Evolution and a supreme being.

Pushtrak

philologos wrote: »

As much as you mightn't like to hear this. But there's no comparison between believing in a Creator God, the necessity which brought all things into existence, and Santa.

Analogies do break down. The essential premise though is that something we can all agree on being fiction can and often will have backing on differing levels in some form of mythos.

The reason I brought up Nazareth was because people claimed that Nazareth never existed and was ahistorical right up to the point when it was demonstrated that Nazareth existed.

Do you presume we should do it the other way? That we should go with something being true before it has been demonstrated? Well, that is what religious belief really is, when you boil it down. I don't think that is an unfair assessment on religion. It is all about the leaps of faith, et cetera... Honestly, though, the existence of Nazareth or any incidental claims are not historical proof of the miracles or the resurrection.

It's surely off to say that it is circular to argue against your claim. Where did you get that Jesus tells His followers that He's the Son of God from if not from the Bible?

This is in reference to your citation of Mark 9:9 earlier. Now, before I go to 9:9 it may be worth looking at what 9:1 says.

And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Is the "may" there a get out of jail free card? An error with a give or take a couple of thousand years clause? What is the story here? With any other claim, we would say ok that was wrong.

No one ought to take Harold Camping seriously after two failed end time predictions. Of course, if he was to go a third time, most of us would agree that he'd still have people believe him. Same applies to Jesus. Here, it is demonstrably wrong, yet it is believed. Why is this?

7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

Hasn't been any of that lately. Why not? Oh, sorry mysterious ways.

8 And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves.

The previous verse says they heard the voice not saw anything. So, it wasn't going from seeing something to not seeing it. /Pedant.
And then we get to 9:9...

9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.

Hm, what do we say here... Son of man... That is a bit interesting. Is the son of man intended to be Elijah?

12 And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought.

Restoreth all things, huh?

17 And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit;

Ouch, that's a bit mean.

18 And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not.

That's worse...

25 When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.

Do I need to say anything here?

36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them,

37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

Could you clarify just what this is intended to be?

It's nothing about "victors". We have Jesus' words in the New Testament, and indeed they are likely to be His word, and they match up with the history that we have, and the manuscripts we have are more textually reliable than any other ancient historical text.

Indeed, it is nothing about victors. It is about believers. We could have a jew or muslim come in and be just as confident about the infallibility of their own message.

Atheism in attempting to dismantle quite a number of things which make perfectly good sense, has left a void which is devoid of sense, reason, or explanatory power, insofar as there is actually plenty to point to God's existence.

This is really close to an argument along the lines that an atheist can not have morals. That there is no value in secular morality. That type of argument. I would challenge that by pointing out that religious (Christian) morality is strongest when looked on rationally. Equal treatment of women is certainly not something that is advocated in the bible. Subjugation of women seems to be the moral lesson derived from that book.

I don't hold back in respect to atheism - because firstly, it is fundamentally dangerous in respect to peoples salvation, and secondly because it undermines what is true.

Don't hold back. But, by the same token, don't hold back on compelling arguments if they exist. We have much to go in to in relation to authenticating the miracles (including the resurrection) and getting somewhere with establishing absolute truth. Though, absolute truth is going to be a bit of a pain to discuss, I'm figuring.

I care little about whether the world regards me for being an idiot for that, because this world is perishing, and judgement is coming. I just want to warn of that, and I just want to explain the reasons why I can believe and trust in the Gospel truth of Jesus, and indeed why all mankind can too.

I already cited proof that this judgement, et cetera is a long way coming. As in, I don't think any of the people purported to be alive for this judgement could be accurately described as amongst the living.

I'd love to see the basis of that opinion, because I don't think I or many other people would share that assumption. The New Testament, is the most authentic ancient text we have, and it points very clearly to historical realities in a number of ways in which the Qur'an doesn't.

I can see this isn't really going to go anywhere. Sites sympathetic to one holy text will say its holy text is more accurate, and vice versa. So, you'll go with ones that say your holy text is more accurate and say this is the grounding of your belief.

So, allow me to restate the things you feel are most compelling arguments in favour of a deity (your deity)... Something relating to the bible accounting for sin (which you'll get in to on your next post), incidental details in the bible, prophecies fulfilled, miracles and the resurrection. Is that a fair summary of it?

Sarky

Why does philologos keep ignoring nozzferrahhtoo?

Pedant

mylastparadigm wrote: »

id be very interested in your theorem for that one.

so you are not against a god in general, just the one that people like?

I outright do not believe in a peronal and/or immanent god. That is, a god who is engaged, or has been engaged, in either human or indeed universal physical and natural affairs after it is assumed to have created the universe.

I believe evolution can disprove that such a god engaged in human affairs, or effected, somehow, man's evolution or even that god placed life on this Earth.

I believe that after it supposedly created the universe, the universe was left to its own purely physical devices. This would be the case for a wholly transcendent or deistic god.

I reject even the existence of this god but I know I can't fully prove or disprove such a deistic god, therefore I am agnostic to it's existence as it is impossible for me to prove or disprove it.

I regard a deistic god as purely the byproduct of man's thought, not observation. I believe that the suggestion of a deistic god results form the tacit acceptance of the infinite regression paradox, which I believe to display a logical flaw in man's thinking.

Yet, I assert that a universe that did not have a Prime Mover is logically flawed because, according to our minds, something cannot come from nothing.

However, both cases above, i.e., the infinitely regressing Prime Mover and the universe that came from nothing, are based purely on the assumption that time is linear.

The ambiguity here lies with man's understanding of time; is time linear, cyclic or something our minds haven't comprehended yet or are incapable of comprehending.

philologos

Pushtrak: I'd recommend using the English Standard Version, it is phrased in more modern English. The KJV is an old translation, and more importantly it uses less Greek and Hebrew manuscripts than more modern versions do.

I'm going to make every effort to go through your first post, and unpack Mark 9 in your second post, and I'm going to make every effort to go through your objections in the second post. Apologies that it has to be a bit slower, I've been quite busy with stuff this week, but I want to respond this.

The Corinthian

philologos wrote: »

As much as you mightn't like to hear this. But there's no comparison between believing in a Creator God, the necessity which brought all things into existence, and Santa.

To begin with I was citing the Bible, not God; I have not discussed the existence of God with you whatsoever. Secondly, if the Bible does constitute a false account, then it is in effect a mythology as valid as the mythology that has grown around Santa for children.

Which is probably why lumping all religions into one generic concept isn't a great idea.

Because it's too complicated? No, 'lumping' all religions together is a very good idea as it demonstrates commonalities between them.

Despite what you think, Christianity is not special; it's source shares similarities with the sources of all other revealed 'holy' texts. I even questioned you as to why you might believe in one (the Bible) and not another (the Quaran), given neither is more objectively compelling than the other.

The reason I brought up Nazareth was because people claimed that Nazareth never existed and was ahistorical right up to the point when it was demonstrated that Nazareth existed.

No, you introduced a straw man argument; responding to a point I never made.

There is a whole lot of areas where archaeology can show the Bible to be accurate concerning history. It seems like you're being highly selective in this case.

I'm not. Just because the Bible is accurate historically in some areas does not wipe away that it is not in others; Nazareth existing does not negate the fact that the Jews were never in Egypt as described in the story of Moses.

You don't get to pull that line of argument in this case, and I'll explain why. If you make claims about the Gospel which aren't even Biblical, I have the right to challenge them and will. The reason I do, is simply so that people won't be deceived in respect to it.

Of course the claims I make are not Biblical. The whole point of this argument is wheither the Bible, or any other 'holy' text is true or a mythology, so naturally I will seek arguments from without to confirm or reject this rather than concentrate on a text that may or may not be valid.

It makes little sense to base a discussion that questions the validity of the Bible on the Bible. It would be like trying to prove that Lord of the Rings was a true text by simply citing from it and ignoring everything else.

It's surely off to say that it is circular to argue against your claim. Where did you get that Jesus tells His followers that He's the Son of God from if not from the Bible?

Indeed. I gave a synopsis of the New Testament. Without resorting to huge slabs of scripture, do you deny the content of that synopsis? Is it not claimed that he said this by only his disciples? Was their ministry not essentially how they all made a living? When he was killed, was evidence the resurrection essentially witnessed by no one by but his disciples and a few events that are recounted only by his disciples? Did this 'new' religion not essentially reconstitute how his disciples could make a living after he was killed?

You may accuse me of presenting a cynical interpretation of the story, but factually, the above is all correct.

In this case, it's fair game for me to point to Mark's Gospel and say that you're mistaken. It is very clearly explained as to why Jesus told people not to claim that He was the Son of God prior to the Resurrection. It is because Jesus wanted to ensure that people understood the full Gospel before explaining it to others.

It is very clearly claimed. If I had made the whole thing up and wanted to introduce information after the fact like that, I would probably need to come up with a reason as to why I had previously withheld it too.

Have you read the whole of Galatians? If so it would tell you primarily why it was unbiblical. Christianity was both for Jews and for Gentiles. That was clear right from the beginning. In fact it was clear from Abraham that all nations would be blessed through Him (Genesis 12). This was fulfilled through Jesus (Galatians 3). Jesus made explicitly clear that the Gospel was for all, Jews and Gentiles, the Apostles made explicitly clear that the Gospel was for all, Jews and Gentiles. The Old Testament makes clear that the Gospel was for all, Jews and Gentiles.

I never said that both Jews and non-Jews were not welcome (or targeted) by Christianity. I said that the early Church was split in how much it should conform to Jewish traditions and practices, that those Jews and non-Jews would have to adhere to if they converted.

You mean, that there were Christians who preached the Gospels, and false teachers as Jesus told us there would be?

