Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My Beliefs- GDR
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 91 of 1324 (698969)
05-11-2013 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by New Cat's Eye
05-11-2013 8:10 AM


CS writes:
I'm afraid you've missed the point. Sure, the odds of those two particular gametes coming together might be low, but once they are together the rest of the process happens on its own. You shouldn't say that the meiosis happens "by chance", because that's just the spontaneous chemical reactions that play out given those conditions.
I have no problem with the idea that once life was started that it could have evolved on its own. My own bias is that it would have required tweaking along the way, but that is based on virtually no biological knowledge, and the Christian biologists whose books I have read believe that there was no tweaking so I'm pretty sure I'm wrong.
CS writes:
But atoms and molecules and don't form "by chance", it happens on its own spontaneously. Like I said, if you evaporate salt water, you shouldn't say that the salt molecules formed by chance. There was no other choice.
I'm way out of my depth as far as the process itself is concerned but to get us from mindless particles to sentient life by natural causes requires a great deal of good fortune.
CS writes:
But you're looking at the odds wrong. You know it doesn't make sense to invoke God for the formation of a salt crystal, more complex chemical reaction are no more by "chance".
OK, but as a theist that is part of the design.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-11-2013 8:10 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-13-2013 11:58 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 92 of 1324 (698971)
05-11-2013 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Straggler
05-11-2013 11:01 AM


Re: Chance Entities
Straggler writes:
So it is your belief that the likelihood of a fully formed highly complex and unimaginably intelligent entity just randomly existing is greater than simple components evolving over time to form moderately intelligent beings such as ourselves.
Is that the crux of your position here?
Essentially yes, and I stand by it.
I do have difficulty wit the term random in this instance as I understand God to be eternal and random has a an implicit time element involved.
The only other point I'd make is that I believe in the resurrection of Jesus. On the assumption that I am correct then the basic Christian idea of God is to a very large degree confirmed.
In considering Christianity the fundamental question to be asked is whether Jesus is dead or alive. I go with alive.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Straggler, posted 05-11-2013 11:01 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Straggler, posted 05-13-2013 7:31 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 93 of 1324 (698973)
05-11-2013 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by AZPaul3
05-11-2013 5:49 PM


AZPaul3 writes:
Through out all of human history every religious claim of supernatural agency that could be tested has been found to be false. We all know this.
So what can be shown by the objective facts over the last 2,000 years is that the chances of any religious claim of supernatural agency being correct are zero. Demonstrably, no chance at all.
So any natural process that may, by chance, lead to intelligent beings inventing Hagen-Dazs Chocolate Ice Cream, no matter how vanishingly small that probability may seem, is considerably more likely than any supernatural alternative claimed by religion.
And I personally thank god chance for Hagen Dazs.
Actually nobody has ever proven the idea of a supernatural agency wrong. In one very real sense all religions worship the same enitity(s). Humans have always anthropomorphised their deities, and associating them with moons, planets etc and assigning them human like personalities and desires.
Sure, in many cases it could be proven that they got the characteristics of their deities wrong.So what? Many people have various ideas about the characteristics of President Obama, some are wrong and some are right and likely no one is 100% right but President Obama still exists.
I can't have Hagen Dazs in the house. It's one of those you just keep eating 'till it's gone.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by AZPaul3, posted 05-11-2013 5:49 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by AZPaul3, posted 05-12-2013 8:40 AM GDR has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 94 of 1324 (698974)
05-11-2013 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by GDR
05-11-2013 9:00 PM


