Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
Well no, I wouldn't. And I certainly wouldn't expect them to worship me
Hey me neither but God if He exists is apparently different. Go figure...This is also ignoring the fact that God didn't donate anything to us. God creating the universe was as easy as me sitting here in this chair breathing. What "trauma" did God under go to create the universe?
Well for one we don't know and sure even if there was none then I don't see how that is a reason for not thanking and praising the creator for life.I know you do, but you seem to view these things differently to me, which is probably why you accept all this stuff as quite rational and proper.
It is only rational and proper if it is true. If its not I fail to see what we can measure anything up to in order to ascertain its rationality and properness.That is a nonsense definition of worship designed purely to suit your religion. Me doing my dry cleaning is not worshipping false idols.
You don't have to perfectly break the law in order to have broken the law. If God exist and is the giver of all life including the life that flows through your veins then putting anything before Him is idolatry no matter how mundane you might think that is. If God exists then it is all about what He thinks of things not what we think of it.I can't really see anything more self obsessed than religion Soul Winner. You talk about people being obsessed with looking after themselves but your whole religion is based around saving yourself.
Actually its not, it is about God saving us, we cannot save ourselves. All we can do is have faith in Him and he does the rest.Besides I'm not sure why worshipping God is any better than worshipping yourself. It's not like God needs it or anything.
No but He obviously values it. Maybe He requires it because He knows deep down that we need to give it and to not require it would show an un-caring-ness to His nature.Not in the slightest. Why would he get annoyed by that? He is a god for crying out loud. You think a god get annoyed that one of his creations bought a cinema ticket?
Well I doubt He gets annoyed at people buying cinema tickets per say. I'm talking about attitude towards Him. If your attitude is one that ignores Him completely only then would your buying a cinema ticket would piss Him off. Like if say a family members of yours dies (God forbid) and you find out that one of your best friends couldn't go to the funeral because they went to the cinema then you'd be pretty pissed off with them. Oh you get what I mean.Again if I created A.I I would not require, need or except my little creations to worship me. I wouldn't care if they even knew I existed. I wouldn't be creating them for the pay back, creating them to be worshipped by them. I would be creating them so they exist, and after that I wouldn't care what they thought of me.
What if your A.I. creating eventually ended up with you deciding to create something so different than your previous preprogrammed robots, which took shape in something that you valued so much that you would die yourself for it in order that it never could never get consigned to the eternal skip along with its other broken down predecessors??
It is bewildering to me that you guys assign a level of emotional neediness to a god that would seem a bit pathetic in a human.
We don't assign them to Him, God Himself assigns them to Himself.
Granted there are attributes that man has projected onto God but that is because of their experiences with Him from which they learn what He's like. Like if I hung around with you and after a few weeks I found you to be quite a generous kind of guy, you would become known to me as Wickinght the kind and generous. My experience with you would reveal your traits, likewise the folks in the Bible with God.But the whole Bible is anthropomorphizing God, that is the point and probably why he seems to pleasing and rational to you. He is basically a human, he acts like a human, he thinks like a human and he feels like a human, and one that acts in quite a flawed human fashion.
Humans still act and feel like humans 5000 years ago. We have emotions, values, morals just like those of 5000 years ago. What’s changed?And more importantly he acts and feels and behaves like humans 5,000 years ago, strangely enough around the time the Bible stories started to appear in human culture.
To what Mesopotamian king are you referring?To believe that an all powerful and eternal god would feel and behave like a mesopotamian king rather stretches the bounds of credibility.
I don’t think that He acts like any king I’ve ever read about. Maybe they try to act like Him. God first revealed Himself to Abraham and gave Him promises. That is not like any king I know.And if God is just like an ancient king I see that as a pretty good reason not to worship him or take moral guidance from him.
Occam’s razor says that the simplest explanation is most likely to be the right explanation. “God created the Universe!” Is the simplest explanation as to how it came about and as such according to Occam’s razor, must be the most plausible explanation. Hey I’m not the one who camps out on Occam’s razor, that appears to the domain of the atheist who love quoting it so much.Only if one doesn't understand Occam's razor, which very few around here seem to.
