you keep on bringing them up, but I will quote Ben Shapiro: "Facts don't care about your feelings".


Given your lack of knowledge on the subject, I'm pretty sure you don't know what "simple life" would consist of and how simple a structure it could actually be, and how its constituent parts could be created via natural processes. (You'd know if you watch the videos! )


You're ignoring the statement of certainty where you said that a god created the universe. That's the one I'm pointing to.



I'm glad you enjoy the memes.

If you bow out without answering my questions, that's not a good look for your contribution to this conversation.

Do you think you can't write a better version of the Bible?

Why is trying to make sense of shadows and dust such a bad thing?

You claimed that we shouldn't make claims of certainty. I'm not. Yet you are. Is that okay?

Why are you using the term "god", if it's synonymous with "the universe" in the way you use it?

You understand that belief and certainty are not even close to the same thing, right? Apparently not. Are you certain when you go to bed every day that you will wake up the next day? Or do you believe it?

I’m kind of surprised you don’t know the difference, to be honest with you.

 

[Rentahamster]

You understand that belief and certainty are not even close to the same thing, right? Apparently not. Are you certain when you go to bed every day that you will wake up the next day? Or do you believe it?

I am and I do. Because I have evidence that backs up my certainty, which directs my belief.

I’m kind of surprised you don’t know the difference, to be honest with you.

I'm kind of surprised that you believe something that you're not certain is true. Your entire worldview hinges on a concept that you don't know is true. Yet you believe it anyway.

Feel free to address the rest of the post too.

Do you think you can't write a better version of the Bible?

Why is trying to make sense of shadows and dust such a bad thing?

You claimed that we shouldn't make claims of certainty. I'm not. Yet you are. Is that okay?

Why are you using the term "god", if it's synonymous with "the universe" in the way you use it?

 

[DeepBreath87]

I am and I do. Because I have evidence that backs up my certainty, which directs my belief.


I'm kind of surprised that you believe something that you're not certain is true. Your entire worldview hinges on a concept that you don't know is true. Yet you believe it anyway.

Feel free to address the rest of the post too.

Do you think you can't write a better version of the Bible?

Why is trying to make sense of shadows and dust such a bad thing?

You claimed that we shouldn't make claims of certainty. I'm not. Yet you are. Is that okay?

Why are you using the term "god", if it's synonymous with "the universe" in the way you use it?

Yeah. I didn’t make claims of certainty. We just established that. You’re still confused about it apparently. Again belief≠certainty.

I’m sure I’d change the Bible if I wrote it today. It was written 2000 years ago.

I didn’t say studying shadows and dust was bad, did I? Or that we should stop doing it.

And I don’t think the universe self generated it’s own rules, which would presuppose that something exists that did.

I think it’s interesting that 2 of your 4 “questions” are you mischaracterizing what I’ve said... aren’t you the guy who was just accusing me of projection? It seems like you’ve projected a lot of things into what I’ve said that just aren’t there.

 

[Roni]

Pick one. We can discuss it.

I outgrew meaningless discussions after puberty. But given your displayed passion for the subject, you should go through them one by one and leave your comments on the website so people reading there will have access to your thoughts on them, whatever they're worth...

 

[showernota]

I outgrew meaningless discussions after puberty. But given your displayed passion for the subject, you should go through them one by one and leave your comments of the website so people reading there will have access to your thoughts on them, whatever they're worth...

Right, thanks.

Considering the first thing I see is the scientific impossibility regarding visions in Revelation, I’ll pass.

I assume that site ignores the floating he-goat from Daniel 8, which was an accurate prophecy of the events leading up to Alexander the Great.

Daniel 8 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[L0la H4vana]

True Christianity is much more mystical than intellectual. If you look at Orthodox Christianity at least, and not so much at the ordained priests but the monks and Church Fathers and Elders. They truly loved Christ and divinity showed itsself in a tangible way through them, as through the Saints.

I mean just look at Elder Paisios for example, he was one of the latest and very popular. He could heal people inside and out and ignored his own latter day illness to be of service to anyone who came to visit him.

These men and women were so in line with Christs teaching they became a vessel of this enlightened and healing divine energy. It goes beyond words and intellectual understanding. It has to be experienced. And to experience this, like all other spiritual paths, you have to immerse yourself in it. It's beyond rationalisation and arguments. It's about peace and love and a keen sense of discernment of what is what in this world and the spiritual world that interlaces with ours.
It's really interesting and cool if you ask me.