Re: The Gospel Message
OK I get your point about son of man in Daniel.
A messiah was never expected to be anything other than a human. Jesus being the Messiah has nothing to do with Him being part of the Trinity.
That is simply not true, and your understanding of it shows quite clearly that you have no idea how the OT applies to the NT. There are many ways the Messiah is identified as Jehovah Himself in both OT and NT. Just two in the OT are Jeremiah 23:6 and 33:16 identifying Him as "The LORD Our Righteousness" (in which LORD translates the Hebrew for Jehovah) and Isaiah 9:6 "Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, Prince of Peace." Those are the most obvious ones, understood by orthodox theologians to identify Him as God.
The normal expectation of a messiah was that he would lead them in battle and defeat their enemies and establish the Jewish kingdom. Jesus essentially said that that is what He was doing but it wasn’t going to look like that.
I know you have this odd idea about Jesus addressing the Roman occupation but I can assure you that no orthodox theologian has any such idea. Some of the Jews of Jesus' time had that expectation but Jesus was always correcting them, but those who really knew the scripture were able to grasp that His Kingdom is not of this world.
The entry into Jerusalem was simply a messianic statement with nothing whatsoever to do with taking away sins. Yes Jesus is the incarnate Word of God but that is understood separately from Him being the Messiah.
That's quite an odd distinction, but as far as taking away sins goes, that is what the Messiah's mission was, as the angel told Joseph: Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (The name Jesus means Jehovah the Savior)
About Moses and divorce, Moses taught nothing he wasn't instructed to do by God, and I've already explained the orthodox understanding of the Sermon on the Mount, no need to repeat it.
Hell is for sinners, though bad theology can be implied in some sorts of sins. But Hell is for sinners, those who violate God's Law, adulterers, murderers and so on and so forth. My only point was that the loving Jesus spoke of Hell more than anyone else in scripture. He died to save us from it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by GDR, posted 05-11-2013 9:00 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Phat, posted 05-12-2013 7:43 AM Faith has replied
 Message 98 by GDR, posted 05-12-2013 3:41 PM Faith has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 95 of 1324 (698979)
05-12-2013 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Faith
05-11-2013 9:36 PM


Keeping The Faith
Faith writes:
That's quite an odd distinction, but as far as taking away sins goes, that is what the Messiah's mission was, as the angel told Joseph: Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (The name Jesus means Jehovah the Savior)
Im checking to see if Faith did her homework...
quote:
Matt 1:20-2:1-NIV
20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"-which means, "God with us."
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Easton Bible Dictionary writes:
his is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua, which was originally Hoshea (Num. 13:8, 16), but changed by Moses into Jehoshua (Num. 13:16; 1 Chr. 7:27), or Joshua. After the Exile it assumed the form Jeshua, whence the Greek form Jesus. It was given to our Lord to denote the object of his mission, to save (Matt. 1:21).
Not bad, Faith ... The meaning of the last name is also important. Christ means "the anointed One". Critics claim that any of us could be anointed, but as the officials of that time (who were not followers) said,
quote:
The officers answered, No one ever spoke like this man!
.
See all translations.
Faith writes:
Hell is for sinners, though bad theology can be implied in some sorts of sins. But Hell is for sinners, those who violate God's Law, adulterers, murderers and so on and so forth. My only point was that the loving Jesus spoke of Hell more than anyone else in scripture. He died to save us from it.
Hell was created not for sinful humans but for fallen angels who initially chose to rebel from Communion with God. Humans only end up in hell due to our own choice to deny Jesus Christ and to follow an unclean spirit (or even our own fallible human wisdom that refuses to acknowledge Jesus Christ for who He is. ) People are never sent to hell. They make the choice. Humans are not punished for having free will. Humans choose to punish themselves through willful ignorance...denying a loving man in which no fault was found.
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 05-11-2013 9:36 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 05-12-2013 11:30 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 96 of 1324 (698981)
05-12-2013 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by GDR
05-11-2013 9:30 PM