QED on how I predicted you'd respond.

It's nothing about "victors". We have Jesus' words in the New Testament, and indeed they are likely to be His word, and they match up with the history that we have, and the manuscripts we have are more textually reliable than any other ancient historical text.

That's very questionable. The gospels were written decades after his death, allegedly by individuals who, for the most part, never even met him. And that's just the tip of the iceberg on that particular topic, which is frankly a mammoth debate in itself.

Indeed, good that you mentioned Paul and Galatians, because the dating of that book, and the account of Paul's life that we find in it, serve as strong reason as to why the Gospel is not likely to be a forgery or fiction.

Why does it give a strong reason as to why the Gospel is not likely to be a fiction? Forgery, sure, it could well be an original (or pretty original) text. But even original texts can be full of fiction.

This is why this discussion is really pointless. You presume that the text is true as your starting point and thus see it perfectly rational to use it as a source of proof in your arguments.

I instead see the text as largely fictional; set in a real historical context, but embellished with magical tales that cannot be verified. Possibly the most glaring of these is Herod's massacre of the innocents, because despite the scale of the event, it is not recorded anywhere; by local government records, contemporary or even later historians.

Are you sure about that?

Pretty sure, yes. The whole area of St Paul's influence on Christianity, his relationship with St James and the question of Jewish law and tradition is a particular hot topic in both archaeological and theological debates.

There does exist significant evidence that points to St Paul having actively distorted the course and beliefs of early Christianity to a form more attractive to non-Jews.

Paul was an evangelist who gave His entire life to serving Jesus selflessly. He literally had nothing to gain from his ministry other than death.

Indeed. When has a religious leader ever had anything to gain from his ministry?

This issue comes down very simply to Creation.

I can expect miracles if there is a God who has created all things, and is involved in it.

Bit of a presumption there. A Primum Movens does not have to do anything other than get the ball rolling. to presume he does, and that he would bother with the likes of us in the process, is really little more than vanity.

But even that is not relevant to what we're discussing, because you are now citing the existence of God in relation to your belief in the Bible. Why not a belief in the Quaran?

I don't hold back in respect to atheism - because firstly, it is fundamentally dangerous in respect to peoples salvation, and secondly because it undermines what is true.

I would note, with some amusement, that an Atheist would likely say something similar of religion. And I say religion because Christianity really is no more special than any other revealed religion.

This isn't true either. I'm an example of how God rescued an agnostic. I rejected Jesus Christ for most of my life, I never knew Him. Thankfully, He rescued me, and I now believe in His word, and I now long that people will be saved.

And those agnostics who convert to Buddhism or Islam? Are they examples of how Buddha or Allah saved them?

I care little about whether the world regards me for being an idiot for that, because this world is perishing, and judgement is coming. I just want to warn of that, and I just want to explain the reasons why I can believe and trust in the Gospel truth of Jesus, and indeed why all mankind can too.

And as I said, I wish you well and whatever floats your boat.

I'd love to see the basis of that opinion, because I don't think I or many other people would share that assumption. The New Testament, is the most authentic ancient text we have, and it points very clearly to historical realities in a number of ways in which the Qur'an doesn't.

Actually, being more recent, the Quaran has far more third party historical sources that verify its historical background - there's independent historical evidence of Mohamed even existing, for example, which does not exist for Jesus.

You do realise that Christians believe in the entire Jewish Biblical text?

Not true. The Bible omits quite a bit of the Jewish Biblical text.

As for the Epic of Gilgamesh, you'll have to explain your point a bit more in respect to that.

A Sumerian religious text. It's where the story of the great flood originates, later to be borrowed and amended by Judaism. Just another mythology.

Faith is simply the trust that I have in the Gospel. - My faith is not blind, it's based on quite a number of reasons, which I have posted extensively on boards.ie over the last 5 years since I have accepted the Gospel of Jesus. It's simply false to say that I've not presented any, and it is simply false to suggest that there isn't any solid reason as to why Christians believe in Jesus. I'm more than happy to go through my reasons for believing in Jesus again.

If you can cite any reasons that do not presume the validity of the New Testament as a starting point, then fire ahead.

You see, when I say 'preach to the converted' I mean stop presuming that the New Testament is true when arguing, because your argument will be automatically rejected on the basis that I do not share that presumption.

It would be like a Muslim arguing that Islam is the true religion and then only backing up their arguments with vast slabs of text from the Quaran. You'd hardly accept that as evidence, would you? After all you do not share that Muslim's presumption that the Quaran is a truthful source.

As I said earlier, I'm not terribly interested in converting you to my view and am certainly disinterested in being converted and all that we're doing now is going around in those circles I predicted. Would you like to leave it at that?

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

I'm going to focus on The Corinthian's posts for now, and I will get to Pushtrak's post tomorrow considering it is quite a bit more meaty.

Yes there is actually. Quite a bit. Examples includes the fact that they both have the same amount of evidence going for their existence (none) and because they are both unfalsifiable negatives they both have the same amount of evidence against their existence too (none) and they are both used often by one party to morally influence the behavior of other parties, amid claims of reward, punishment and an uncanny ability to watch everything you do and think and judge you for it.

The list goes on, but that's enough to set the ball rolling for you.

Sarky wrote: »

Why does philologos keep ignoring nozzferrahhtoo?

He has been pretending to ignore me ever since I bested him in a debate and he ran off crying. The pretense is quite comical in fact as a couple of days after pretending to ignore me he forgot and accidently replied to me. Then a couple of days later after that he started PMing me all kinds of aggressive nonsense. Both of which clearly show I am not on "ignore".

From my side it does not really matter if he ignores me or not. I am content merely to contradict and debunk his nonsense for the other readers of his posts and to keep linking back to posts from his history which show exactly who and what we are dealing with here. I can then let other people judge him, his character and his "arguments" on their own. Whether or not HE actually reads them is entirely irrelevant to that.

In fact I am not even a reader of After Hours. Any post I reply to from him on here is because someone has PMed me and asked me to do so. Seems I have groupies :-)

Pushtrak

philologos wrote: »

Pushtrak: I'd recommend using the English Standard Version, it is phrased in more modern English. The KJV is an old translation, and more importantly it uses less Greek and Hebrew manuscripts than more modern versions do.

Thanks for suggesting an alternative source material to reference, but really the fact there are such substantive differences between the sources really does beg the question. And honestly it hearkens back to the point about accuracy of the texts.

The texts can not all be 100% accurate by the very virtue of how different they all are. So, ultimately which bible one chooses is subjective. A subjective means to obtain an absolute truth* doesn't make sense. You personally think this is the best bible. I have no leg to stand on making a claim on which is the most authroritative, but you could get a few thousand different Christians each pointing out their massive issues with all other texts than the one that they personally use.

Christianity then, appears to be anything but absolute. Nebulous may be more appropriate.

I'm going to make every effort to go through your first post, and unpack Mark 9 in your second post, and I'm going to make every effort to go through your objections in the second post. Apologies that it has to be a bit slower, I've been quite busy with stuff this week, but I want to respond this.

Yes, I saw you post that you'd be busy. That's fine. Respond as you find the time.

*Not to mention the fact absolute truths is murky water territory.

nozzferrahhtoo

Pushtrak wrote: »

Christianity then, appears to be anything but absolute. Nebulous may be more appropriate.

It is worse than even that I am afraid. Pointing to the number of differing source texts with different translations and interpretations between them is only the tip of the ice berg.

I have a now aging, so I would love to hear the current figures, copy of the World Christian Encyclopedia. It claims there are well over 33,000 different branches of Christianity and they often have different, even irreconcilable, views and interpretations of the Christian faith.

Jakkass or whatever username he has shifted to lately will trot in and throw around the word "Christian" as if it indicates mass consensus and majority backing up the views he holds. In fact he spends quite a bit of text in his posts distancing himself from the Catholic faith for example.

Despite being argumentum ad populum fallacy from end to end this also fails because there IS no such consensus and these days the meaning of the word "Christian" is so dilute that when someone declares themselves to be one they have told you very little about themselves except possibly they have heard the name Jesus Christ at some point in their education or lack of.

Pushtrak wrote: »

Yes, I saw you post that you'd be busy. That's fine. Respond as you find the time.

Meh, he always says that. Has been saying it for years. For example he has been promising to update his Synthesis of his faith and why he holds it for years now, promising to come back and "Update and refine" his arguments but it never happens. I would take any pretense at being busy with a pinch of salt if I were you. Especially from a user who has found the time to make nearly 20,000 posts but somehow has never found the time to put any evidence for his views in one of them. There comes a time when it could not be clearer that time is not the real resource that is lacking here.

Jimoslimos

Some excellent posts by nozzferrahhtoo, Pushtrak and the Corinthian but I can't help wonder how did we get here from a the initial question posed? Evolution and a supreme being?

bluewolf succinctly answered the OP in the first reply, but I'd like to elaborate a little. We have 4 possible scenarios

[LIST=2]
[*]God - Creates heaven and earth, man created. No evolution
[*]God - Creates heaven and earth and initates life. Evolution occurs but is 'directed'
[*]God - Creates heaven and earth - allows evolution to occur independently until such time where smiting becomes an option.
[*]No God - Evolution occurs
[/LIST]

(somewhere I know, there is a Christian pointing out that this means the odds on God existing is 3:1 in their favour!)

Now evoultion can disprove the first two, but as for 3 and 4 there is no way to distinguish between those two. However it certainly puts a substantial dent in one of the central tenets of Christianity (and other deistic religions), that we are all God's creation. There are other, better tools for arguing against the existence of God but we'll keep those to the A&A forum for now.