We don’t know how He did, how He was able to do it, why He did or exactly when He did it but one these can’t be grounds o which to say that He didn’t create it. The theist holds that God did it and can find within the structure of it evidence which suggests a super intelligence so until it can be shown that a universe can just pop into existence from nothing by itself then I don’t see why the theist should abandon his intuitive belief that God did it.The introduction of an assumption of a deity to explain something like the universe is a text book example of doing the opposite of Occam's razor. For a start "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything since no one can tell us what God actually did.0 -
-
OR: JC is the fixed point of Truth which you guy's spin around. Yes, hopefully your orbits are getting ever closer.The Mad Hatter wrote: »Gryphonboy: That was your first post on Boards? Impressive...
As AH said, welcome to the megathread. Our resident creationist's (there's really only one left arguing) circles are getting smaller and smaller. Enjoy the show.
JC, I know at times it must seem more like raiders attacking the wagons, but Truth will prevail.
[B]1 John[/B] 4:4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 5 They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them.0 -
0
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Yes, truly wonderful.Flamed Diving wrote: »Naturalistic Explanation = Complex systems arising through complex processes.
Theistic Explanation = God, who has always been there, just made it by speaking.
Wonderful...
Are you a descendant of Caiaphas, the high priest, by any chance?
He too spoke the truth without realising it:
John 11:47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, “What shall we do? For this Man works many signs. 48 If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.”
49 And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, 50 nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.” 51 Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.
53 Then, from that day on, they plotted to put Him to death.
But to get to your Naturalistic Explanation. Complex systems arising through complex processes - where did the complex processes and systems come from? Remember, only naturalistic explanations allowed.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Almost as if he was invented/modelled on concepts of authority (kings) from the age the idea originated from .... go figureSoul Winner wrote: »Hey me neither but God if He exists is apparently different. Go figure...
But it is a reason why your analogy doesn't work. There was no effort involved in God creating the universe. In fact God creating the universe was as easy as him as not creating the universe.Soul Winner wrote: »Well for one we don't know and sure even if there was none then I don't see how that is a reason for not thanking and praising the creator for life.
I'm not quite sure what we are supposed to be thankful for. It would be like being thankful that I didn't walk into you as we cross in the street.
Well no, that is the point. If God is demanding or expecting worship from us that isn't rational and proper. In fact it is quite irrational, behaviour that would seem odd if it was a human let alone a deity.Soul Winner wrote: »It is only rational and proper if it is true. If its not I fail to see what we can measure anything up to in order to ascertain its rationality and properness.
If you have no problem with an irrational super intelligence then believe away, but to me it seems more plausible that he just doesn't exist.
No it isn't. Again that is a nonsense definition of idolatry.Soul Winner wrote: »If God exist and is the giver of all life including the life that flows through your veins then putting anything before Him is idolatry no matter how mundane you might think that is.
Idolatry is used in the Bible ("avodah zarah") is worshipping idols or objects as one would worship God.
I don't worship my dry cleaning as you worship your god.
Idolatry means idolatry. If God meant something else he should have used a different word. God doesn't have a special definition of "idolatry" that means something different.Soul Winner wrote: »If God exists then it is all about what He thinks of things not what we think of it.
Thus saving yourselves.Soul Winner wrote: »Actually its not, it is about God saving us, we cannot save ourselves. All we can do is have faith in Him and he does the rest.
It is like saying you don't save yourself from a fire, the fire fighters do. You still do what the fire fighters tell you because you want to save yourself. If you didn't want to save yourself, or say you wanted to save the cat instead of you, you wouldn't. The motivation is to save oneself, just as it is in your religion.
Which he would care about because .... ?Soul Winner wrote: »No but He obviously values it. Maybe He requires it because He knows deep down that we need to give it and to not require it would show an un-caring-ness to His nature.
Why would a god care if we should uncaring to his nature? We are back to an irrational, needy, god, again very similar to a ergonomically Mesopotamian king.
I get that you are anthropomorphising God. I would be hurt if my friends didn't care my father died because I'm a humanSoul Winner wrote: »Like if say a family members of yours dies (God forbid) and you find out that one of your best friends couldn't go to the funeral because they went to the cinema then you'd be pretty pissed off with them. Oh you get what I mean.
But again the analogy doesn't even hold if we assume God is human like because a family member dying is not the same as my creations ignoring me.