Through out all of human history every religious claim of supernatural agency that could be tested has been found to be false.
Atually nobody has ever proven the idea of a supernatural agency wrong.
Well let's see, where to start.
Young Earth, Great Flud, all the various natural phenomena gods (volcano, wind, sea, storm), intercessory prayer, genesis creation, rain dance, biblical inerrancy, papal infallibility, astrology, all those paranormal claims like telepathy, precognition, homeopathy, pyramid power, dousing, etc, and on, plus more and then some.
I would even add your Jesus's miracles like raising Lazarus, walking on water, resurrection etc, and on, plus more and then some.
I do not subscribe to this "science cannot prove" or "science cannot study the supernatural" philosophic restrictions.
Assessment is as simple as: If this claim is true then we should see this thing here. If this claim is true then these laws of physics would be violated in these specific ways. Do we see that thing there? Have we seen any instance where these laws were violated in those specific ways?
Done right, science can accurately assess the veracity of any claim and appropriately conclude that such claim is so ludicrous and unlikely as to be indistinguishable from false. The error bars are but semantical quibble for believers to cry over trying to resurrect their dead ideas.
I say again:
Every religious claim of supernatural agency that could be tested has been found to be false.
All the data we have, the only data we have (and there is a lot of it), all point to the conclusion that those tested supernatural claims are all false. Further, from this experience we have no reason to entertain any idea that any other present or any future claims of supernatural agency will not also be false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by GDR, posted 05-11-2013 9:30 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Phat, posted 05-12-2013 4:13 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 100 by GDR, posted 05-12-2013 4:30 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 97 of 1324 (698983)
05-12-2013 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Phat
05-12-2013 7:43 AM


Re: Keeping The Faith
Hell is for sinners, though bad theology can be implied in some sorts of sins. But Hell is for sinners, those who violate God's Law, adulterers, murderers and so on and so forth. My only point was that the loving Jesus spoke of Hell more than anyone else in scripture. He died to save us from it.
Hell was created not for sinful humans but for fallen angels
I didn't say who it was CREATED for, Phat, I said it IS FOR SINNERS, and that is its purpose.
who initially chose to rebel from Communion with God. Humans only end up in hell due to our own choice to deny Jesus Christ and to follow an unclean spirit (or even our own fallible human wisdom that refuses to acknowledge Jesus Christ for who He is. ) People are never sent to hell. They make the choice. Humans are not punished for having free will. Humans choose to punish themselves through willful ignorance...denying a loving man in which no fault was found.
But somehow in all that you never say WHY humans are punished. It's because of SIN, Phat. Yes we can choose to be saved through Jesus (who came to save His people from their sins as the angel said to Joseph) and if we deny Him we will certainly end up in Hell, but for our sins, which He died to pay for. We're all Hell-bound from birth, though because of the degree of sin some are bound for deeper Hell than others, but nevertheless we're all Hell-bound because we're all sinners. Denying Jesus isn't the reason, but denying Jesus is going to mean we forfeit His offer of salvation from Hell. (Of course denying Jesus IS a sin too....)
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Phat, posted 05-12-2013 7:43 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 98 of 1324 (698988)
05-12-2013 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Faith
05-11-2013 9:36 PM