I find it strange that philologos is happy to use science where he feels it might strengthen his argument, archaeological records etc. (many works of fiction are based around existing areas/periods and reference real life events - helps the reader relate to the story) but is rather vague on the main Biblical 'evidence' resorting to semantics and claims of mistranslation.

Scioch

Of course the theory of evolution can be used to argue against the existence of god. One of the main beliefs in religion is that god created man, our existence as humans is attributed to god. We know this to be untrue, we evolved from other creatures over millions of years through natural selection.

We have nullified the argument and there is nothing else to suggest the existence of a supreme being. Any "yeah but maybe god kicked it all off" is still drawing on the teaching of the bible (which we know to be wrong) in asking the question.

Everything regarding god is a human construct which didnt exist in pre human times.

Jimoslimos

Jimoslimos wrote: »

We have 4 possible scenarios

we also have the scenarios where there are god/gods but no creation involved with them

Pushtrak

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Some excellent posts by nozzferrahhtoo, Pushtrak and the Corinthian but I can't help wonder how did we get here from a the initial question posed? Evolution and a supreme being?

It was rapidly established that evolution only deals with one aspect of biblical literalism. That being done, the discussion developed.

[LIST=2]
[*]God - Creates heaven and earth, man created. No evolution
[*]God - Creates heaven and earth and initates life. Evolution occurs but is 'directed'
[*]God - Creates heaven and earth - allows evolution to occur independently until such time where smiting becomes an option.
[*]No God - Evolution occurs
[/LIST]

There is a faulty premise inherent in the options you present. It presents the dilemma as if there were one god, one heaven, when in fact there are a multiplicity of religions with their own afterlife mythos. Also, there is the other concepts such as deism which has no such afterlife. Or Pantheism which is that the universe and god are one, as examples. Though this must be the meaning behind when you post the following:

(somewhere I know, there is a Christian pointing out that this means the odds on God existing is 3:1 in their favour!)

Now evoultion can disprove the first two, but as for 3 and 4 there is no way to distinguish between those two. However it certainly puts a substantial dent in one of the central tenets of Christianity (and other deistic religions), that we are all God's creation.

Indeed, the thread has evolved, so...

There are other, better tools for arguing against the existence of God but we'll keep those to the A&A forum for now.

I would suggest it is better posted here.

Seachmall

Jimoslimos wrote: »

[LIST=2][*]God - Creates heaven and earth and initates life. Evolution occurs but is 'directed'[/LIST]

[...]

Now evoultion can disprove the first two

Evolution and natural selection themselves cannot prove that a god had no influence on our development.


Evolution and natural selection tell us interference from a god was not necessary, it does not say if it did or did not occur.

Occam's Razor can be used to argue that suggesting god was involved is irrational but nothing can truly eliminate the even extraordinarily minute possibility (i.e. it's not falsifiable).


That last point is the ultimate crutch of all religion; because we can only argue why many religious claims are probably untrue, we can't conclusively demonstrate them to be false, that to many is a justification for maintaining belief.

Obviously it's absurd.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am content merely to contradict and debunk his nonsense for the other readers of his posts and to keep linking back to posts from his history which show exactly who and what we are dealing with here. I can then let other people judge him, his character and his "arguments" on their own. Whether or not HE actually reads them is entirely irrelevant to that.

I do think that one mistake that we are often led into in such debates with him (I've only just realized that it's Jackkass under a different nick - I probably wouldn't have bothered responding had I originally known) is that they get suffocated in scripture.

Consider someone who claims that the novel "A Tale of Two Cities" is completely factual. Are you really going to waste your time examining vast slabs of text from that novel in debate to determine if it is factual or not?

In reality, one may point to it being in a historically factual context and the characters and their reasons making 'perfect sense', but that does not make the novel factual. For it to be factual, you have to demonstrate first that those contained therein existed and that the events associated to them actually happened. And you cannot do this by simply referencing the novel itself.

Allowing one to get bogged down in debate on a (potentially) fictional source is thus pointless - at least unless it can be compared to an external source that verifies it. And this Jackkass/philologos avoids this like the plague, I've noticed.

LordSmeg wrote: »

Of course the theory of evolution can be used to argue against the existence of god. One of the main beliefs in religion is that god created man, our existence as humans is attributed to god. We know this to be untrue, we evolved from other creatures over millions of years through natural selection.

Incorrect, as you are unfortunately making the existence of God dependant on religion and imposing an Abrahamic idea of God as 'Creator'. Spinoza's God is perfectly compatible with evolution, for example.

Any "yeah but maybe god kicked it all off" is still drawing on the teaching of the bible (which we know to be wrong) in asking the question.

Actually it doesn't at all draw from the Bible, which has God as a bit of a micro-manager throughout history. It originally draws from classical philosophy and was better developed during the Enlightenment.

Jimoslimos

bluewolf wrote: »

we also have the scenarios where there are god/gods but no creation involved with them

In a way that's what I was hinting at in scenario 3, albeit probably from a Christian God viewpoint. Could be better phrased as;
God/Gods - Universe, creation and evolution occurs independently

Pushtrak wrote: »

There is a faulty premise inherent in the options you present. It presents the dilemma as if there were one god, one heaven, when in fact there are a multiplicity of religions with their own afterlife mythos. Also, there is the other concepts such as deism which has no such afterlife. Or Pantheism which is that the universe and god are one, as examples.

Indeed, I kept the options quite narrow, the Abrahamic version of God. The scenarios could be amended to be a little broader.

Scioch

The Corinthian wrote: »

Incorrect, as you are unfortunately making the existence of God dependant on religion and imposing an Abrahamic idea of God as 'Creator'. Spinoza's God is perfectly compatible with evolution, for example.

All religious ideas of god are similar in that they are supreme beings and that they exist outside the realm of humans yet all understanding of them has come from the realm of humans.

The existence of god is entirely dependant on religion, myth and superstition, without which we wouldnt even be debating this and all of which have no credibility. In order to have a valid question you must first have a valid reason to ask it. Does god exist is not a valid question because its reasons for asking it are based on nonsense and myths which are now knows to be false.

Actually it doesn't at all draw from the Bible, which has God as a bit of a micro-manager throughout history. It originally draws from classical philosophy and was better developed during the Enlightenment.

It all draws from superstition and myth. Is there a god is in the same category as the loch ness monster and big foot. A long standing myth which becomes ever more ridicuuous with the passing of time. The downside to the god myth is that it cannot ever be proven one way or the other. It is in effect a nonsensical statement proporting to the existence of a mythical being. Based on superstition and myth and perpetuated (mostly) by those who accept without question teachings from organised institutions selling fiction and lies.

The notion of the existence of god has come from ignorance and its entirely ignorant to consider it a valid assertion.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

In reality, one may point to it being in a historically factual context and the characters and their reasons making 'perfect sense', but that does not make the novel factual.

Indeed. I find often in fact that the existence of factually correct things in the Bible is used by people like Jakkass to suggest therefore the whole book is factual from end to end.

I fear for the sanity of such people if they spend too much time in the Fiction section of their local book store as MUCH fiction works like this. Imagine a historian 5000 years from now, for example, unearthing a copy of the Bourne books.

Cross referencing these books with other history available to him the Historian will find that many of the places, people, events, products, buildings and more referenced in the novels were all entirely accurate and real.

The question is does that lend a modicum of credence to the idea the events in the book actually happened or that a super solider called Jason Bourne existed? No, it does not, but perform the exact same set of checks on the Bible... verify a few characters and buildings in it are and/or were real at the time... and all bets are off, there is a god, and Jesus must have been it's off spring.

The Corinthian wrote: »

(I've only just realized that it's Jackkass under a different nick

Yes, I imagine this was his incentive to change his nick. His tactic is to find a thread.... evangelize in it.... then when the counter posts get too hot find another thread having thrown all his toys out of the pram in a "I am ignoring you all, you are all nasty and mean, bye" kind of way.... and just repeat the process.

Over and over.

As people got wise to this I imagine the incentive to change his nick in order to keep it up got steadily higher. Given his tactics of "Evangelize... retreat.... repeat...." have not changed I rather expect we will see another nick name change in the future too.

Best we can do is keep referencing his old nicks as often as we can so those that got wise to him before will not be drawn in by a new username. I apologise for not having done it sooner. It might have saved you some posting.

Jimoslimos

The Corinthian wrote: »

Allowing one to get bogged down in debate on a (potentially) fictional source is thus pointless - at least unless it can be compared to an external source that verifies it. And this Jackkass/philologos avoids this like the plague, I've noticed.

I'm surprised if he doesn't make (or hasn't already made) the obvious (but faulty) counterargument that the Bible is a collection of different books so therefore they can all be counted as separate sources.

nozzferrahhtoo

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Some excellent posts by nozzferrahhtoo, Pushtrak and the Corinthian but I can't help wonder how did we get here from a the initial question posed? Evolution and a supreme being?

As I said above we got there mainly because of Jakkass (recent aka Philologos) entering into any thread he can find with that is remotely religious, and evangelising in it. He does this everywhere on this site from the After Hours section to the Gay and Lesbian section.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Now evoultion can disprove the first two, but as for 3 and 4 there is no way to distinguish between those two.

I am not entirely sure I agree. I can see one very clear way to distinguish between the two. The former, not the latter, requires evidence we do not have. The latter, not the former, can be reached using nothing but the evidence we currently have available.

There simply is no argument, evidence, data, or reasons on offer to suggest there is a god. Therefore 3 is unsubstantiated. The evidence for evolution however is abound and none of it required the hand of a creator and appears to function quiet well without one.

Jimoslimos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not entirely sure I agree. I can see one very clear way to distinguish between the two. The former, not the latter, requires evidence we do not have. The latter, not the former, can be reached using nothing but the evidence we currently have available.