TBH it would be like being annoyed a computer program I wrote didn't thank me for writing it. I seriously seriously doubt I would care, and even if I did I would not get that worked up about it (plus I'm a needy human remember)
The idea of a jealous God seems totally nonsensical to me. Possibly not to you, but to me it does.Soul Winner wrote: »What if your A.I. creating eventually ended up with you deciding to create something so different than your previous preprogrammed robots, which took shape in something that you valued so much that you would die yourself for it in order that it never could never get consigned to the eternal skip along with its other broken down predecessors??
That would be the eternal skip I was sending them to for not praising me in the first place?
Personally I would just not send them to the eternal Trash folder, rather that going through a highly convoluted and illogical process so I can say I'm not going to send them to the Trash folder.
Well no, we assign them to him because we (humans) wrote the Bible. You can believe that that is how God really is, but to me that is nonsense. It is a group of ancient farmers and nomads describing a powerful king with magical powers because that was all they understood at the time.Soul Winner wrote: »We don't assign them to Him, God Himself assigns them to Himself.
Er, our morals and values for a start. When was the last time you went to a public stoning? Or bought a slave?Soul Winner wrote: »Humans still act and feel like humans 5000 years ago. We have emotions, values, morals just like those of 5000 years ago. What’s changed?
Any of them.Soul Winner wrote: »To what Mesopotamian king are you referring?
Well possibly you need to read more about kings.Soul Winner wrote: »I don’t think that He acts like any king I’ve ever read about.
What is described in Genesis is basically a loyalty pledge, God (the King) promised protection and blessing in return for devotion. That was a common transaction for the time, a king or warlord would provide military and financial protection for a group of people if they swore allegiance to him, thus consolidating his power.Soul Winner wrote: »Maybe they try to act like Him. God first revealed Himself to Abraham and gave Him promises. That is not like any king I know.
The authors of Genesis were describing why they believed their people were special or chosen using a quite ordinary and common human frame of reference that most of those reading the story would have been familiar with.
No it doesn't, though how you think "God did it" is the simplest explanation is beyond me (you do know you are supposed to further explain what God did and how he did it, something you can't do)Soul Winner wrote: »Occam’s razor says that the simplest explanation is most likely to be the right explanation.
Occam's razor says that if you can remove an assumption from a theory and still have the same level of explanation then remove the assumption, it is unnecessary.
An example would be a stone on a hill. You go away for an hour and come back and the stone is at the bottom of the hill. You suppose that the stone rolled down to the bottom of the hill. You test this and see that yes that seems likely. Someone else supposes that the stone rolled down the hill, then half way stopped rolled back up the hill, then rolled all the way down again.
The second hypothesis introduces the unnecessary assumption that the stone stopped some how, turned back up, and then rolled down.
Given that the first hypothesis explains the evidence, and there is no evidence that needs explaining from the second, it is safe to drop the second.
That is Occam's Razor.
"God did it" is unnecessary, it doesn't explain anything nor does it increase understanding because you don't understand what God did, or even if he did anything at all.Soul Winner wrote: »“God created the Universe!” Is the simplest explanation as to how it came about and as such according to Occam’s razor, must be the most plausible explanation.
I would be very interested in you explaining what God actually did :pac:
And no, "He spoke" isn't an explanation.Soul Winner wrote: »We don’t know how He did, how He was able to do it, why He did or exactly when He did it but one these can’t be grounds o which to say that He didn’t create it.
No, but they are very good grounds to invoke Occam's razor.
If you don't know what he did then saying "He did something" isn't an explanation. It does not increase our understanding of the universe and how it came into being, and more importantly it doesn't give any framework to testing if God was or was not responsible.
It is a useless, unfounded, untestable, assumption that doesn't go to explaining anything about the universe.Soul Winner wrote: »The theist holds that God did it and can find within the structure of it evidence which suggests a super intelligence
That is meaningless. Anything can "suggest" anything to anyone. Someone could claim that my iPod suggests that their wife is having an affair.
What matters is what you can model and test, not what something may or may not suggest to you.Soul Winner wrote: »so until it can be shown that a universe can just pop into existence from nothing by itself then I don’t see why the theist should abandon his intuitive belief that God did it.
Well a good start would be because it is an intuitive belief, and those things are nearly always wrong when it comes to physics.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement