Print
The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
by Christadelphian.org
Steve sends us in this great little bit:
"Hi,
Just thought I should send this in. I have attached a flyer that was posted
through my letter box. It is from an odd Christian group,
Christadelphians, that take the good book literally. Sad to see these groups
actually exist, good to see they are on the defensive.
I really hope it is not from my next door neighbour! Perhaps I need to move."
Just thought I should send this in. I have attached a flyer that was posted
through my letter box. It is from an odd Christian group,
Christadelphians, that take the good book literally. Sad to see these groups
actually exist, good to see they are on the defensive.
I really hope it is not from my next door neighbour! Perhaps I need to move."
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Sunday, November 19, 2006 | PermalinkComments 601 - 650 of 1747 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers602. Comment #18052 by BillySands on January 18, 2007 at 4:40 am
Shaun,The argument from incredulity applies equally to both sides of this debate - it just depends what you are incredulous about!
No. A rationalist tries to find a rational explanation. We do not say "I dont know, it must be god". Ignorance is no reason to believe in god. Why do you not believe in fairies then? (think about the point, not the actual words)
"An intelligent God with a purpose, responsible for the order and complexity of life or abiogenesis?"
Where is the evidence? Again, ignorance is no arguement. We can make some of what is needed in "prebiotic simulations"
There is evidence for design and purpose. There is no evidence for abiogenesis.
Please provide some, but again it boils down to ignorance, and some have already posted on evidence for abiogenesis here. We can make the molecules requires by purely physical processes. Who designs gods then? What is your evidence that he does not need to be designed?
Billy said:"Would the real God please make himself known?"
He has to those who are willing to see it, and He will even to those who don't want to see it. All in good time Billy and not according to your demands or mine!
This is just an offensive lie to those who genuinely sought. It is also a statement steeped in self delusion. Can you actually back up this statement? If you want to believe in fairies enough, you will. So what you are really saying here is make yourself believe and you will believe. That is self delusion, and that is how I and others who lost their faith got by. It is a purely internal process and most certainly does not prove gods existance, and of course, mulslims etc would say the same about their gods too.
Cheers
Billy
Other Comments by BillySands
603. Comment #18111 by down_under on January 18, 2007 at 11:37 am
ShaunI see what you're doing, yes all those things were designed by man
So wow! man can design amazing things so therefore something as amazing as the earth must be designed by something better than man, we dont know what and dont want to use our brains too find out, so it must be........a god!
Shaun I will shoot down your inferior logic *smug grin*
1. Man created those things yes, but did he did not create the basic elements that make those things, and everything you described is far less complex than the earth, let aloen the universe! and therefore easier to design
2. Each thing was designed for a purpose, be it astetics or information, what is the purpose for god to desing an entire universe?
3. How long did mount rushmore take Shaun? or the eiffel tower? or even the invention of a pc monitor! even a newspaper when you take into consideration how long it took man to invent paper, the printing press etc........much longer than 6 days!!
4. we see evidence of man designing and building these marvels, where do we see evidence of gods designs? any blueprints for the universe?
5. the earth, and more obviously the universe, are constatnly changing, altering themselves, galaxys sucked into blackholes, moons thrown out of orbit, continental shifts on earth, and all for no apparant reason other than physics makes it happen, when was the last time the eiffel tower suddenly altered itself?
6. the earth and the universe have so many flaws yet mans designs have few, are we better than god?
7. so much planning went into these designs, did god plan the universe? did it take him 4 days? ;-)
8. do you know how many people it took to get that eiffel tower standing? or to invent and mass produce the computer monitor? far more than one! and they are all extreamly simple by comparisson to the universe
9. you are saying the earth is designed by listing all the things man designed, how about i list all the things man DIDNT design and use that as evidence the earth wasnt designed.......now do you see how silly your statement is? (note, the amount of things we didnt design far outnumbers the things we did, so id win!)
shaun your argument comes down to "man designed the eiffel tower so god designed the unvierse"
and it is simply unfair and slightly retarded to compare te entire universe to a handful of man-made marvels......which i might add we understand everything about including step by step instructions of how and why they are there.
You are saying everything has to be designed by something, that is the point you are making, so lets turn that on you, What designed God?
oh you say he was always there! why is he exempt from the "everything must be designed" rule???
where is your evidence he was always there?
im sure you now realise how stupid youv made yourself look
try harder shaun
Other Comments by down_under
604. Comment #18148 by Mark Taunton on January 18, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Billy: … So, were is the evidence? All I hear from some is an arguement from incredulity, and from others, some wild interpretations that are far from clear and apply to Babylon and not RomeBut who is doing the "wild interpretation" of Bible prophecies?
You and I disagree over the identity of the invading power in the prophecy of Deuteronomy 28:49-57. You assert that it is Babylon, but I have shown plainly why it cannot be. As is directly stated in the record, Jews did understand Aramaic, which both the Assyrians and the Babylonians spoke; yet the prophecy said they would not understand the language of the invader. So you are being illogical to continue to insist it is Babylon – you are making the wild interpretation which ignores fact and logic.
Secondly, I also discussed another major example of Bible prophecy, fulfilled in detail, undeniably after it was written: the return of Jews to form a nation of Israel again in their former homeland, in the middle of the 20th century. I ask the rational reader to consider whether I am making a "wild interpretation" in my reading of Ezekiel 36 (which is just one of many prophetic passages in the Bible about that recent amazing development in the Middle East). Here is a table of some of the words and phrases I previously discussed in that context. On the left in each case are the original terms, on the right the alleged "interpretation" I put upon those terms.
mountains of Israel === the mountains of Israel
branches === branches [of trees, e.g. olive trees such as on the mount of Olives]
yield fruit === produce fruit on trees [e.g. olives, or (Jaffa) oranges on orange trees, etc.]
people of Israel === people of Israel, Israelis [the Jews]
man and beast multiply upon the land === rapid population growth [100x in 100 years] increase in livestock
the cities shall be inhabited === the cities will be inhabited [previously being empty, in ruins]
the wastes built === waste land being built upon [to support the hugely increased population]
people of Israel to possess the land === Jews will own the land [e.g. by buying it from those who previously did]
land as inheritance === [Jews will pass to their children] land as inheritance
land will no longer bereave [Israel] of men === Jews will no longer die from problems in the state of the land [e.g. malarial swamps]
Is any of the above "wild interpretation"? Doesn't look like interpretation at all to me – just plain reading!
But if you continue to insist that it is mere private "interpretation", then presumably that will have no particular reason or logic to it - each independent reader is likely come to completely different conclusions about the meaning. If that's so, consider that exactly the same view of this context, and others like it, was reached by careful Bible readers, provably dating back for more than 300 years (e.g. Newton's many studies on this subject). So people understood what these words were about, long before they came true in such detail, at the establishing of the state of Israel in 1948. If this is just "wild interpretation", how can that be so?
Finally, if those words I listed above don't have the direct senses I provided for them, what do they mean? If you think they mean something different from the obvious plain sense, then I ask again, who is doing the "wild interpretation"? You are!
You ask where the evidence is: the evidence is right there in the Bible, when you read it honestly, taking account of these recent and undeniable developments, of Israel's rebirth as a nation and a country in the Middle East, populated by Jews. The words of those ancient prophets, claiming to speak the words of the God of Israel, when compared with that reality which we can witness almost daily in the press or by reports on TV, are direct proof that the God who inspired those writers is absolutely real, and is bringing his purpose about. Before long, I trust, he will complete it.
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
605. Comment #18150 by Theo on January 18, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Ah ok.....so.......where does it say God used Satan to test man then? care to sharethat knowledge you have acquired?
And why would God use Satan, why would he need to, then why would he punish satan if satan was just doing gods will?
god - "hey satan test man for me, pretend your a talking snake or something"
satan - "hey god! ok sure anything for you man, il get right on it!"
god - "cheers bud"
man fails gods test
god - "hey satan had to punish all the snakes for the rest of eternity for doing my will, even though it was actually just you, i think its fair
satan - "well you are god i suppose"
god - "yeah, oh that reminds me, your punished too!"
satan - "but why god??? you told me to do it!!!"
god - "T/S bitch i can do what i want!" .
D_U, you are really good at recycling questions. Here it is again: it would be helpful to remember the vineyard analogy I used before. In Satans effort to rebel against God, he ends up playing right into Gods plan every time he commits a rebellious act. Therefore he ends up doing the will of God while still being charged for rebellion
on top of that unlikely scenario why is god testing man in the first place, if he loves us and wants us to belive in him and come to heaven then why would he keep testing people who already belive? god sounds really childlish and mean!
and why was he so mad at them if he put the test there? and why would he test them at all, he can afterall see past present and future!!
God chooses persons who are faithful to Him even during the time of trials. Those who cursed Him in their trials and did not seek Him again would be separated. In other words only those who really want to be with God will be with Him, which is not being childish and mean. Why test them if he knows the future? Firstly if He is not testing them then why create them with free will, would it not be easier to create programmed worship robots? Secondly it would be beneficial to review the comments concerning free will in my replies to J.C. Samuelson. It shows how Gods omniscience relates to freewill.
read idiot:
genesis 3:13
"And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done?"
why would he ask??
There is something in the English language called a rhetorical question. This is a question in which the answer is already known by the questioner. It is a tool used to stimulate thought pertaining to a relevant situation. Picture a mother questioning, "Who stole the cookies?" she knows who took it but she asks rhetorically.
Theo it would be impossible because the dinosaurs died out millions of years before the 1st human walked the earth
this is fact theo wether you accept it or not! dinosaurs have been found to roam together you know, hadrosaurs with sauropods and being hunted by theropods, all found together, a fossil of a velociraptor locked in a fight with a protoceratops exists and on top of that, all the dinosaur fossils, and footprints that have been found (aswell as all other lifeforms) have been carbon dated and although they havnt been found roaming together their dates match!
there were 3 different periods of dinosaurs, Triassic, Jurrasic and Cretaceous, it is not coincidence that a stegasaurus fossil has never been found with a t-rex and also not coincidence that the carbon dating prooves the stegosaurus died long before the t-rex was born, they didnt live at the same time, and neither did humans.
you also forget about all other animals, it wasnt just dinosaurs, there were the giant birds that roamed after the dinosaurs, the giant mammals that existed at the dawn of man, the many different species of human that have been discovered (the missing links you claim dont exist) aswell as the amphibians and mammal like reptiles that existed before the dinosaurs
First of all, carbon dating is not used for fossils older than 100000 years so I do not think it proves the stegosaur died before the T.Rex. What they usually do is date the rocks containing the fossils (potassium to argon or uranium to lead). These methods assume that the rock contained no daughter isotopes, and that systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added. Thus these methods are questionable when it comes to dating rocks, but are gleefully accepted by atheists. Why? Because any method is better than the claims of the bible, no matter how questionable it is.
did all their babies fit on the ark? ofcourse not! where the other humans ignored by god? ofcourse not! do all the carbon dates of all the other species also match with the periods they lived in? ofcourse they do!
The ark was of monstrous proportions, it would have been able to fit all Kinds of creatures. I really do not think you really comprehend the sheer size of the ark: 1,396,000 Cubic feet!!!
Your reasons for not beliving in the whole "everything from nothing" situation (which i have constantly tried to explain to you is an assumption as we do not know, and that does not make it god) actually make it more unlikely that a highly intelligent complex human looking creator exists, your very arguement can be used against you and with more effect!
billy even pointed this out to you previously!! how can you not see this?
im baffled as to how your brain works!
that is the point i was making!
Should I believe that something comes from nothing, especially since nobody understands it? Atheists are so fond of claiming that there is no evidence for a creator but when they have to present ideas that are not backed up by evidence they say, "well we don't understand it, but you should believe it". And the irony is that you are baffled by my thinking! An intelligent designer is, as you say, improbable because compared to what you observe, super human abilities are improbable . . . duh! You don't measure supernatural existence with naturalistic measurements d_u. if you followed the S.G. discussion with J.C. Samuelson and I, you will see that there are other ways of determining this.
and yes before the big bang is pure speculation, but the big bang has not only been prooven to have happened (by the fact that the universe is expanding) but also that it happened approx 14 billion years ago (by measuring the distance of the galaxys from eachother) you seem to accept the big bang so how can you accept the claims in the bible? the bible claims are obviously false!
The fact that the universe is expanding is just that, . . . the universe is expanding. The big bang is inferred to have happen to explain this expansion. That God created an expanding universe is also another explanation. This in no way proves that the bible claims are false.
"The bible is not Gods word because it does not mention animal redistribution? Ok then."
yep exactly! why did god not explain how the animals made their way home! it surley must have been an epic journey!!!
Any more suggestions as to what God should or should not have written in the scripture?
"For the second time (I think I am getting accustomed to this), the serpent was transformed so that man can see the severity of sin. We do not see serpents groaning in pain because of the punishment do we?"
Nope we dont, for 2 reasons:
1. snakes cant groan
2. it didnt actually happen
did you know snakes are deaf theo, its true, i keep them i know, they dont even have ears! so how did the snake hear eve? or god for that matter!!!!
that's present snakes, we are talking about them BEFORE they were transformed.
and anyway god hardley kept his promise, the severity of sin! we didnt loose our limbs when god got fed up he drowned everyone!!!
evil evil god!!!
and why did he even get mad? surley he saw it comming? i mean he sees the future and all, and then the question begs why did he do the flood in the 1st place, if he sees all knows all past present and future then he knew we'd all b ok so why flood?!?!
where did God say we are going to lose our limbs? God knew we will ALL be ok? What do you mean by that? From what I understand not everyone will be ok. Please explain.
"A better question would be, "why did God curse the entire earth for one sin?""
No it wouldnt theo my women in labour question was good enough so please just answer it, i know you like to avoid answeing simple questions but thats only because a suitable answer doesnt exist!!
Oh! I like avoiding questions now! Understand that the curse on the woman was part and parcel of the curse on the earth. If all the curses were pronounced for the same reason, should I explain each one separately citing the same reason for each?!
Hang about, so we sin and god ignores us, how childish!!!!! and you can really enjoy heaven knowing loving humans will burn in hell just for not beliving?
and have a relationahip with him!! haha theo have you ever had a proper conversation with god? no? some relationship!!
Sin is rebellion against God. Are you saying that God is childish because God separates Himself from those who are rebelling against Him? Especially when they know the consequences before hand? No d_u.
and so basically are you saying its ok that all humans are punished for the 1 act of 1 human? thats not justice theo thats bullying, if a world leader did that he'd be punished for warcrimes and crimes against humanity!! god surley deserves to be punished aswell!!!
All humans have rebelled and therefore deserve the consequences. But those who have repented will be rewarded. Therefore the only ones who will experience eternal separation will be those who continue to rebel. It sounds just to me.
and i thought jesus died for our sins anyway? so why the seperation and constant punishment still? does god enjoy punishing? he seems to!!!
The gift of salvation is offered to all but accepted by few.
Ah!!! so you admit some of the bible is metaphorical!!! this is a big step for you theo!!!
so if this isnt literall, why not other things? why isnt the flood metaphorical or the snake? who picks and chooses whats real and what isnt? maybe the whole thing is metaphorical!!!
you cant have it both ways theo!!!!
Because the bible could be treated like other books in the context that because it contains some symbolism it does not mean the whole thing is symbolic. In that way many books including the bible can have it both ways.
Guys I am not sure if I would be able to reply for a few days. This is REALLY time consuming!!!
P.S. I have obtained my copies of the Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion. If I start reading I DEFINITELY, DEFINITELY would not have time to blog. I do not know which book would be better to start first though, any suggestions?
Other Comments by Theo
606. Comment #18155 by Dogbreath on January 18, 2007 at 3:49 pm
So this is where the religious nutters are posting. Other Comments by Dogbreath
607. Comment #18156 by shauntheboy on January 18, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Hi Billy,No. A rationalist tries to find a rational explanation. We do not say "I dont know, it must be god". Ignorance is no reason to believe in god..
I don't know of any scientist's that believe in Genesis creation who say this? Behe, Kenyon, Dembski and Co., look at the same evidence Dawkins, Futyama and Co. do - the difference is that they aren't looking for a reason to exclude God, and in fact, find plenty of rational reasons (aka empirical scientific evidence) to believe in Him.
Clearly what I am not saying is that the empirical data "proves" God's existence (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion), merely that arguably the evidence supports intelligent, purposeful design more readily than it supports a blind, unintelligent, purposeless, naturalistic process. The philosophical naturalists have to make up stories to overcome the problem (as they see it) of "apparent" design.
The case of Dean Kenyon makes interesting reading, look him up on Wikipedia and TalkOrigins.
Whilst the majority of academic staff in his dept. at University of San Francisco were unhappy with Kenyon's opinions, they were unable to challenge him on purely scientific grounds. Their argument against his position is a philosophical one not a scientific one.
Why do you not believe in fairies then? (think about the point, not the actual words)
When you use the Dawkins argument against belief in the Creator by invoking the "fairy" analogy, you imply that my belief in the God of the Bible is more akin to "blind trust" – granted, trust is there, but blind it most certainly is not!
This line of argument defines faith as a blind trust in the absence of, or even despite, the evidence. This is quite simply misleading, and wishful thinking on the part of you atheists!
This type of analogy reveals a seriously skewed understanding of what faith is. It presumes that all the empirical data can only point to one conclusion, despite the fact that many rational, intellectual and successful scientists see the same data as providing evidence of purposeful design. This is clearly a "straw man" being erected to be duly knocked down – and rightly so if this is all that belief in the Creator was based upon.. Anyone willing to objectively and honestly consider the ongoing debate in the scientific community will see that this is quite obviously not the case.
Many atheists would like this "Dawkins eye view" to be a true description of the Christian faith, but unfortunately for them it's not!
Where is the evidence? Again, ignorance is no arguement. We can make some of what is needed in "prebiotic simulations"
Generally speaking the evidence is as referred to above. To be more specific, when a biologist considers phenomena from the natural world, he has to constantly remind himself that he is not observing things which have been purposefully designed, but are the product of "Evolution" (That's a rough quote from memory, of the late Francis Crick). Also RD confirms this unavoidable truth in Blind Watchmaker, he says that "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose" (my emphasis). He then goes on to write an entire book in an attempt to explain why we should avoid this obvious conclusion.
Please provide some… (evidence for design and purpose)
The burden of proof, Billy, is on those who say there is no design and purpose. All the natural world around us, and the universe beyond appears to be here as a result of purposeful design – it is up to the atheistic evolutionist to show that this conclusion is erroneous.
but again it boils down to ignorance, and some have already posted on evidence for abiogenesis here. We can make the molecules requires by purely physical processes…
Well, it would appear that if intelligent human beings are having difficulty reverse engineering it, then the probability of it happening without the intervention of purposeful intelligence is a non-starter – that is of course, unless that conclusion is philosophically unacceptable to you from the outset?
Who designs gods then? What is your evidence that he does not need to be designed?
Ah yes the atheist's trump card! My understanding is that Yahweh is, and was, and is to come. He has always been and He always will be. I appreciate that this answer is not acceptable to those who pose the question, but that doesn't alter the fact that it is the answer. Ultimately, it is the answer whether we understand it or not. I'm not claiming to understand it by the way, just in case you wondered! There is a big difference between accepting a fact and understanding a fact. I accept the theory of quantum mechanics, but I don't understand it.
Billy said:"Would the real God please make himself known?"
Shaun said: He has to those who are willing to see it, and He will even to those who don't want to see it. All in good time Billy and not according to your demands or mine!
Billy said: This is just an offensive lie to those who genuinely sought. It is also a statement steeped in self delusion. Can you actually back up this statement? If you want to believe in fairies enough, you will. So what you are really saying here is make yourself believe and you will believe. That is self delusion, and that is how I and others who lost their faith got by. It is a purely internal process and most certainly does not prove gods existance, and of course, mulslims etc would say the same abouttheir gods too.
I think I've shown that the "fairies" analogy has no bearing on this issue, the only time it might apply is if you are looking for reasons not to believe in purposeful design.
Billy, I don't want this to sound rude or disrespectful but I don't know how else to express it in this medium, you will just have to accept my assurance that what I am about to write I do so in a spirit of mutual respect.
You seem to arbitrarily award yourself the right that your Creator should communicate with you on your terms in order to prove His existence beyond a shadow of doubt. Yet at the same time denying the plain evidence of the natural world and the universe, which even the most eminent atheistic biologists agree "looks as if it is the result of purposeful design". Evidence which if not denied in the name of a naturalistic philosophy, would lead you to seek further communication from Him on His terms .
I don't know what your experience of the Christian faith was, but reading between the lines of your posts it was obviously very bad. That being the case the individual/s responsible have a lot to answer to, despite this it is not reasonable to tar all "Christians" with that brush (which I'm sure in reality you don't) and I think that the "faith" described in the pages of the Bible is far removed from the Christian system evident in the world today.
Regards,
Shaun
Other Comments by shauntheboy
608. Comment #18158 by shauntheboy on January 18, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Could someone tell me how to do the "box" sections for comments you are responding to - I hate using bold.Thanks in anticipation,
Shaun
Other Comments by shauntheboy
609. Comment #18171 by shauntheboy on January 18, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Hi D_U"I see what you're doing, yes all those things were designed by man
So wow! man can design amazing things so therefore something as amazing as the earth must be designed by something better than man, we dont know what and dont want to use our brains too find out, so it must be........a god!
Shaun I will shoot down your inferior logic *smug grin*"
Now D-U, you've ignored the first rule of the naturalistic philosophy, if something looks obvious then seek an alternative explanation! Your bold assumption about what my "point" is, is incorrect. However I' ll answer your initial responses for now. So, let's consider the superior logic of your case.
1. Man created those things yes, but did he did not create the basic elements that make those things, and everything you described is far less complex than the earth, let aloen the universe! and therefore easier to design
I see, so the logic of this argument is the more complex something is the less likely it is to have been designed. Hmm. OK, good start, I think I'm with you…!
2. Each thing was designed for a purpose, be it astetics or information, what is the purpose for god to desing an entire universe?
How much time have you got? Just because you can't see a purpose doesn't mean there isn't one. A bit of circular reasoning there!
I thought you said you had read the Bible? Okay, here's the main reason:
Colossians ch1v16
"For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him (Christ) and for Him (Christ). And He is before all things and in Him all things consist"
Hebrews ch2v10
"For it was fitting for Him (Christ) , for whom are all things and by whom are all things in bringing many sons to glory (those who believe), to make the author of their salvation (Christ) perfect through sufferings."
Genesis ch22v18
"In your (Abraham) seed (Christ) all the nations of the earth shall be blessed"
Isaiah ch2v1-4
You'll need to look that one up, I'm not copying it in.
Habakkuk ch2v4
"For the Earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of Yahweh as the waters cover the sea."
This is a small flavour of the reason "why" God created the universe.
3. How long did mount rushmore take Shaun? or the eiffel tower? or even the invention of a pc monitor! even a newspaper when you take into consideration how long it took man to invent paper, the printing press etc........much longer than 6 days!!
I see, another example of your superior logic!
Man took a long time to invent, design and build some stuff, therefore, the Creator of the universe (who is of course just like a man!!) must have taken longer than 6 days to create the earth. Yep, I've got to hand it to you – pure logic.
4. we see evidence of man designing and building these marvels, where do we see evidence of gods designs? any blueprints for the universe?
Er… okay lets look inwards first:
DNA the most dense store of non random information in the known universe.
Then outwards:
If physical forces within stars were only a little different, our universe would be almost devoid of carbon and oxygen, so life would not exist.
…the basic forces in the universe are tailor-made for the production of carbon and oxygen, and therefore carbon-based life. At present we have no idea why the strength of the forces are fine-tuned in our universe in such a way that enables the existence of life. The fine-tuning is really very subtle. (Space.com)
Do you want me to go on?
I quote the words of RD again which are equally applicable to cosmology as to biology:
"Biology is the study of complicated things which have the appearance of being designed for a purpose" (then goes on to explain "but not really")
5. the earth, and more obviously the universe, are constatnly changing, altering themselves, galaxys sucked into blackholes, moons thrown out of orbit, continental shifts on earth, and all for no apparant reason other than physics makes it happen, when was the last time the eiffel tower suddenly altered itself?
D_U's logic comes to the rescue again! Firstly, just because you don't know "why" a phenomena occurs, doesn't mean that it doesn't actually have a reason or explanation.
You conveniently ignore the example of your PC which has been designed to run software that can check and alter the other software on your PC.
I challenge you to go and make some random changes to the software on your computer! Go on… add a couple lines of text to the registry, or delete some…..see what happens!
Oh well I suppose we won't be hearing from D_U for a while, at least not till he gets his computer fixed….
Or I wonder! Will he have the courage of his convictions and just keep making random changes to the software in the hope of securing a fix….his random changes could be like the genetic mutations and he gets to play the role of "natural selection"!! On the upside I guess that means we won't ever hear from him again…….
6. the earth and the universe have so many flaws yet mans designs have few, are we better than god? . . so much planning went into these designs, did god plan the universe? did it take him 4 days? ;-)
"Man's designs have few (flaws)" I'm beginning to wonder if we live on the same planet!
Few flaws….such as…..your computer that just crashed… or the buildings that fall down during an earthquake….or my car that broke down the other day………..or the washing machine I've just replaced…ad nauseum….ad infinitum…..ad absurdum…. ab uno disce omnes…… altiora peto……… ad fidem
The argument from dysteleology doesn't necessarily remove the designer, even bad designs have a designer! Your subjective opinion that some aspects of design are "bad" isn't necessarily as clever as you might think. Maybe God intended the world to be the way it is for now so that we might understand what life is like separated from Him? That would certainly fit with the Bible message. This situation will not continue indefinitely.
The men who designed my washing machine did not design it to last more than a 5 or 6 years, in fact they deliberately designed so that it would wear out and I would have to go and buy another one!
Your logic might view this as "flawed" design, but you'd be completely in error - it's actually nothing of the sort. Its made in that way because that is the way the designer intended it to be - for a purpose - to make me go out and spend my money!
8. do you know how many people it took to get that eiffel tower standing? or to invent and mass produce the computer monitor? far more than one…
Again, the power of logic - "It took loads of humans to design and build the Eiffel Tower, or bring the computer into existence, therefore, God (who is like a human??!!) couldn't possibly have created the universe."
….and they are all extreamly simple by comparisson to the universe
Yes of course! I think I'm getting there now:
- Eiffel Tower - quite complex non-random structure, unquestionably a product of intelligent purposeful design.
- Universe – Extremely complex compared to the above (by an infinite degree) therefore, clearly NOT the product of intelligent, purposeful design……er.. no I'm sorry you've lost me again.
This logic is so pure I'm afraid it's outside of my ability to grasp it. Sorry.
9. you are saying the earth is designed by listing all the things man designed, how about i list all the things man DIDNT design and use that as evidence the earth wasnt designed.......now do you see how silly your statement is? (note, the amount of things we didnt design far outnumbers the things we did, so id win!)
You make the assumption that we are the only designers out there….
As I said at the beginning of this response you jumped the gun by presuming this was my point, which it is not, although I have had some fun answering your responses, so thanks for that.
shaun your argument comes down to "man designed the eiffel tower so god designed the unvierse"
Nope. Sorry I haven't made that point anywhere, although you have a few times.
and it is simply unfair and slightly retarded to compare te entire universe to a handful of man-made marvels......which i might add we understand everything about including step by step instructions of how and why they are there.
You are saying everything has to be designed by something, that is the point you are making, so lets turn that on you,
Nope. That's your point actually. I didn't make any points. Answer the original questions honestly without doing any mental gymnastics and you might find out what my point is….
What designed God?
See my response to Billy immediately prior to this post.
oh you say he was always there..
Yep.
why is he exempt from the "everything must be designed" rule???
I haven't made that point you have. Come on D_U , if the only way you can make a case is to invent what your opponent is saying then….... well you might as well go off and argue with yourself I suppose (thats an example of a logical conclusion by the way!)
where is your evidence he was always there?
Where is yours that He wasn't?
im sure you now realise how stupid youv made yourself look
Err…
try harder shaun
Okay.
So long and thanks for all the fish………
Shaun
Other Comments by shauntheboy
610. Comment #18174 by Theo on January 18, 2007 at 7:43 pm
SHAUNTHEBOY,you get the box by doing the very same thing when you're bolding,but instead of "strong" type "blockquote"
Continue the good fight while i am out for a few days, both you and mark, Godspeed!
Other Comments by Theo
611. Comment #18175 by Dogbreath on January 18, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Shaun, I ask out of genuine interest - what evidence exists for your God? The "designer" drivel above does not constitute evidence. I understand that you believe that God exists, but belief without evidence is delusion. Help me understand why you aren't delusional. Other Comments by Dogbreath
612. Comment #18247 by BillySands on January 19, 2007 at 5:49 am
Hi Shaun,"I don't know of any scientist's that believe in Genesis creation who say this? Behe, Kenyon, Dembski and Co., look at the same evidence Dawkins, Futyama and Co. do - the difference is that they aren't looking for a reason to exclude God, and in fact, find plenty of rational reasons (aka empirical scientific evidence) to believe in Him."
There is no rational reason to include god, and that is what the above mentioned try (in particyular their own god)
"Clearly what I am not saying is that the empirical data "proves" God's existence (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion), merely that arguably the evidence supports intelligent, purposeful design more readily than it supports a blind, unintelligent, purposeless, naturalistic process. The philosophical naturalists have to make up stories to overcome the problem (as they see it) of "apparent" design."
Why? And why cant to see the obvious flaw in this arguement? That god must need a creator then. To argue otherwise is to add a non evidence based assumption to another equally unsuppotred assumption. There is plenty of evidence of complex things evolving from less complex things. Behe has been refuted on every point. Take these articles on the immune system for example. http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/Evolving_Immunity.html http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/v7/n5/full/ni0506-433.html This evolution, not design
"The case of Dean Kenyon makes interesting reading, look him up on Wikipedia and TalkOrigins."
I'll look into this when time permits
"When you use the Dawkins argument against belief in the Creator by invoking the "fairy" analogy, you imply that my belief in the God of the Bible is more akin to "blind trust" – granted, trust is there, but blind it most certainly is not!
This line of argument defines faith as a blind trust in the absence of, or even despite, the evidence. This is quite simply misleading, and wishful thinking on the part of you atheists!"
Peter pan is evidence for fairies. There are even pictures of some (that some non believers call fakes). The fairy analogy stands, you have seen neither god nor fairies. You can neither prove of disprove the existance of either.
I have usually found that believers are often told to put blind trust in their god at difficult times. It seems there is no christian consensus on this then.
"This type of analogy reveals a seriously skewed understanding of what faith is. It presumes that all the empirical data can only point to one conclusion, despite the fact that many rational, intellectual and successful scientists see the same data as providing evidence of purposeful design. This is clearly a "straw man" being erected to be duly knocked down – and rightly so if this is all that belief in the Creator was based upon.. Anyone willing to objectively and honestly consider the ongoing debate in the scientific community will see that this is quite obviously not the case.
Do you deny that for many, that is the basis of faith. What we are argueing about here though is interpretation of data. Behe and co do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. As far as I am aware, there is no data for ID publidhed in any peer revieved scientific journal.ID is not science! (see the nature immunology link above).
I cant remember the passage, but it says in the bible that faith should be based on the certain knowledge of the ressurection of jesus. Where is this conclusive evidence then?
"Generally speaking the evidence is as referred to above. To be more specific, when a biologist considers phenomena from the natural world, he has to constantly remind himself that he is not observing things which have been purposefully designed, but are the product of "Evolution" (That's a rough quote from memory, of the late Francis Crick). Also RD confirms this unavoidable truth in Blind Watchmaker, he says that "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose" (my emphasis). He then goes on to write an entire book in an attempt to explain why we should avoid this obvious conclusion."
Now you are setting up a straw man. Also when someone like Dawkins says it may be reasonable to assume design, he is most certainly not saying that design is likely (despite the best efforts of some fundie sites to claim otherwise). It is reasonable to assume that the sun travels across the sky, but it does not. It is this simplistic way of looking at things that Dawkins etc challenge, and if you look at organisms closely they are incredibly poorly constucted and "designed". We have the question too of junk DNA that points to an evolutionary history, not creation. Bats and birds have different wing structures because of their differing ancestry. If I was a designer, they would both be more like insects. We can even see the evolution of complex biochemical pathways (and I believe I have posted evidence for this before). The more we look, the less design we see and the more apparent progressive accumulation becomes. We dont need to complicate this relatively simple process by making a special appeal to a desiger. Lets face it, he also have designed nasty diseases too that are very good at disabling our immune systems.
"The burden of proof, Billy, is on those who say there is no design and purpose. All the natural world around us, and the universe beyond appears to be here as a result of purposeful design – it is up to the atheistic evolutionist to show that this conclusion is erroneous."
Now really, Do you think I have a durden to disprove fairies too? Like I say we can explain things without god. You are the guys claiming his existance, the burden is on you. I have not seen him, you have to prove he exists.
"Well, it would appear that if intelligent human beings are having difficulty reverse engineering it, then the probability of it happening without the intervention of purposeful intelligence is a non-starter – that is of course, unless that conclusion is philosophically unacceptable to you from the outset?"
Now that is incredulity.
"Ah yes the atheist's trump card! My understanding is that Yahweh is, and was, and is to come. He has always been and He always will be. I appreciate that this answer is not acceptable to those who pose the question, but that doesn't alter the fact that it is the answer. Ultimately, it is the answer whether we understand it or not. I'm not claiming to understand it by the way, just in case you wondered! There is a big difference between accepting a fact and understanding a fact. I accept the theory of quantum mechanics, but I don't understand it."
42 is an answer, but it does not make it right. There are a couple of other points here 1 you believe this to be an answer. Where is your evidence? 2 you do not understand the answer, so how can you derive it logically? 3 you are making an unproven assumption based on an unproven assumption here
"You seem to arbitrarily award yourself the right that your Creator should communicate with you on your terms in order to prove His existence beyond a shadow of doubt."
First, do not call your god my creator, this is preaching, not discussing details about its existace. 2 If he wants me to know about him, then it is only reasonable for him to do so in a way I will grasp (and according to christians he should know how to). Or does he only do that to other people like thomas when he asked for proof?
"Yet at the same time denying the plain evidence of the natural world and the universe, which even the most eminent atheistic biologists agree "looks as if it is the result of purposeful design". Evidence which if not denied in the name of a naturalistic philosophy, would lead you to seek further communication from Him on His terms ."
Sorry, you seem to suddenly jump to your god alone being the greator here. We seem to have mossed out several wery important intermediate proofs here. Again? what evidence. Simplistic observation is not evidence.
"I don't know what your experience of the Christian faith was, but reading between the lines of your posts it was obviously very bad. That being the case the individual/s responsible have a lot to answer to, despite this it is not reasonable to tar all "Christians" with that brush (which I'm sure in reality you don't) and I think that the "faith" described in the pages of the Bible is far removed from the Christian system evident in the world today."
I thought i was quite open about the fact others initially caused me to lose faith. However, I now realise there are plenty of other reasons not to believe in god. There are actually a few christains I respect as people - I would even be happy to buy you a beer if we ever met - even though you live in dollar :-)
Billy
Other Comments by BillySands
613. Comment #18252 by down_under on January 19, 2007 at 6:00 am
ShaunI will answer your rather bizzare responses to my replies when i have time, tey are quite simple easy to write off, THEO - i will also respond to you when i have time......oh dear what have i gotten myself into! thisforum is takingup more and more of my life! haha
Shaun i forgot to add one more piece of logic that throws your whole arugment out the window
You say man created these things, ofcoursethat is true, but man created these things out of the materiels in his possession, using these materials, we designed and created towers, sculptures, technology etc, and also with knowledge that had gotten more in depth over time as it was passed down through the generations.
Now yuou are telling me that god, created an infintie and hugley complex universe, with no materials, no obtained or researched knowledge (as he was alone and "knows everything" *chukle*) nothing there for him to use (and i mean literally nothing!) and yet he created the universe, the effiel tower did not come from nothing.
So you see you really cant compare the 2, it is just (yet another) ridiculous theist analogy that means next to nothing.......i will still however address your respones in time and apologise for not adding this point sooner
but i think you'll agree you cant argue with the logic in my statement above!
Other Comments by down_under
614. Comment #18254 by Dogbreath on January 19, 2007 at 6:12 am
down_under - You are wasting your time unecessarily. Neither Shaun nor THEO can answer those questions. There are two problems. First, by asking them we presume the presence of a supernatural creator. Second, if we accept that, then any attempt to attach logic and reason to what a supernatural creator might do is pointless. So, to repeat my question above, what is the evidence of a supernatural creator? If I can evaluate and test the evidence I can better determine the extent of the delusion, if any.
Other Comments by Dogbreath
615. Comment #18261 by Quetzalcoatl on January 19, 2007 at 7:13 am
Re comment 18252- to be very crude about it, the idea behind the Big Bang is that everything- the elements, stars, planets etc came from "nothing". (Bear in mind that my grasp of metaphysics is not extensive). I've been skimming a lot of websites like this, and found a lot of Christians sneering at this idea. However, "God" supposedly existed before the universe ie before anything. Surely to have created the universe, he would have had to create "everything" from "nothing". In just the same way that scientists believe the Big Bang happened. Curious, that.Re Dogsbreath- I too would like to hear about this evidence. I suspect the wait may be a long one, though.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
616. Comment #18270 by Dogbreath on January 19, 2007 at 8:16 am
The difference between intellectual honesty through science is that our minds are open regarding the origin of the universe...we simply don't know (if I see proof of the big God through evidence, I sign up now). Scientists put forward ideas that are then tested as a means of increasing our knowledge.The religious mind has the arrogance to claim that it "knows" the origin of the universe, despite the lack of evidence. It is one thing to declare that we have no clear answer (the scientific response), and an entirely different and intellectually dishonest position (the religious viewpoint) to claim that the absence of scientific evidence = God created it. It is also clear that, despite scientific discoveries that challenge belief at a fundamental level, the religious mind can not be changed. Will a religious mind still believe in God when all the aspects of origin of life have finally been uncovered? We all know the answer to that one.