I would say that the former (God present but doesn't direct evolution), requires evidence we can never have, i.e falsifiable data.

nozzferrahhtoo

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I would say that the former (God present but doesn't direct evolution), requires evidence we can never have, i.e falsifiable data.

I prefer to only comment on the data and evidence we currently have available to us. Postulating what evidence may... or may not... become available to us in the future just pushes on the borders of the realm of fantasy. Neither of us can see the future and so neither of us can make any claims on what evidence may become available there.

Suffice to say that here, today, of your list of 4 scenarios there is only one on that list that is based on evidence we currently actually have.

The Corinthian

LordSmeg wrote: »

All religious ideas of god are similar in that they are supreme beings and that they exist outside the realm of humans yet all understanding of them has come from the realm of humans.

No, I even gave you an example of one that does not fall into that category. You're still confusing 'God' with 'religion'.

The existence of god is entirely dependant on religion, myth and superstition, without which we wouldnt even be debating this and all of which have no credibility.

Again, no. Deism is a good example of where science actually supported the existence of a Creator, up until the development of quantum physics.

In order to have a valid question you must first have a valid reason to ask it. Does god exist is not a valid question because its reasons for asking it are based on nonsense and myths which are now knows to be false.

Actually I would have thought that man's curiosity about the divine would have given rise to religion and not the other way around. Indeed, pre-Neolithic cultures already had developed concepts such as life-after-death and the supernatural, long before organized religion emerged and even polytheistic cultures had creation myths.

Hellenistic mythology is an excellent example of this as one can almost see the development of such belief systems on a generational level, from primordial deities, titans through to the Olympians (the gods).

So from an anthropological viewpoint, I don't think what you say is all that valid. I think it clear that we've been wondering about the existence of God long before we decided to develop mythologies around the concept.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Imagine a historian 5000 years from now, for example, unearthing a copy of the Bourne books.

You'd be surprised how many people are convinced that Robin Hood existed today.

Jimoslimos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I prefer to only comment on the data and evidence we currently have available to us. Postulating what evidence may... or may not... become available to us in the future just pushes on the borders of the realm of fantasy. Neither of us can see the future and so neither of us can make any claims on what evidence may become available there.

Suffice to say that here, today, of your list of 4 scenarios there is only one on that list that is based on evidence we currently actually have.

We'd all love to comment on actual data but unfortunately when arguing against religion that is difficult if near impossible. The whole point of a belief in God is faith, despite the evidence. It is strange then to see the most ferverent believers cling on to any historical artefact or evidence that might somehow prove God's existence.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You'd be surprised how many people are convinced that Robin Hood existed today.

Hey! I live in Nottingham and can tell you that there is an actual place called Sherwood nearby. There is also evidence that large woody plants used to grow in this area, commonly referred to as a 'forest' round these parts. Ergo Robin Hood was real!

nozzferrahhtoo

Jimoslimos wrote: »

We'd all love to comment on actual data but unfortunately when arguing against religion that is difficult if near impossible.

I choose to keep at it all the same :-)

There simply is no evidence, argument, data or reasons on offer to lend even a modicum of credence to the claim that a god exists and I think it worth pointing that out whenever given a platform to do so.

Scioch

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, I even gave you an example of one that does not fall into that category. You're still confusing 'God' with 'religion'.

I might not be wording it right but I'm not confusing the two. Spinozism seems to me (I havent looked it through in detail) to be another attempt to change the definition of god rather than to base a view that a god exists on anything solid. Its trying to merge the idea of god with what we know even though the idea of god came about because we didnt know anything.

Again, no. Deism is a good example of where science actually supported the existence of a Creator, up until the development of quantum physics.

I think it would be better stated that science did not contradict the belief in the existance of god rather than saying science supported it. Science at the times I'm assuming your talking about would still have been heavily influenced by religious institutions. I still dont accept the view of a "creator" as anything other than a spin off from religion in the modern age.

Actually I would have thought that man's curiosity about the divine would have given rise to religion and not the other way around. Indeed, pre-Neolithic cultures already had developed concepts such as life-after-death and the supernatural, long before organized religion emerged and even polytheistic cultures had creation myths.

To have a concept of whats divine though surely you would need a belief system which although maybe not religion in name is little different for the fact that it wasnt organised. Those beliefs were born out of curiosity and ignorance and accepted as fact with no evidence and since perpetuated.

So from an anthropological viewpoint, I don't think what you say is all that valid. I think it clear that we've been wondering about the existence of God long before we decided to develop mythologies around the concept.

But that doesnt validate the question, it did for pre-historic man and probably held a significance up until the modern age but now the question itself is unreasonable. People have long since wondered about the existence of god because the had no other means of explaining things or were taught that a god existed through organised religions.

Now we know where we came from, we know how the earth and the stars are made. There is no logical reason to keep jumping to an assumption of a divine creator to explain things. The question to me has long since become redundant and is used primarily by those looking to prove something they already take as fact or want to believe a fairytale, that there is a supreme being.

The Corinthian

LordSmeg wrote: »

I might not be wording it right but I'm not confusing the two. Spinozism seems to me (I havent looked it through in detail) to be another attempt to change the definition of god rather than to base a view that a god exists on anything solid. Its trying to merge the idea of god with what we know even though the idea of god came about because we didnt know anything.

Why does 'God' have to be something 'solid'? Are you not allowing yourself to get trapped into the orthodox view of divinity - in effect creating God in our own image?

I think it would be better stated that science did not contradict the belief in the existance of god rather than saying science supported it.

No, actually it required the existence of God - Newton's laws of thermodynamics - so it absolutely supported it.

Science at the times I'm assuming your talking about would still have been heavily influenced by religious institutions. I still dont accept the view of a "creator" as anything other than a spin off from religion in the modern age.

Certainly there would have been a general wish to reconcile science and relgion, however I would not overestimate the influence of religion either on the minds of such thinkers. Atheism, for example, did not appear in the last hundred years.

To have a concept of whats divine though surely you would need a belief system which although maybe not religion in name is little different for the fact that it wasnt organised. Those beliefs were born out of curiosity and ignorance and accepted as fact with no evidence and since perpetuated.

That they developed into religion, I'm not denying. What I am rejecting is that to even ask in the existence of God requires religion - this was, after all, your assertion.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

You'd be surprised how many people are convinced that Robin Hood existed today.

Good point and I probably would... if only my ability to be surprised at the type of things people go around believing had not long long ago died a slow thrashing death and shriveled up into something useless and beyond resuscitation.

On the vast continuum of nonsense I hear daily in fact belief in Robin Hood is actually not all that bad. Relatively speaking of course. Which, if allowing oneself to think about it, is really quite depressing.

Scioch

The Corinthian wrote: »

That they developed into religion, I'm not denying. What I am rejecting is that to even ask in the existence of God requires religion - this was, after all, your assertion.

Why though ? Curiosity is all well and good but there is a lot of curious things that led people to believe in the existence of god when lacking anything else. Those things have largely been explained by science to be laws inherent in the universe we live in and not something which can be bypassed at will by anything that operates under those laws (which as far as we know is everything).

To ask if there exists some being that can interact with our universe, control or ignore the laws that govern this universe at will in this day and age to me makes no sense if its not based on the many many tales and teachings that people are now aware of through religion. So science and the theory of evolution have dispelled a lot of falsehoods perpetuated by religion, in doing so have dispelled some of the myths religions were based on going back to curious pre historic man.

Curiosity now can be satisfied with facts and scientific data which is used to formulate a logical conclusion. And the existence of supreme beings isnt a logical conclusion.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Good point and I probably would... if only my ability to be surprised at the type of things people go around believing had not long long ago died a slow thrashing death and shriveled up into something useless and beyond resuscitation.

And I wish them well. Honestly.

As I said a (good) few pages ago, personally I believe in God. Or a Creator. Or a Spaghetti Monster.

My belief is not dissimilar to that of a child who is getting a bit too old to believe in Santa, down deep knows that Santa doesn't exist, but chooses to maintain the fantasy anyway.

I suppose I believe in the idea of God, more-so than actually believe in God. He's a psychological comfort blanket.

Of course, religion is another matter. I just couldn't manage that level of credulity, even nominally.

The Corinthian

LordSmeg wrote: »

Curiosity now can be satisfied with facts and scientific data which is used to formulate a logical conclusion.

Yes, but I wasn't disagreeing with this.

And the existence of supreme beings isnt a logical conclusion.

It was in the Newtonian universe.

Scioch

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yes, but I wasn't disagreeing with this.

It was in the Newtonian universe.

But thats the same argument as the one about people being curious, regardless of how valid it may have been at some point in the past (which would still be a matter of opinion) its not valid now.

To have the knowledge at your disposal that we have now and still rely on there being a supreme being for explanation is utterly absurd. I cannot believe that it would come from anywhere other than religious influence which as we know is based on ignorance and superstition.

Mickeroo

The Corinthian wrote: »

And I wish them well. Honestly.

As I said a (good) few pages ago, personally I believe in God. Or a Creator. Or a Spaghetti Monster.

My belief is not dissimilar to that of a child who is getting a bit too old to believe in Santa, down deep knows that Santa doesn't exist, but chooses to maintain the fantasy anyway.

I suppose I believe in the idea of God, more-so than actually believe in God. He's a psychological comfort blanket.

Of course, religion is another matter. I just couldn't manage that level of credulity, even nominally.

Thats a very confusing post. You explicitly state that you think god doesn't exist but you choose to believe in it anyway? Thats like me saying deep down I know I have a cup of coffee every morning but I choose to believe that I don't. Why lie to yourself? How can the fantasies offer comfort when you know they're fantasies?