Re: The Gospel Message
Faith writes:
That is simply not true, and your understanding of it shows quite clearly that you have no idea how the OT applies to the NT. There are many ways the Messiah is identified as Jehovah Himself in both OT and NT. Just two in the OT are Jeremiah 23:6 and 33:16 identifying Him as "The LORD Our Righteousness" (in which LORD translates the Hebrew for Jehovah) and Isaiah 9:6 "Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, Prince of Peace." Those are the most obvious ones, understood by orthodox theologians to identify Him as God.
First off, I’m not saying that Jesus isn’t part of the Trinity. I am saying that the term messiah does not mean that. Messiah means anointed one of God. God does not anoint Himself. There were numerous messianic movements between the Maccabees and the bar Kokbha rebellion in 135AD when Simon ben Kosiba was proclaimed as messiah.There was large messianic movement when Jesus was young led by Judas the Galilean. Certainly there were divine overtones to it but the messiah was the one who would be the saviour who would free them from their enemies and would reign with them over their homeland. Here is a site that talks about Messianic expectations.
There is a thread though through the Hebrew Scriptures of God returning to His people and certainly Jesus understood that. He led a counter-Temple movement which came out of the tradition of the Essenes of which John the Baptist was one. Jesus tied the two together in Him own mission. The idea of forgiving sins was one of the things that only God could do and yet Jesus was going around doing just that which was one of the things that got Him in trouble with the Jewish leadership.
Faith writes:
I know you have this odd idea about Jesus addressing the Roman occupation but I can assure you that no orthodox theologian has any such idea. Some of the Jews of Jesus' time had that expectation but Jesus was always correcting them, but those who really knew the scripture were able to grasp that His Kingdom is not of this world.
Of course His Kingdom was not of this world but it was for this world. He came to establish a Kingdom of His followers who would be armed with His message of love, truth, mercy, forgiveness, peace and justice. He was proclaiming this to His countryman who were living under the brutal rule of a foreign occupying force. How on earth could that be anything but political? Do you think that in telling people that they were to love the enemy wouldn’t be political? The Jews were required to carry the kit of Roman soldiers but apparently they were only required to do it for a mile and then the soldier had to find some other poor schmuck. Jesus told them to go the extra mile. His message was that if you wanted to defeat the evil as personified by the Romans that you did it by changing hearts.
Faith writes:
That's quite an odd distinction, but as far as taking away sins goes, that is what the Messiah's mission was, as the angel told Joseph: Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (The name Jesus means Jehovah the Savior)
He saves people from their sins but showing them a better way and that is the way of loving our neighbour as ourselves. There were hundreds of people with the name Jesus, and there still are, and none of them who made any divine claims.
Faith writes:
About Moses and divorce, Moses taught nothing he wasn't instructed to do by God, and I've already explained the orthodox understanding of the Sermon on the Mount, no need to repeat it.
You keep stating that you are orthodox. Quite frankly I consider myself orthodox. You are the one that wants to read the Bible as being understood exactly as it is written. Jesus is clearly correcting the Hebrew Scriptures in those quotes from the Sermon on the Mount and your denial of that doesn’t change the fact.
Let’s try again from Matthew 19.
quote:
They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" 4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." 7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
Jesus says that from the beginning a marriage was about being of one flesh. Jesus says, that Moses allowed it, (not God but Moses), because of the hardness of their hearts. Jesus then corrected Moses.
Faith writes:
Hell is for sinners, though bad theology can be implied in some sorts of sins. But Hell is for sinners, those who violate God's Law, adulterers, murderers and so on and so forth. My only point was that the loving Jesus spoke of Hell more than anyone else in scripture. He died to save us from it.
If you are so sure about how hell works then tell me about what happens to:
1/ An infant who dies prior to being able to reason
2/ Some one who is mentally ill
3/ Someone from another culture raised in an entirely different faith
4/Someone who is terribly abused as a child etc.
Your brand of evangelism is so focused on being saved or going to hell that you miss out on the Gospel message of serving God’s Kingdom. You turn faith into a work. We are made right with God by having loving hearts and by grace He gives us His own love so that we in turn can love.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 05-11-2013 9:36 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 05-12-2013 9:08 PM GDR has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 99 of 1324 (698989)
05-12-2013 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by AZPaul3
05-12-2013 8:40 AM


AZ Come, AZ Go
AZPaul3 writes:
Assessment is as simple as: If this claim is true then we should see this thing here.
Why must we see it?
If this claim is true then these laws of physics would be violated in these specific ways. Do we see that thing there? Have we seen any instance where these laws were violated in those specific ways?
Human wisdom is limited to a miniscule time and space. Our imagination (and even our evidence) does not contain the known universe.
Done right, science can accurately assess the veracity of any claim and appropriately conclude that such claim is so ludicrous and unlikely as to be indistinguishable from false.
Science never uses terms such as ludicrous. This is your own personal bias against the idea of God. The fact is, if you are honest with yourself, you dont even doubt that you are right. You do doubt that you are wrong, however.
The error bars are but semantical quibble for believers to cry over trying to resurrect their dead ideas.
Totally your perspective. Far from a unanimous belief. You've been hanging out with too many of your own kind. You will be humbled, and the smugness will disappear. My advice? Don't rule it out and stay humble.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by AZPaul3, posted 05-12-2013 8:40 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 100 of 1324 (698991)
05-12-2013 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by AZPaul3
05-12-2013 8:40 AM


