|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Greater Miracle | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5187 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
GDR writes:
Why does there have to be a "why"?
That still does not explain "why" it happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5187 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
GDR writes:
I charge you with the task of providing a logically constructed argument for why there must be a why, and you simply reiterate the same assertion? Would you care to try again? This time I would suggest you move beyond Premise A.
There always has to be a why.
GDR writes:
Your argument from personal incredulity is meaningless. To much of the world's population 3,000 years ago, a flat earth model made more sense.
It is my contention that the latter makes more sense of this world than the former.
GDR writes:
The very fact that you are using the words "prove" and "proof" displays your fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. The scientific method is not utilized to proof anything, as it has no means to accomplish such a thing.
Show me the proof.I want to see the proof... how does that prove... ...you can't prove it... When utilizing the scientific method, you are establishing the best explanation for natural phenomena you can, while utilizing all the relevant facts in an unbiased manner. For instance, Newtonian Gravity was later improved upon by Einstein, through his more accurate description of "Gravitation". Does this mean that Gravity somehow changed? No. More the amount of data we had increased, and we needed to update the explanation to suit the facts. In Chemistry, we see fundamental parts (atoms or even molecules) self assemble through natural laws. For instance the joining of 2 Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen into water. It is not hard to deduce that our DNA --which is made of components no different than those found in nature-- occurred through a natural chemical reaction that occurred when the correct mixture of elements was present.
GDR writes:
What fine tuning are you referring to? The fact that it takes a thousand billion billion useless stars to have a single solar system with a single planet of the 8 available (You'll be missed Pluto) in order for life to exist? I see just as much fine tuning in the universe for the existence of life, as to how fine tuned a puddle's shape is for the hole it occupies.
I can go through the same old points about the fine tuning of the universe,
GDR writes:
How much more complex is our simple chemical reactions than those that occur within our own sun?
the complexity of life of all kinds
GDR writes:
As does any Primate, Dog, our house-cat... unless you don't consider fear or affection emotions...
the fact that we have emotions
GDR writes:
As can any Primate, Dog, Cat... unless you consider a wild tiger caring for an orphaned orangutan, after it killed it's mother not to be altruistic.
the fact that we can be altruistic
GDR writes:
The overarching theme of this "evidence" you have provided is that it is purely subjective. Notice in every response I had to preface it with "Unless you consider". This is necessary as they are all completely subjective. I could consider a human caring for another human child altruistic, but arbitrarily reject the tiger/orangutan example, for no more reason than it disagrees with my pre-conceptions.
That's fine but I find that evidence sufficient to maintain that it is more reasonable to assume an intelligent creator than it is to assume a strict materialism
This is the exact reason that a discussion with a fundamentalist typically leads nowhere, as they typically utilize subjective terms as if they are objective. They do this without understanding the fundamental flaw in their argument, and why it can arbitrarily be discarded as easily as it was posited in the first place. Edited by Michamus, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5187 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
GDR writes:
As does pretty much any other religion that existed at the time.Resurrection is certainly not unique, or original to Christianity.
Science will say that when someone dies, and that other than for cases of resuscitation, they stay dead. Christianity claims that Jesus was resurrected. This would be an unrepeatable event that occurred 2000 years ago. Science can say nothing about it.
Bold added by me
A small list of gods that were resurrected:
GDR writes:
As demonstrated, the resurrection is not unique to Christianity, nor was Christianity the first to claim it to have occurred. If you don't believe all these religions to be true, then you must also reject their central belief in the resurrection of their "God(s)", at which point, you would have no choice but to reject the very notion of your own religion's claims.
Does the resurrection contradict science. I would say no in that if it is true it is an unrepeatable event and not accessible to scientific investigation.
What is more likely?A few scribes made up the whole story, and some powerful men took advantage of that story (Think council of Nicaea) in which a completely non-original event occurred, in that yet another god was resurrected. -or- Christianity's claim of a resurrection is the only story in which a god was ACTUALLY resurrected, and that same god is the single creator of everything, and all the other religions that pre-date Christianity by HUNDREDS of years, made their resurrection stories up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5187 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
GDR writes:
So then Jesus wasn't a god? Got it.
The Egyptian examples were all considered to be gods and not earthly beings.
GDR writes:
Hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of modern Christianity is based on Paul's teachings... The Modern Canon is also based on what books a council of Christianity's early religious leaders voted on (through bribery of the Roman Empire) being allowed into the Canon. There was even a huge disagreement as to whether the version of Revelation with 616 as the Mark of the Beast was the accurate one, or the one with 666.