Turtwig

Mickeroo wrote: »

Thats a very confusing post. You explicitly state that you think god doesn't exist but you choose to believe in it anyway? Thats like me saying deep down I know I have a cup of coffee every morning but I choose to believe that I don't. Why lie to yourself? How can the fantasies offer comfort when you know they're fantasies?

You assume there is no real purpose to your own existence correct? Yet deep down you choose to believe there is some purpose in it somewhere : you have to.

Cú Giobach

Jernal wrote: »

You assume there is no real purpose to your own existence correct? Yet deep down you choose to believe there is some purpose in it somewhere : you have to.

Not everybody has to or does.
I no more feel there has to be some deep meaning to my existence than I do there has to be for my dogs or the woodlouse I accidentally washed down the sink earlier or all the bacteria I killed with a dose of listerene this morning.

There might be, there might not be, you will either find out there is, or never know there isn't. One thing is for sure, there doesn't have to be.

philologos

Firstly, just to say, I have no interest in responding to slander and falsehood about me, or what my aims are. Secondly, I don't need to defend changing my username, many posters on boards.ie do so. Finally, my interest is to defend the Gospel of Jesus, and I'm unashamed of defending Him and His truth. Ad-hominems are irrelevant.

I have a simple model for how I do this:

1 Peter 3:14b-16 wrote:

In your hearts honour Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defence to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that when you are slandered, those who revile your good behaviour in Christ may be put to shame.

OK, Pushtrak, let's have a look at your three posts. Let me grab some coffee and begin Thanks for being patient, and thanks for being so understanding. Some others would almost expect me to give up the day job in order to respond to their posts

Post 3:

Pushtrak wrote: »

Thanks for suggesting an alternative source material to reference, but really the fact there are such substantive differences between the sources really does beg the question. And honestly it hearkens back to the point about accuracy of the texts.

Does it? - Do the translations differ all that much? - For the most part no. The meaning remains the same, but it's more convenient to read the Bible in the English we use in 2012 rather than the English of 1611. Wouldn't you agree?

I'm personally quite thankful that there are Bible scholars at work to bring the Gospel in a readable format to literally millions of people both from the most widely used languages to some of the least frequently used in the world.

Pushtrak wrote: »

The texts can not all be 100% accurate by the very virtue of how different they all are. So, ultimately which bible one chooses is subjective. A subjective means to obtain an absolute truth* doesn't make sense. You personally think this is the best bible. I have no leg to stand on making a claim on which is the most authroritative, but you could get a few thousand different Christians each pointing out their massive issues with all other texts than the one that they personally use.

Translations aren't always accurate. As for source material, it is abundant. In terms of the New Testament 24,000 Greek manuscripts, and over 10,000 in other languages. In terms of when these manuscripts lie in terms of time, this is the best in terms of ancient texts by a long shot. As I linked to previously. Thankfully in respect to the Old Testament, the Jewish people were meticulous in respect to transcribing the Hebrew of the Old Testament. So meticulous that when the Dead Sea Scrolls were uncovered in Qumran in 1948 the Isaiah scroll was a perfect match to the previous which was written 700 years earlier.

There's a reason why most people when they train for ministry read Koine Greek and Hebrew whilst studying. There's also a reason why we have Greek and Hebrew concordances, and tools so that we can look up the use of particular Greek and Hebrew words across the entire Bible.

I hope one day to perhaps to take a closer look at Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek myself.

Pushtrak wrote: »

Christianity then, appears to be anything but absolute. Nebulous may be more appropriate.

If the above weren't true, I'd agree with you. Since the evidence confirms the authenticity of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, and since we have by the means of a concordance a means of better clarifying which words are used where and in what context, I would say far from nebulous.

I welcome your reasons as to why I shouldn't trust this evidence.

Post 2:

Pushtrak wrote: »

Analogies do break down. The essential premise though is that something we can all agree on being fiction can and often will have backing on differing levels in some form of mythos.

The question is whether the Gospel is fiction. There are a number of reasons, many of which I've been through which would suggest that it isn't. From mere textual content in the New Testament, to the reason why someone would even begin to present such a Gospel at all if it is true that Jesus remained in the grave. It was never preached as fiction, it was never read as fiction, it isn't even written as fiction.

Looking to the difference between the death of Jesus, and the date in Paul's ministry where he wrote his letter to the Galatians, there's simply not enough time in the history of the early church for this all to be merely contrived, and even if it was what would be the motivation behind contriving it, and why would it have been backed by such a large body of witnesses if it were not the simple truth?

Why would I believe it is fiction? - I'm happy to go into some of these reasons in a bit more depth, and I am entirely justified to ask why you believe it is fiction. That is a positive claim.

Pushtrak wrote: »

Do you presume we should do it the other way? That we should go with something being true before it has been demonstrated? Well, that is what religious belief really is, when you boil it down. I don't think that is an unfair assessment on religion. It is all about the leaps of faith, et cetera... Honestly, though, the existence of Nazareth or any incidental claims are not historical proof of the miracles or the resurrection.

I don't know how you got that from my post. Honestly honestly. I just don't. Let me clarify.

No. I never presumed that we should. What I said from the beginning is rather simple. The way Biblical analysis should go is simple:

1) Look to see the hypothesis that the Bible suggests.
2) Assess to see if this is likely to be true in reality.

Surely that's not untoward?

To claim it is a leap of faith to look to what evidence we have to trust in the Gospel is absurd. Faith in a Christian context is simply trusting in the Gospel on the basis of what has been made evident. It is the assurance that His word is true. It's not blind by any means, and I've presented numerous reasons to demonstrate the contrary since I have become a follower of Jesus, and I hope to do so again with gentleness and respect and only in that context. I'm thankful that God gives me this opportunity.

As for the existence of Nazareth - you should read the context of my post. It was in response to The Corinthian referring to the lack of archaeology in respect to the Exodus. I posted simply that skeptics used to claim that Nazareth never existed only to be proven wrong in 2009. I never said that the existence of Nazareth was proof of the New Testament, or of the miracles of Jesus. That wasn't the topic of that discussion.

Logically - opposition to the possibility of miracles comes down to the lack of acknowledgement of a Creator.

It's rather simple. If I didn't believe that there was a Creator God who brought all things into being, who takes a genuine interest in His Creation and if I didn't believe that He was omnipotent, and omniscient then sure, it's hogwash.

The idea that miracles are somehow difficult in the consideration of God's existence however is absurd. From this perspective God as Creator is Lord of the universe, and surely the idea that God could work within Creation, and the idea that God could manipulate the physical laws that He created is hardly irrational from this perspective.

The question is why do we believe in the logical necessity of a Creator, or if we don't what other possibilities are there?

Pushtrak wrote: »

This is in reference to your citation of Mark 9:9 earlier. Now, before I go to 9:9 it may be worth looking at what 9:1 says.

Is the "may" there a get out of jail free card? An error with a give or take a couple of thousand years clause? What is the story here? With any other claim, we would say ok that was wrong.

No one ought to take Harold Camping seriously after two failed end time predictions. Of course, if he was to go a third time, most of us would agree that he'd still have people believe him. Same applies to Jesus. Here, it is demonstrably wrong, yet it is believed. Why is this?

Hasn't been any of that lately. Why not? Oh, sorry mysterious ways.

The previous verse says they heard the voice not saw anything. So, it wasn't going from seeing something to not seeing it. /Pedant.
And then we get to 9:9...

Hm, what do we say here... Son of man... That is a bit interesting. Is the son of man intended to be Elijah?

Restoreth all things, huh?

Ouch, that's a bit mean.

That's worse...

Do I need to say anything here?

Could you clarify just what this is intended to be?

There's a lot in here.

Harold Camping & End Times:
Let me look to Harold Camping for a start. According to what Jesus actually says in the Gospel, Harold Camping is a false teacher. As you've said He's predicted twice about the end of the world, and it has come to nothing.

Looking to Mark's Gospel we see that Jesus is really clear on the topic of when He will return:

Mark 13:32-33 wrote:

But concerning that day or hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, or the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come

How can I presume that Harold Camping is excluded from this passage?

The same does not apply to Jesus. Here's why. We're in the last days. I.E - A time between Jesus' departure, and His coming back. The Bible actually deals very clearly with your objection. Peter in his second letter writes the following about the return of Jesus and the coming judgement.

2 Peter 3:4-9 wrote:

They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

These last days thankfully have been extended, (Jesus also backs this up in Matthew 24:22), so that we have the opportunity to know Jesus, repent of our sin before God, so that we might be forgiven. Jesus Himself explains that He will not return until the Gospel has come to all nations (Matthew 24:14).

Mark 9:
Before we go off on a tangent. I need to clarify that the reason I brought up Mark 9, was to point out to The Corinthian that it is actually explained as to why Jesus told people not to say He was the Son of God.

Before we look to this section, we need to look to what has been, and what is about to come. What has been is Jesus professing that Jesus is the Christ in 8:29, but fundamentally misunderstanding that Jesus had to die (Mark 8:31-33), Jesus goes into more depth as to why He has to die in Mark 10:45. Jesus also mentions the Resurrection as he rebukes Peter, saying that He will rise three days later.

OK.

The Kingdom of God coming in power -
Firstly, the Kingdom of God is not exclusively used in Mark for the kingdom that is to come. Rather it is used for God's dominion as a whole, this is why Jesus uses it to speak of present realities in Mark 4.

in the previous verse we've seen:

Mark 8:38 wrote:

For whoever is ashamed of me and of mny words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when He comes in glory of His Father with the holy angels.

The Son of Man is a term used in prophesy in the Old Testament:

Daniel 7:13-14 wrote:

I saw in the night visions, and behold with the clouds of heaven there can one like a son of man and He came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and His kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

Mark 9:1 seems to be talking about Jesus' return to the Father (Ancient of Days) in righteousness - It points to the ascension and the coming of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 1 - 2) rather than the return of Christ. This would make sense of "there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Kingdom of God after it has come with power".

The Son of Man is Jesus, Jesus proclaims that He is the Son of Man throughout Mark. Mark 8:28 which comes right before this passage has Him doing this. It's a Messianic title. Indeed, Jesus must die because He is the Messiah (Isaiah 53), it was prophesied that that must happen.

As for Elijah, if you read Malachi chapter 3, Mark 1:4-7, and also 2 Kings 1:8 that should make sense of it.

It's hardly mean to say that someone is mute (ESV). The King James Version says dumb. This does not mean dumb as in stupid. The child was literally mute, dumb.

As for Jesus' message concerning the child. If you look to the section around it in chapter 10, it has to do with how can one enter into God's Kingdom? It's matched quite heavily with 10:13-16 which also has to do with entering the Kingdom of God.

In Mark 10, Jesus explains fully that it is impossible by vain observance of religious rituals (10:1-12), and by following moral rules (10:17-34) to enter God's Kingdom.

Mark 10:26-27 wrote:

And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.”

It is impossible for man to save themselves, they need Jesus. Children are better capable of receiving a free gift. One should receive the Kingdom of God as a free gift, because there is no other way into it other than accepting Jesus' grace.

Read the entire section from Mark 9:36 or so right through to chapter 10. You'll see what I mean.

Pushtrak wrote: »

Indeed, it is nothing about victors. It is about believers. We could have a jew or muslim come in and be just as confident about the infallibility of their own message.

It isn't about conviction. I have no doubt that Jews or Muslims are sincere about their faith. I believe on a number of grounds that they are mistaken, just as I am utterly convinced that atheists are mistaken.

It is also a logical fallacy to say that just because numerous people are sincere that they are correct on this issue to presume that there is no truth, and that atheism defacto must be correct or that it is more likely to be correct.

In all reality atheism is just another ideology concerning God. It shouldn't be presumed to be true.

The reality is that there are quite a number of reasons as to why one could realistically accept Jesus, and accept the Gospel.

Pushtrak wrote: »

This is really close to an argument along the lines that an atheist can not have morals. That there is no value in secular morality. That type of argument. I would challenge that by pointing out that religious (Christian) morality is strongest when looked on rationally. Equal treatment of women is certainly not something that is advocated in the bible. Subjugation of women seemes to be the moral lesson derived from that book.

Again, how did you get that from my post? - That's not what I said in that section. I never said that there is no morality other than in Christ. Rather, I think that all people can do what is good and right, due to God giving us a conscience. Indeed the Bible even tells us this much (Romans 2).

You should focus on what I do say, rather than what I don't.

As for the subjugation of women argument, that seems like more an atheistic myth concerning Christianity than anything with any solid basis. Perhaps you should chat to some of the women who go to my church (about half of those who go) and see why they can reasonably believe and trust in Jesus? I'd suspect statistically if that were actually true, I would expect there to be to be a lower proportion of women than there are in society, but realistically it is bang on. Actually, of the entire churchgoing population in Britain I would hazard a guess and say they are for the most part women.

I've posted about the role of women in the Bible before on quite a number of occasions.

Let's walk through it?

Pushtrak wrote: »

Don't hold back. But, by the same token, don't hold back on compelling arguments if they exist. We have much to go in to in relation to authenticating the miracles (including the resurrection) and getting somewhere with establishing absolute truth. Though, absolute truth is going to be a bit of a pain to discuss, I'm figuring.

I'm not holding back on my position at all. I'm more than happy to discuss it with you, and I hope to get a little more in depth on it.

Pushtrak wrote: »

I already cited proof that this judgement, et cetera is a long way coming. As in, I don't think any of the people purported to be alive for this judgement could be accurately described as amongst the living.

As we've seen. It makes good sense that Mark 9 is referring to the Ascension, particularly with the Mark 9 passage, particularly with the quote that Jesus Himself does not know when He will be returning, but rather the Father does.

I've also shown you how both Jesus and Peter explain why the judgement is a long time coming. That is because God loves us and longs for us to enter His Kingdom in Spirit and in truth. I long for that to happen too. I long for people to be rescued as I was.

Pushtrak wrote: »

I can see this isn't really going to go anywhere. Sites sympathetic to one holy text will say its holy text is more accurate, and vice versa. So, you'll go with ones that say your holy text is more accurate and say this is the grounding of your belief.

The Corinthian said without any form of backup that the Qur'an was more historically authentic than the Bible. I'd love to see the evidence for his position.

He's also said that there is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. The reality is that we do have evidence for the existence of Jesus. Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Lucretius, and the Babylonian Talmud are just a start of where non-Jews referred to the existence of Jesus. Indeed, I'd say that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than of many people we regard as historical.

Claiming that I'm ignoring any other position by simply questioning someone on their claim is a little off surely? The reality is that it is fact that there are more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other text, and the reality is that there is quite a bit of history to back up the existence of Jesus, and plenty of non-Christians have even acknowledged this much.

Pushtrak wrote: »

So, allow me to restate the things you feel are most compelling arguments in favour of a deity (your deity)... Something relating to the bible accounting for sin (which you'll get in to on your next post), incidental details in the bible, prophecies fulfilled, miracles and the resurrection. Is that a fair summary of it?

Not at all. I've pointed very clearly as to how the Biblical text points to history, I've pointed very clearly to how the Biblical text presents a clearer picture of how morality works, I've pointed very clearly as to how it is perfectly logical to believe in a Creator God, I've pointed to how it is reasonable to believe in a personal God, I've pointed to evidence for the existence of Jesus, I've pointed to clear textual reasons as to why the New Testament wasn't written as fiction, I've pointed to why I can reasonably believe that Jesus rose again from the dead. And more importantly, I've shown you that there are clear answers to many of the objections that you've raised.

The reality is that there are plenty of reasons to believe in Christ, and very few reasons not to.

Pushtrak wrote: »

I honestly don't even know what this means.

The prime mover argument, basically?

There's the necessity of a first cause. Certainly. I don't believe it is likely or reasonable to believe that the universe came from nothing, and I don't believe that it is reasonable to claim that something of a finite age (13.7bn years old) can create itself.

Pushtrak wrote: »

So, some of the incidental things reflected what was going on at the time. The only one of the ones you mention that make this important in the religious context is the miracles in the bible, including the resurrection. As for all the other details, if I were to write a religious book now with aspects depicting things of the world, it would no more vindicate the miracles than they do in the case of the bible.

I've dealt with miracles above. Simply put, whether or not we can believe in miracles comes down to whether or not we believe in a Creator.

Pushtrak wrote: »

Have you not considered that there is an element of self fulfilling prophecy involved?

Even if that were true. Let's say that 90% of the New Testament accounts are just self-fulfilling prophesy (which is just a plain assumption on the basis of nothing considering what we've already looked at to back up the New Testament). Even then, that only works for those events that are not backed up historically. The prophesies concerning many things about Jesus' life still ring true, irrespective of whether or not they may or may not have been simply claimed to have been fulfilled in the New Testament.

Pushtrak wrote: »

Is this to say you follow religion for the comfort in the idea that people get punished for wrongdoing in the afterlife? I honestly don't see a logical resolution to the problem of sin. No matter the wrongs one does as long as they pray to Jesus they are forgiven is the message. I don't think this is an effective means of dealing with sin. Nor is eternal punishment for a finite crime logical.

Not at all. It's not about "comfort" at all. It's about what is more likely to be true.

I've seen many posts on boards.ie over the years from atheists including some quite recently on the Christianity forum where atheists have essentially claimed that because they just don't like the concept of sin that they don't believe.

We're justly deserving of hell. If God is good, He cannot allow evil to dwell in heaven. If God is just, He must punish for sin. To claim that it is a "finite" crime is to misunderstand what Christianity actually says.

We've all sinned against God, insofar as we've sinned, we've done what is clearly evil, and have rejected God. We are guilty before Him, there are no works we can do to not be guilty. If I murder someone and I get away with it and live a life with no wrongdoing thereafter (as if that could be possible), I'm still guilty of murder. Likewise the same is true of sin, if you are guilty, you are guilty and you will come before God to be judged.

Thankfully, as well as being just, God is also merciful. He sent His Son Jesus into the world to take the wrath that we clearly deserved away from us so that we can be forgiven in the last days and live for Him.

If one rejects Jesus, at the end of time, it will be as if you still bear the burden of your guilt yourself. As a result you will be condemned as if Jesus had never stood in your place.

Evil cannot dwell in heaven if God is truly good, that's why God sent Jesus to take away our sin and bring us to holiness.

Also, it doesn't particularly matter as to what you think it most effective. Ultimately, God knows better than any man can.

Pushtrak wrote: »

So what are these absolute truths that are universal to show that we aren't drowning in subjectivity? From this, there must be things we all agree on

How can you hold there there is an absolute truth that binds us all that is common to us all, yet it is seen here that you are pointing out to the very awash of subjectivity you propose to be against.

Not true. You misunderstand the concept of absolute truth. Absolute truth means that we can all be deluded, but there is something true. Even if I believed that the earth was flat. Ultimately it is absolutely true that the earth is not flat. If the Gospel is true, even if one believes in Krishna, Buddha, Islam, Judaism or nothing, it is still absolutely true that God reigns and that we'll be brought before Jesus to be judged in the last days.

Likewise, if atheism is absolutely true, even if I believe in Jesus Christ, I will be still wormfood when I die.