Other Comments by Dogbreath
617. Comment #18273 by NoLongerHaveBelief on January 19, 2007 at 8:53 am
Good points Dogbreath!Shauntheboy and Theo: I am impressed with your arguments in here. Much better than the usual Theistic tripe. However, as my 'handle' suggests, I no longer believe in God [it took me 20 years to reject the notion] and have no intention of going back to Theism.
What I would like to know, from either or both of you guys is this: I assume you are both Christians?
I'd like to know why you think your religion is correct and why you aren't Muslim or a Mormon?
I ask this, not to dissect your postings - just out of pure interest. How do you know you are following the correct religion?
Kind Regards
Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief
618. Comment #18323 by UmbrellaMan on January 19, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Hi Mark,I think the reason why your defense of biblical prophesy is meeting such resistance in this forum is because it does not appear that you have conducted a critical analysis of your claim. Ultimately this is a question of probability, and many of us here suspect that you are underestimating the statistical significance of the anecdotal data you've presented. There are some important questions that need to be addressed, many of which have already been alluded to by other commenters throughout this thread. For example:
What is the complete list of *all* predictions that the bible makes? (not just the ones that appear to make your case)
What is the level of specificity/vagueness of each of these predictions?
What set of pre-determined rules should be used to "score" the accuracy of each prediction?
What are the realized "accuracy scores" of each individual prediction? (the evaluator would of course need to be impartial or somehow blinded)
What would be the statistical likelihood of observing a set of scores as unlikely as this in a book of "random predictions"?
How many other books throughout history have made comparable predictions? (In other words, how many other prophesy books could have ended up being your "bible", all of which you ended up dismissing due to their low predictive power?)
While an honest analysis may not be possible due to the lack of inherent objectivity, nevertheless the above points should at least be acknowledged by all sides before a serious discussion of your claim could even take place. It may very well be that the bible has indeed fared quite well as a prognosticator of past events. But if the investigation is not guided by questions like these then its resulting conclusions are going to continue to fall on deaf ears.
Cheers
Other Comments by UmbrellaMan
619. Comment #18349 by Mark Taunton on January 20, 2007 at 1:08 am
UmbrellaMan: Thanks for your interesting comment. RD says in TGD that the question of God's existence can be tackled scientifically. However he seems to make no attempt to do such a thing himself, at least in that book. Yours is the first proposal I've seen hinting at a framework to assess the significance of Bible prophecies on a scientific basis. It is certainly a relevant issue. The Bible asserts that its prophets' declaration of events before they happen, particularly in relation to the people of Israel, provides proof of the existence of Yahweh, and of his creative power, in contrast to the worthlessness of humanly constructed gods. (For example Isaiah 43:1-13; 44:1-10,21-28; 45:18-22; 46:3-11 – I've picked out some verses but the whole context is relevant.)
I would be interested to know how you yourself might answer the questions you raise. Not least, I am intrigued about how a control "book of 'random predictions'" could actually be produced!?
In respect of "other books throughout history", I guess we can only go on the ones that are still available. Any other book, making claims as strong as the Bible's, should at least be so helpful as to stick around, else its claims would seem to lose something of their strength!
In respect of claims by (or for) other books as being prophetic: you may or may not have been watching this thread (or have read back that far) when down_under raised some examples (comment 611 on page 13). Since the only case I could easily investigate in detail was the Koran, I did look at the first set of those he put forward. As you will see from my response (comment 623, same page), those prophecies seemed to be rather lacking in substance and import, by contrast with biblical ones.
As you say, true objectivity is extremely difficult. Certainly what goes on in this thread is about individuals arguing subjectively against the views of other individuals. In this context, the best I can personally aim for is to try to understand the logic of the challenges made to my position, and respond in a reasoned way. (I'm sorry that down_under seems unwilling or unable to reciprocate in that regard.)
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
620. Comment #18356 by Quetzalcoatl on January 20, 2007 at 3:00 am
Mark Taunton-As you're asserting that you believe the Biblical prophets' declarations prove the existence of God, I was wondering if you can give a few examples?
Since I'm fairly new to this forum, I don't know what specific Biblical passages are regarded as strongest in that respect. Apologies, of course, if you've listed such passages previously and I missed it.
I think the best way to debate a position is to understand it first.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
621. Comment #18372 by aussienurse on January 20, 2007 at 6:39 am
I'm new to this forum, and I must say I'm pleased I found this website! I was raised in a strict Roman Catholic upbringing, being taught about a God I should fear and being told I'm evil if I don't do this, this or that! What a waste of a childhood! It wasn't until I discovered science (including evolution) that I felt everything in the world finally made sense! Religion has done NOTHING to advance us as a society, and continues to be the cause for conflict, war, poverty and isolation. It supposedly teaches tolerance, acceptance and kindness, however most religious people I know are rude, conceited and intolerant of anyone other than those in their faith. Talk about hypocritical!!! Religion is a form of mass control from the times when the church had power and people were too scared to voice their opinions. Blind faith is dangerous - as evidenced by the state of the world at present. Sometimes the simplest explanations are the correct ones!Other Comments by aussienurse
622. Comment #18388 by Mark Taunton on January 20, 2007 at 9:39 am
Quetzalcoatl: welcome, and thanks for your enquiry. Sorry, I am unable to give a detailed answer right now, but briefly...Yes, I have previously discussed a few Bible passages in relation to the prophecies they contain. See for example my comment 576 on page 12 of this thread (though that's not the first time I referred to Deuteronomy 28). There are a great many more prophecies in the Bible than those, although a significant proportion of them have been fulfilled already, in my understanding.
I may have a little time tomorrow evening (UK time) to expand on this, but don't bank on that till it happens - I'm certainly no prophet myself!
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
623. Comment #18463 by down_under on January 21, 2007 at 4:27 am
QuetzalcoatlMark has indeed listed many prophecies, however if you read my replies to his prophecies most of them are easily explainable or ridiculosly criptic.
There are also many many incorrect prophecies that mark likes to ignore and he fails to comment on other accurate predictions from people such as Jules Verne.