Other than Paul the early Christian writers were hardly the rich and powerful.
Christianity's history has been fraught with power and corruption. It has also historically been a chimera religion, in it's adoption of Pagan beliefs, such as the astrological significance of Easter and the Winter-Solstice (Dec 25th on the Julian Calender). So, given the obvious power Paulism provides in creating a fatal loop of self guilt, and the need for church sponsored salvation, it is no wonder early Christianity was manipulated into the political powerhouse it has been since.
GDR writes:
Frankly, Jesus' teachings were hardly unique to him, in that they mimicked Pharisee teachings that pre-dated his birth by half a century. It really doesn't matter what the Jews believed though, as many Asian, and Middle Eastern Religions had resurrected gods long before Christianity.
They didn't believe that one individual would be resurrected in the middle of time. They would have considered that a Messiah, (who was the "Anointed One" but wholly man) might have come back as vision or something similar, but not in a resurrected body.
GDR writes:
As I mentioned before, they didn't just put existing stories together, they picked between which VERSIONS of the stories would go in... Such as, all in favor of 666 being the mark of the beast, say "AYE", and so it was picked in favor of the version with 616.
AS far as Nicea was concerned, they didn't write the stories they just put them together and wrote a creed to summarize them.
GDR writes:
Of course you will. You have the cultural pre-disposition to do so. Of course it seems more likely to you that Christ was the REAL resurrected god, among the pantheon of competing resurrected gods. Care to impart any actual reason that you reject Mithra's resurrection as being possible in favor of Christ's?
The other resurrection stories were myths of unseen gods. I'll go with the Christian story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5187 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
GDR writes:
As were the other resurrected gods I mentioned... They even had sexual relations with human women, who gave birth to legendary men... interesting the parallels, isn't it?
Cute. He was also a man who walked among us. You know what the differences are.
GDR writes:
I am presuming you mean the New Testament, and not the Old Testament. Other than that, there are only 5 books that Paul did not write. In fact, much of the "sinful" nature of man, and the fall being the cause of death/disease, etc come directly from Paul's teachings.
Paul didn't write any of the OT, the gospels and about half of the rest of the OT.
GDR writes:
Since when does going from a mere officer of a church to a leader of one become a "lesser status"?
He had position in the church but whatever wealth and power he had, he had a lot less of it after his "road to Damascus" experience.
GDR writes:
Which is why it was corrupt from it's inception.
Too true. The big problem with the church is that its made up of imperfect people like myself.
GDR writes:
...and exactly why you shouldn't trust anything that has come from it.
We would agree that the Christian faith has been manipulated by many for hundreds of years for personal gain, which is the exact opposite of what the church should stand for.
GDR writes:
I completely disagree with this. The fact that he did oppose both politically and theologically the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders was the reason He went to the cross when He did. The Pharisees were about militarily regaining control of the Jewish homeland and their temple. Jesus was telling them to "love their enemies'
quote: quote: GDR writes:
Says who? Them? Need I remind you what you just said:
They put prayerfully put together a canon that incorporated the teachings that were predominate in the early church.
quote: GDR writes:
Agnosticism is certainly not a religion.
Agnosticism was certainly the primary religion in my culture.
Agnosticism - noun an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge. GDR writes:
Mithra was again a mythological Persian god that was not someone who walked on Earth as one of us.
quote:Out of time, looking up more info for you on the resurrection legends for Mithra.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5187 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
GDR writes:
You are so deluded in your worldview, that you make ridiculous statements like these. You might as well be saying a completely bald man chooses to style his hair.
You have obviously chosen to serve a secular god.
GDR writes:
Again, you use another ridiculous statement. One cannot be informed (having information (knowledge)) and faith. You either know it, or believe it. Science is knowledge, religion is belief (faith).
It is an informed faith even though some of us will come to opposite conclusions.
GDR writes:
And a muslim man here in Afghanistan is convinced that Allah made everything, and that he must kill me to appease this Allah. What's even more ludicrous is this all makes the most sense to him.
In my view the Christian story makes sense of the world that I live in both historically and spiritually.
It made sense up until a few hundred years ago, that the sun revolved around the Earth. Don't believe it? Well just look at it! I mean it does look like it is revolving around us. Just because it makes sense in the mind, doesn't mean it is true to reality.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024