There can be an absolute truth about reality, and everyone could reject it. Truth isn't absolute because everyone agrees, truth is absolute because it is true and it is real.

Pushtrak wrote: »

It seems very much like if I were to say that I would walk somewhere to get some exercise and I'm going to drive my car because I need to get more petrol. It doesn't work.

I'm not surprised that it doesn't work. It wasn't what I was saying

Pushtrak wrote: »

Or in short, you aren't a solipsist.

No, that's not a particularly reasonable approach to take. If you want to see the torture of that position look at René Descartes - Meditations on First Philosophy. I don't think one could too readily believe in the existence of God and be a solipsist.

Pushtrak wrote: »

This is troublesome water. It is a "whatever god says goes". This is a dangerous proposition as it validates all those people who think they hear god telling them to kill their children or to do any thing. Dominionists with a particular view of Revelations would be one of the worst things that could happen on this planet, as an example off the top of my head.

It's less troublesome than saying good is whatever the heck I want it to be, and its less troublesome than believing that what is evil is whatever the heck I want it to be. Particularly when there is no objective basis for determining what is really good, and what is really evil. In short, you could say I subscribe to moral objectivism / universalism, and moral realism.

Morality is mind independent. Good is good, and evil is evil. It's not whatever the heck we like.

Pushtrak wrote: »

In these discussions it is good to see where a person is coming from. Surely, you too when discussing religion have certain things you find worthwhile as groundwork in a discussion. This isn't strange, surely?

It is, but it is better if we ask rather than assume. One shouldn't assume that because one is a Christian that one doesn't understand science.

Pushtrak wrote: »

Ok, I'll deal with what you said in reference to gods image... For clarity I'll requote it and address it.

The pertinent bit being t'selem. I keep coming across it identified as in the image of.

Let me find the entry in the concordance:

7512 I. צֶלֶם (ṣě∙lěm): n.masc.; ≡ Str 6754; TWOT 1923a—1. LN 6.96–6.101 image, idol, i.e., a created and formed artifact that is worshiped as or as representing a pagan deity (Nu 33:52; 2Ki 11:18; 2Ch 23:17; Eze 7:20; 16:17; 23:14; Am 5:26+), note: for another interp in Ps 39:7[EB 6]; 73:20, see 7513; 2. LN 58.58–58.62 image, likeness, i.e., that which is a pattern, model, or example of something (Ge 1:26, 27; 5:3; 9:6+), note: the exact reference of whether this is moral, ethical, physical, nature, etc. is not clear; 3. LN 6.96–6.101 model, figures, i.e., a two or three dimensional painted or sculptured representation of something, but not necessarily a worship object (1Sa 6:5,11+)

Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Pushtrak wrote: »

No, of course you shouldn't be sorry about that.

Well, theologians of some faith or another are just as devoted. By believing what any one of them say you disbelieve that of another.

Again, sincerity isn't a factor in determining what is true. One needs to look to the reasons. As I told you previously, just because people are sincere about varying positions does not say anything about the veracity of atheism or indeed that none of these positions are true. Indeed, atheism is just another philosophical position concerning God. It is subject to the same scrutiny as any other position is from my perspective.

Instead of saying that people disagree, you should present an argument as to why my position is wrong.

Pushtrak wrote: »

I think I already pointed out in reference to the resurrection that it is my intent when I can to take a look in detail at the evidence for the resurrection. Was your primary source of the resurrection the bible? Or, perhaps a better question might be did you have much in the way of additional reference material to support the bible? On what basis is your belief in the resurrection, in short.

Simply put, I'm asking you given the step by step logic I gave, what realistically are the possibilities concerning the Apostles following the death and resurrection of Jesus? We have the pieces that fall around event X between the death of Jesus and the Apostles very clearly going out into the world preaching that Jesus rose from the dead and one can have life in His name (2 Corinthians 5, 1 Peter 1:3). We also have enough information concerning the circumstances of the Apostles, and how well they knew Jesus.

I've not heard one good argument in respect to this in the years since I posted it. Go back and have a look at the quote a few pages ago.

If one is simply objecting on the basis of "miracles don't happen". Look to what I've posted about that above. In fact that is more about presuppositional assumptions than the position I've posted about the Resurrection is, a whole lot more presuppositional. The only assumptions I'm making are what we already know about the disciples, and what we already know about the history of the early church which can be accounted for in non-Christian texts.

Pushtrak wrote: »

Can you not see that this type of argumentation does nothing more than preach to the converted? It is presuppositional apologetics mixed with confirmation bias.

Except people have become Christians by simply considering the case of the Resurrection.

Pushtrak wrote: »

When I make a point that applies to more than one thing I find it best to speak about it in the terms that I'm addressing it. If I was to say something that applies to all religion and say it were true of Biblical Christianity I'd be called out on it and rightly so.

Except that religions actually vastly differ. It's lazy assumption. I'm not going to defend any other faith.

Pushtrak wrote: »

No, no they didn't. If they did, why would things against the flat earth model, geocentrism, et cetera be treated as heresy? It was treated as literal. The biblical literalists of today? They had reason to believe the bible was literal. They didn't know any better because it was a book of its time.

PDN over on the Christianity forum has posted extensively about Galileo (one example of many). The Bible does not say that the world is flat, or that the earth is at the centre of the universe.

You should look up what he's said a bit further.

I'm going to ask you to find the Bible passages, and post them on the Atheist / Christian debate thread over on the Christianity forum.

Pushtrak wrote: »

No more irrational than supposing that it is so powerful and really cares about what life on this insignificant planet (in cosmic terms) does on a day to day basis. And that it has somewhere for us to go after death.

Except, there is little that is irrational about God caring about the universe. You claim that God wouldn't care about tiny little humanity if He was Lord of the universe. This implies that somehow God (despite being omnipotent) wouldn't be able to do that?

I've had plenty of atheists show me the youtube video with the vastness of the universe (see it below), saying that why would God consider reality. The video actually doesn't demonstrate anything, indeed, for the Christian could very easily say that it is because God is Lord over a universe so vast and still cares about Creation that He demonstrates His power, and His care over us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U

It's a poor argument to say the least.

Pushtrak wrote: »

I'm sure you would agree that slavery is a bad idea. Instead of it outlining that it is wrong to own a slave, it never says any such thing. It advocates regulation in terms of slaves beaten should be allowed go free. Instead, the bible, even today can and is used to justify the practice of slavery. Wouldn't a great deal of harm have been prevented if a more moral approach to discussing slavery was exercised in the bible?

Read the posts that I gave on that link, and then give your position. Otherwise I'm just going to have to rehash everything that I posted there and this post is getting long enough!

Pushtrak wrote: »

There wasn't a whole lot on that link. The question "Is the OT still applicable, or did the NT over rule it?" has been answered both yes and no in the bible. Which is the absolute truth? Oh, by the very fact it is presented both ways, does this not mitigate it from being absolute truth in either sense?

Not at all - It is clearly presented that Christians should read the Old Testament and live by it reading it in the light of Christ. That's very clearly what it says. The Old Covenant is fulfilled, and the New Covenant has been brought into being through Christ. I don't know a passage that would bring that into question or fundamentally contradict that position.

Pushtrak wrote: »

It is trying to make an assertion that all know god.

Fair enough, but what does that have to do with what I originally said, or are you bringing this in as something new?

Pushtrak wrote: »

Someone who is wronged is going to have an emotional reaction, assuming they have emotions with which to react. So, that person being wronged is not going to respond to such in a positive way. Hence, appeal to subjectivity. You aren't making the case for objective when you make it about one person responding to a direct influence.

When someone is wronged, are they wronged objectively, or subjectively.

Can we truly determine whether someone has been truly wronged in the absence of objective moral standards?

Pushtrak wrote: »

So, slavery for instance with regulation is acceptable? And maybe if said slave was to be released (on account of the slave owner not following regulations) should we hearken to Exodus 21:11? You pointed out this in the thread you linked to.

Biblical slavery is not the same thing as colonial slavery. It existed for an entirely different purpose. The Jewish law provided clear safeguards for people who were in slavery so much so that it was forbidden in Torah law to return a slave that ran away from their master. I've explained exactly what my position is on it in that thread.

Pushtrak wrote: »

And should the death penalty be something we consider? Is the death penalty something that is absolute and changeless or are we beyond this now?

The death penalty while technically justified has no grounds after what Jesus did for mankind. If Jesus died for my sin on the cross, and if I have grace through that event, far be it from me to suggest that someone else should be killed for their wrongdoing. They should be welcomed to receive the same truth that I did and believe in His name.

The Gospel can transform anyone, including some of the most grievous criminals. That's why many churches do prison ministry, in order to offer prisoners the chance of accepting the mercy of Jesus and the chance of being completely changed by His name,

Pushtrak wrote: »

Actually, your post was more peripheral to the resurrection. It was about the propagation of the message, and why would adherents try to spread a message without being confident in the veracity of that message. This is an easy point to address, by doing so by providing evidence.

Looking to the before, and looking to the after can be useful in looking to what happened in the middle. Fobbing it off by looking to completely different events isn't an honest way to deal with that topic.

philologos

^^ This took me pretty much two hours to write, perhaps we need to focus as to what we should prioritise?

The Corinthian

LordSmeg wrote: »

To have the knowledge at your disposal that we have now and still rely on there being a supreme being for explanation is utterly absurd. I cannot believe that it would come from anywhere other than religious influence which as we know is based on ignorance and superstition.

Isaac Newton developed a scientific understanding that essentially held true until the late 19th - early 20th centuries, and which in many practical terms is still in use today. Ultimately, this new science ultimately demanded that someone or something pushed the first domino which began the universe - please note that this should not be confused with the clockwork universe theory that Newton actually opposed.