AZPaul3 writes:
Young Earth, Great Flud, all the various natural phenomena gods (volcano, wind, sea, storm), intercessory prayer, genesis creation, rain dance, biblical inerrancy, papal infallibility, astrology, all those paranormal claims like telepathy, precognition, homeopathy, pyramid power, dousing, etc, and on, plus more and then some.
Certainly many of our ideas about God, and what he has done, have been proven wrong. That doesn’t prove that there is no god. We can only say that God can’t be scientifically confirmed. Science can indeed show that things like a worldwide flood didn’t happen but that doesn’t tell us anything about whether God actually exists or not.
AZPaul3 writes:
Every religious claim of supernatural agency that could be tested has been found to be false.
But there is great deal that can’t be tested. For example how do you prove that the resurrection didn’t happen? It was a onetime event that didn’t follow natural law as we know it.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by AZPaul3, posted 05-12-2013 8:40 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Tangle, posted 05-12-2013 5:19 PM GDR has replied
 Message 102 by AZPaul3, posted 05-12-2013 6:42 PM GDR has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 101 of 1324 (698993)
05-12-2013 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by GDR
05-12-2013 4:30 PM


GDR writes:
Certainly many of our ideas about God, and what he has done, have been proven wrong. That doesn’t prove that there is no god. We can only say that God can’t be scientifically confirmed. Science can indeed show that things like a worldwide flood didn’t happen but that doesn’t tell us anything about whether God actually exists or not.
This isn't correct at all. Science has so far proven that pretty much everything claimed by religious thinkers that involve the natural world - age of the earth, immutability of species, floods and so on - are wrong.
We find no evidence for spirits, angels and ghosts - holy or otherwise.
We also find no evidence for any claimed deistic involvement in our word, answered prayers and healing for example, simply do not happen.
So we're left with the bible and its stories which even you admit is contradictory and errant, written by the people that were not eye witnesses and almost certainly had political motives.
We are allowed to make deductions from this lack of evidence and the most obvious one is that the hypothesis that there is supernatural intervention in our world as described by the majority of Christian believers is in error.
For sure it doesn't disprove the existence of a god that takes no interest in our lives, but the 2,000 year god of Christianity is defunct pending evidence.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by GDR, posted 05-12-2013 4:30 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by GDR, posted 05-13-2013 10:45 AM Tangle has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 102 of 1324 (698995)
05-12-2013 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by GDR
05-12-2013 4:30 PM


For example how do you prove that the resurrection didn’t happen?
Resurrection. To arise from the dead. Keyword - dead. Not just dead but, if the story is to be believed, three days dead.
Actually there supposedly was a second episode with Lazarus. One thing we know and have seen quite well in this universe is that if it has happened once (twice) there will be more. There aren't any more that anyone knows. But this is weak considering it was supposed to have been done by a god of infinite power. But still physical law violation #1.
What happens to dead things? Rigimortus, decay. The laws of thermo dynamics shift from entropy caused by bodily maintenance to a full runup on fast entropy increase in bodily breakdown.
After this sets in we have resurrection. The entropy process is reversed, in an enclosed darkened cave with very little, if any, thermodynamic excess available. Physical law violation #2.
Decay is reversed, cells are reconstituted complete with previously lost moisture, structure, cytoplasm, ribosomes, mitochondria, organ function restored and brain function restored all requiring an enormous input of energy to spontaneously recreate what was destroyed. Physical law violation #3.
Boltzmann would not be happy.
OK, highly unlikely. Exceptionally highly unlikely. So highly unlikely that the probabilities are as close to zero as to be indistinguishable from didn’t happen.
But god done it is the claim. But the history of religious claims about supernatural stuff is not just piss poor but downright really bad, to the point that such claims are not viable and must be ignored.
More.
A lot of uneducated people in this region of the world at this time. But not everyone. Given the population and the usual education rate of the time (doing this from memory) about 150,000 educated scribes, historians, writers, chroniclers, folks who could write, exchange letters with friends, family, acquaintances, etc., infested the area and the surrounding territories.
The Lazarus thing was done (supposedly) in open public. The Jesus thing also (supposedly) had a public display. Rising from the dead would have been a big deal. It would have been one hell of a big deal anywhere at any time. A startled and thoroughly enthralled public would have clamored and buzzed from Jerusalem to Phoenix and back several times in a matter of, well given the speed of camels, many months to several years.
No one within an astronomical unit of the planet could have avoided the buzz. And yet, with all those educated scribes, historians, writers, chroniclers, folks who could write, exchange letters with friends, family, acquaintances in the area not one independent, non-biblical, non-self-serving, non-religious recording of either event. No notes, no records, no "Hey, Jaime, guess what happend here today. You ain't gonna believe this but ..." kind of letters to everyone any write-enabled person knew and a bunch more to them what he didn't knew.
Not incredulity on my part. The lack on notice is not humanly possible, at that time, in that place, in any time, in any place. Unless you want to claim your god covered it up at the time but let it leak out many decades later. Bullshit.
That doesn’t prove that there is no god.
quote:
But the history of religious claims about supernatural stuff is not just piss poor but downright really bad, to the point that such claims are not viable and must be ignored.
--Me
Nothing else you and yours have claimed to be there turned out true. I do not have to prove a negative though I hold the preponderance of the evidence. You have to prove the positive. The problem is that every other time you (collective you as in religionists for many centuries) proclaimed something supernatural, divine, unworldly, paranormal, of god, etc., you have been mistaken, in error or just plain wrong and sometimes with the most devastating consequences. Why should anyone give credence to any such claims now?
The preponderance of the evidence, actually the entire body of evidence, makes any claims of god non-viable.
Yes, I know science is not supposed to be able to speak on the supernatural.
Bullshit.
We do not live in a philosophically perfect world. We live in a realistic world. There comes a point where a realistic view of the evidence requires a reasonable man to say, Bullshit. Religionists can no longer hide behind a magic word, like supernatural, to exempt their claims from scientific scrutiny.
I know this is wrong but you know what I’m gonna do, GDR? I’m gonna get one of them pints of Hagen Dazs and try not to devour it in one evening. I may lose, but I will give it my greatest effort. sorta
And I'll try not to use the word bullshit so much. Keep my mouth shut. With a spoon of chocolate ice cream inside.
It's calling me. I gotta go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by GDR, posted 05-12-2013 4:30 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by GDR, posted 05-13-2013 11:24 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 103 of 1324 (698996)
05-12-2013 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by GDR
05-12-2013 3:41 PM