Bottom line is that science at the time supported and even required a primum movens which as a result promoted the crypto-religious belief in Deism (which incidentally had been around since the classical era).

As such, it brought 'proof' of a God or Creator, not from religion but from science and Deism remained quite popular (especially amonst the scientific community) until the 20th century. Note that Deism was not a religion, but a belief in the existence (at some stage) a primum movens, beyond which there was no consensus.

In the last century is where quantum mechanics came into the story as they essentially negated the need for a primum movens. Naturally, this upset quite a few Deists, including Albert Einstein who famously said of it that "God does not play with dice".

Nonetheless, regardless of the fact that science no longer supports the notion of a primum movens, my point is that it once did and so it is not necessary for religion to promote the existence of God.

Mickeroo wrote: »

Thats a very confusing post. You explicitly state that you think god doesn't exist but you choose to believe in it anyway? Thats like me saying deep down I know I have a cup of coffee every morning but I choose to believe that I don't. Why lie to yourself? How can the fantasies offer comfort when you know they're fantasies?

Consider it an indulgence or hypocrisy. Like people who get church weddings, but don't believe in God.

Life isn't always about truth. Sometimes the lies make it much more bearable.

Scioch

^^ I'll wait for the DVD. :eek:

Pedant

philologos wrote: »

^^ This took me pretty much two hours to write, perhaps we need to focus as to what we should prioritise?

I agree. Perhaps you need to get off the internet entirely if you're that focused on it. It'd do you (and us) the world of good.

philologos

Pedant wrote: »

I agree. Perhaps you need to get off the internet entirely if you're that focused on it. It'd do you (and us) the world of good.

Ah, the paradox of some people claiming that I actively ignore their posts, and then others claiming that I shouldn't respond to them.

I can't win can I?

The Corinthian

philologos wrote: »

Finally, my interest is to defend the Gospel of Jesus, and I'm unashamed of defending Him and His truth.

You forgot to capitalize the 'T' in truth.

philologos wrote: »

^^ This took me pretty much two hours to write, perhaps we need to focus as to what we should prioritise?

If you respond to me you might simply stick to demonstrating how the New Testament is 'true' by referencing sources that are not the New Testament. That would help a lot, thank you.

philologos

The Corinthian wrote: »

You forgot to capitalize the 'T' in truth.

If you respond to me you might simply stick to demonstrating how the New Testament is 'true' by referencing sources that are not the New Testament. That would help a lot, thank you.

I'll try get to your posts at some stage at the weekend.

The pattern is always going to reference the Bible. The objections are pointed to it, so how could I ignore it.

The best way of doing it is look to the passage and see what reasoning there is for that position being true. Expecting to discuss Christianity without reference to the Bible is like attempting to go sailing without a boat

Scioch

The Corinthian wrote: »

Nonetheless, regardless of the fact that science no longer supports the notion of a primum movens, my point is that it once did and so it is not necessary for religion to promote the existence of God.

In a time when religion was so influential such a conclusion could not but be influenced by it. Science did as it has always done up to that point and it bent itself around belief. It wasnt belief in something irrespective of religion, religion was the precise reason those conclusion were drawn to begin with. And the proof of that is in the fact Newton himself was a theologian. His belief was set long before his discoveries.

And the fact that it may have once supported something means nothing in relation to how someone now views something.

Pedant

philologos wrote: »

Ah, the paradox of some people claiming that I actively ignore their posts, and then others claiming that I shouldn't respond to them.

I can't win can I?

Your excuse to ignore my last post tells me you are too afraid to tackle the notion of infinite regress as it could put your faith into jeopardy. Thus you ignored it. I don't believe that you ignore posts because you regard them as insulting - as nozzferrahhtoo has highlighted in this thread already.

My strife with you is that in every thread I've encounter you, you show a blatant disregard of evidence or facts. None was so apparent to me than in a previous thread about same-sex marriages where you showed a blatant disregard to studies about same-sex couples raising families and failed to tackle them or introduce concrete peer-reviewed evidence to back up your argument. I deduced that your position on the issue stemmed from your homophobia, which in turn stemmed from your religious beliefs. My strife with you is that you will so willingly offend the integrity of others (their sexual orientation and ability to raise a family) with little regard for evidence, all in the effort to justify your religious beliefs. You allow you ego to trample over others. In short, you reap what you sow.

This thread, that thread, and other like it where you have been involved have always followed a similar pattern: You come in preaching, you engage in debate, you deny evidences/facts/studies, fail to counter that evidence, then you continue with your deranged logic and when other posters laugh at your inability to accept evidence or to rationalise you try to take the moral high-ground and leave in a huff because it doesn't satisfy your ego. It has always been about you at the end of the day, it's all about you. Don't be suprised that you receive insults, you deserve them at this stage. And you know, I don't care if I receive an infraction/ban for this post.

Also I don't believe for a second that you changed your username just for the fun of it. You changed it because you couldn't forward your ego under that username as that username's reputation was tarnished.

The Corinthian

philologos wrote: »

The pattern is always going to reference the Bible. The objections are pointed to it, so how could I ignore it.

The best way of doing it is look to the passage and see what reasoning there is for that position being true. Expecting to discuss Christianity without reference to the Bible is like attempting to go sailing without a boat

I think you misunderstand me. By all means reference the Bible, but only in relation to external proof that supports its validity. Do not reference it as a proof of itself, as you have been doing to date. Logically you can prove nothing that way and I will not waste my time responding to it.

LordSmeg wrote: »

In a time when religion was so influential such a conclusion could not but be influenced by it.

Can you demonstrate this or is this a hypothesis?

And the proof of that is in the fact Newton himself was a theologian.

That hardly invalidated his maths. Indeed, he was also a Deist, which would make him a very naughty theologian.

And the fact that it may have once supported something means nothing in relation to how someone now views something.

You stated that belief in God requires religion. If that is false in the past, it means that your assertion is incorrect, because it contractions your assertion, regardless of when it happened - it happened.

kmann

,just something simple.
Belief is important to us. whatever it may be,whichever religion we decide to influence our morale way of life. the important thing is that a good morale way of life is held,with respect to all things living and earthly. No person should be heavily influenced by religion,they should be able to find their own peace,with a chosen religion mentoring them.
in terms of evolution,what happened before evolution,what was the spark? before the spark,what was in existance. the constant state of being will forever baffle and frustrate the most intellectual of us all.

I have just glanced upon this thread. Please forgive me , i have not read all the posts.

philologos

Pedant: I covered the infinite regress in post 245, in my post to Pushtrak.

So you claim I spend too much time responding, but I don't spend enough time responding because I missed your post? That's the paradox right there.

I won't be responding to posts with clear personal attacks about me, or falsehoods about my username. It was set last year, I set it because I thought that philologos was more in keeping with my character than Jakkass, it's really that simple. I don't care about what you think about me. I'm interested in the Gospel

Scioch

The Corinthian wrote: »

Can you demonstrate this or is this a hypothesis?

Its a logical conclusion.

That hardly invalidated his maths. Indeed, he was also a Deist, which would make him a very naughty theologian.

Of course it didnt invalidate his maths but it shows quite clearly how seriously he took the notion of the existance of god throughout his life and unless I have missed something I dont remember him putting forth a mathematical explanation of the existence of god, just a conclusion drawn from his observations and personal belief. He didnt just develop the idea of god because of his discoveries.

You stated that belief in God requires religion. If that is false in the past, it means that your assertion is incorrect, because it contractions your assertion, regardless of when it happened - it happened.

I stated that belief in god in this day and age can not but come in some part from religion. But whether I am right or wrong about religion once upon a time not being necessary to formulate a belief in the existence of a supreme being it doesnt change the fact that it is very much so the case now and any belief in such a being is illogical and any attempt to argue its validity based on the ignorance of the past is quite absurd.

Pedant

philologos wrote: »

Pedant: I covered the infinite regress in post 245, in my post to Pushtrak.

So you claim I spend too much time responding, but I don't spend enough time responding because I missed your post? That's the paradox right there.

I won't be responding to posts with clear personal attacks about me, or falsehoods about my username. It was set last year, I set it because I thought that philologos was more in keeping with my character than Jakkass, it's really that simple. I don't care about what you think about me. I'm interested in the Gospel

This is all you said:

Pedant in another post said that there is a contradiction insofar as God could not create Himself. This is something that in philosophy is called an infinite regress, and has been dealt with in philosophy by many philosophers of many creeds. There is a difference between a contingent being (that which has a beginning a finite amount of time ago) and that which doesn't, a necessary being. Simply put, Christians have never claimed that God is a finite being. Had they done so, then hands down that would be a valid objection to the Gospel. Since Christians have said that God is a necessary being, this doesn't stand as a good logical objection to God as Creator.

This is only good logical sense. What has created the world, can't be within creation (I.E God couldn't create Himself, or indeed, the universe couldn't. What has created the world ultimately, must not be constrained by its conditions.

Hardly tackling the issue. Your trying to justify god's existence by saying he is "outside creation". That doesn't tackle anything.

We can prove that god isn't an immanent being. Accepting that god is not immanent but rather a wholly transcendent being then there is no way he could have aided in the development of earth, life or humanity or indeed the development of the entire universe.

A transcendent being can do nothing in the physical universe. This means the Bible wasn't the word of God as God couldn't have influenced physical beings to write his word. If the Bible is not the word of God then who's word are they other the words of humans. If these words are but the words of humans then they are merely the product of the human mind. If they are the product of the human mind then what of God? God here is an idea made up in the minds of humans, it doesn't reflect reality. If God is wholly transcendent, we could not have been informed about him.