Re: The Gospel Message
First off, I’m not saying that Jesus isn’t part of the Trinity. I am saying that the term messiah does not mean that.
And I'm saying it does, and I gave you verses in Jeremiah and Isaiah to demonstrate that the Messiah was prophesied to be God Himself.
Messiah means anointed one of God. God does not anoint Himself.
God the Father can anoint God the Son, however, and the Trinity can anoint the incarnate Jesus.
Yes, there were many wannabe Messiahs around that time, as some did know the scripture well enough to know that was when the true one would come. Your secular history weblink isn't very helpful to a Christian, however.
If His Kingdom is not of this world, it is also not FOR this world. This world is passing away, says scripture, and some day it will be gone altogether, replaced by a completely new Creation. In John 17 Jesus specifically says He's praying for His own, not for those of this world. Your focus on the Roman occupation is extremely strange to me. That was the concern of the unregenerate Jews, but it was certainly not the focus of Christ or His followers.
We ARE called to be "salt and light" to the world, however, to keep the word of God as much the standard as we are able, to prevent the world's falling too deeply into the corruptions and evils of the sin nature. Looks like we're now in the time of the last of the last days, however, when evil is finally going to win, have its last hurrah before Jesus returns.
He saves people from their sins but showing them a better way and that is the way of loving our neighbour as ourselves.
Did you mean "BY showing them a better way?" If so, that's wrong. He saved us from our sins by taking our just punishment for our sins upon Himself on the cross and dying in our place. He's called our "propitiation" many places in the scripture.
There were hundreds of people with the name Jesus, and there still are, and none of them who made any divine claims.
Oh, One did, and made that claim many times during His life as recorded in the New Testament.
If you are so sure about how hell works then tell me about what happens to:
1/ An infant who dies prior to being able to reason
2/ Some one who is mentally ill
3/ Someone from another culture raised in an entirely different faith
4/Someone who is terribly abused as a child etc.
It's up to God how to treat individuals. Some believe infants are saved, some believe at least the infants of believers are saved. Scripture does at least indicate the latter, but otherwise I don't have a judgment about these things. And I don't worry about it. God will do the just thing.
Same with the other categories. There is, however, Romans 1 which claims that even those who haven't heard the gospel have enough light from nature to obey the natural law and to be "without excuse" for not obeying it, but that too is not spelled out with enough distinctness for me to make my own judgment about individuals in certain categories such as you list, and again, I leave such decisions to God, they aren't mine to make. What I DO know for sure is that those who have heard the gospel and rejected it are utterly without excuse.
Your brand of evangelism is so focused on being saved or going to hell that you miss out on the Gospel message of serving God’s Kingdom.
I don't miss out on that at all, it's what we do WHEN we are saved, and nobody can do it who isn't saved although they may deceive themselves about that.
You turn faith into a work. We are made right with God by having loving hearts and by grace He gives us His own love so that we in turn can love.
You cannot have that without being born again, i.e., saved. And the idea that salvation is a work is absurd in the extreme. "It is by GRACE ye are saved..."
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Note "created in Christ Jesus UNTO GOOD WORKS" -- there's your serving of the Kingdom of God, which is the RESULT of salvation by His death on the cross in our place.
====================================================================
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
2Cr 10:4-5 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by GDR, posted 05-12-2013 3:41 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by GDR, posted 05-13-2013 3:53 PM Faith has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 104 of 1324 (699005)
05-13-2013 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by GDR
05-11-2013 9:20 PM


Re: Chance Entities
Something, rather than nothing, exists. This is our starting point.
Is the 'something' that just exists simple but capable of evolving such that greater complexity in the form of moderately intellgent beings (i.e. us) may eventually arise?
Or is the 'something' that just exists a super-intelligent-bewilderingly powerful entity that chooses to bring simpler things (e.g. us) into existence?
Straggler writes:
So it is your belief that the likelihood of a fully formed highly complex and unimaginably intelligent entity just randomly existing is greater than simple components evolving over time to form moderately intelligent beings such as ourselves. Is that the crux of your position here?
GDR writes:
Essentially yes, and I stand by it.
Can you see why your advocacy of (highly complex -> less complex) as more likely than (simple -> moderately complex) seems both to defy the observational evidence available and common sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by GDR, posted 05-11-2013 9:20 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by GDR, posted 05-13-2013 11:41 PM Straggler has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 105 of 1324 (699012)
05-13-2013 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Tangle
05-12-2013 5:19 PM


Tangle writes:
This isn't correct at all. Science has so far proven that pretty much everything claimed by religious thinkers that involve the natural world - age of the earth, immutability of species, floods and so on - are wrong.
Humans are naturally curious and have a desire to understand things. As a result they speculate, as I do, in an attempt to answer questions about God. So far most of the speculations like the ones you have talked about have been proven wrong but that tells us nothing about whether God actually exists or not.
Tangle writes:
We find no evidence for spirits, angels and ghosts - holy or otherwise.
A lot of people say they have experienced such things. Personally I haven't and I have to admit scepticism of such experiences myself, but who knows.
Tangle writes:
We also find no evidence for any claimed deistic involvement in our word, answered prayers and healing for example, simply do not happen.
I think you meant theistic, but many people do claim to be healed and have had prayers answered. There is no way of proving or disproving those claims.
Tangle writes:
So we're left with the bible and its stories which even you admit is contradictory and errant, written by the people that were not eye witnesses and almost certainly had political motives.
Well most of the NT is written by people who possibly were eyewitnesses or in most cases people who had contact either orally or from what was written by people who were eyewitnesses.
The fact that there are relatively minor contradictions in the gospels is an indication that the essential elements have validity. If there were no contradictions it would be an indication that the whole thing was fabricated.
Tangle writes:
We are allowed to make deductions from this lack of evidence and the most obvious one is that the hypothesis that there is supernatural intervention in our world as described by the majority of Christian believers is in error.
For sure it doesn't disprove the existence of a god that takes no interest in our lives, but the 2,000 year god of Christianity is defunct pending evidence.
If you like we can look at the Bible in the same way we can any historical account and we can choose to accept all of it, some of it or none of it as being factual, but like any historical record it is a form of evidence.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Tangle, posted 05-12-2013 5:19 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024