He also belive the bible because of the prophecies and just dosent comment on all the other ridiculous stuff in the bible, i think deep down he knows how silly it all is but doesnt want to admit it too himself.
If you read my responses to Mark you will also notice how he ignores what he doesnt like and eventually now ignores me as i guess i was questioning his faith too much.
Good luck Quetzalcoatl but i fear you are merley wating your time on mark, once you begin to make too much sense im sure he'll just put his fingers back in his ears and go back to his cave, just like he did with me.
Other Comments by down_under
624. Comment #18846 by Theo on January 23, 2007 at 7:34 am
Hi NLHB,Yes, I am a Christian. You asked why Christianity and not Islam or Mormonism.
Well first of all, I had a study with two Mormon missionaries. It must be noted that the book of Mormon claims that the Bible is the word of God and that it is an addition to the Bible. The Bible claims that it is the final revelation of God to man, therefore any document claiming to be an addition to the Bible is fundamentally flawed. There were also certain facts that contradicted the Bible and also contradictions within the book of Mormon itself. When I questioned them on these issues they said that they prayed about it and therefore they know it is true . . . and they never came back. As a result my current status is that the book of Mormon is fundamentally flawed, contradicts itself and the Bible and therefore cannot be authored by God.
The Koran also falls into the same category. It claims that it is the final revelation of God to mankind. It claims that the Bible is the word of God and that the prophets of the Bible must be believed thus the Koran is an addition to the Bible. Other than being fundamentally flawed in this aspect, the Koran contradicts the very prophets it highly esteems as true. As a result of this, until these issues are cleared up, the Koran is also fundamentally flawed and contradicts its parent document-the Bible.
If you have any more questions or need more detail just let me know.
I also have a question for you; can you tell me the factors that led you to lose your belief? I am curious to know if you are atheist because of the same reasons I was.
I have so far read the first chapter of the Blind Watchmaker, it is indeed interesting.
Best wishes in your search for truth,
Theo
Other Comments by Theo
625. Comment #18875 by Quetzalcoatl on January 23, 2007 at 11:18 am
Re Comment 18846- Theo:In relation to your above comment regarding the fallacies within Mormonism and Islam's holy books, you seem not to have noticed the glaring irony.
The New Testament has often been claimed to be an improvement/addition/replacement to the Old Testament. There are also numerous examples of glaring contradictions and some quite appalling moral guidelines within the Bible itself, that belie its claim to be the Word of a "loving" God.
Through my own conversations and reading of articles on this website, I've seen that Christians confronted with these issues often say that they "know" it is true because they have prayed on it- another parallel with the Mormons you mentioned.
So, by a logical extension of your own words, the Bible is fundamentally flawed, contradicts itself and therefore cannot be authored by God. That is MY current opinion.
I don't see a flaw in my logic. I welcome any comment on my argument.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
626. Comment #18901 by shauntheboy on January 23, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Dogbreath, you ask:Shaun, I ask out of genuine interest - what evidence exists for your God? The "designer" drivel above does not constitute evidence. I understand that you believe that God exists, but belief without evidence is delusion. Help me understand why you aren't delusional.
Your opinion that the evidence for design does not constitute "evidence", is of course your opinion. Perhaps you could explain why design, interdependence and non-random specificity in nature and the universe do not constitute evidence? Who makes up the rules about what is admissible evidence? Those who are convicted that there is no God?
The scientific community abounds with examples of "belief without evidence". Here are a couple of examples:
I would suggest that the evidence of molecular biology, mathematics and cosmology in particular indicate very strongly, perhaps even prove, that abiogenesis is impossible. One could reasonably argue that to continue believing that it is possible flies in the face of the available evidence. To continue believing that abiogenesis occurred despite the evidence would suggest a conviction that goes beyond science and reason. It would suggest faith.
If you could explain why you continue to believe that something as complex as life on our planet formed from …. nothing! Then perhaps I will be able to understand why you aren't delusional :-)
Additionally, perhaps you could provide me with some empirical data acquired from a blinded, randomised, controlled, repeatable study, that proves that macro-evolution occurred? If you can then I might be persuaded that you aren't arguing from a pre-determined position which excludes any possibility of "God" from the outset.
What many on this thread seem to be arguing is: "we don't have any decent theory for the origin of life, and really our theory for the development of life is pretty shakey, but we are certain of one thing - that it wasn't God." Science and reason?
I do not pretend to be able to "prove" by the rules of science that the God of the Bible exists. The evidence which convinces me personally is primarily that of Bible prophecy, particularly that which concerns the nation of Israel (Ezekiel 36 – 39 and Daniel 2,7,8 amongst others), see posts 643 and 649 as a couple of examples as well as Mark's postings. Also the historical accuracy of the Bible record is a "proof" to me.
Finally, the abundant evidence of the non-random specificity of the natural world combined with the fine tuning of the universe and the mathematical evidence, confirm that life is no accidental result of the work of a "blind watchmaker". In fact the "blind watchmaker" cannot by definition have any influence over the origin of life. "Life begets life" is the clear evidence of science and I would challenge you to produce any evidence that suggests otherwise. The source of life is, I believe, the God of the Bible.
Shaun
Other Comments by shauntheboy
627. Comment #18903 by shauntheboy on January 23, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Quetz. Said:The New Testament has often been claimed to be an improvement/addition/replacement to the Old Testament. There are also numerous examples of glaring contradictions and some quite appalling moral guidelines within the Bible itself, that belie its claim to be the Word of a "loving" God.
Firstly, I think you need to provide examples of:
1. Why the addition of the NT to the OT is a problem.
2. The numerous examples of glaring contradictions between OT and NT.
I haven't asked for examples of "appalling moral guidelines" because they have already been debated ad nauseum on this thread, although I'm willing to talk about any examples which may not have been covered already.
The OT and NT quite clearly complement one another and in fact a significant proportion of the NT is made up of quotation, reference and explanation from the OT. There is a great deal of internal evidence in the Bible which inextricably bind OT and NT together. This is not the case with the Book of Mormon or the Koran.
Jesus himself obviously believed the OT to be the inspired word of God and quoted from it extensively. That's powerful evidence to a Christian, but admittedly not to an atheist.
Your logic applies only if you can illustrate unequivocally that what you claim is in fact the case.
Shaun
Other Comments by shauntheboy
628. Comment #18907 by Truth1010 on January 23, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Science and the bible have a long and close relationship. This ridiculus theory of evolution has nothing to do with science or the bible, its an attack on both.Other Comments by Truth1010
629. Comment #18911 by shauntheboy on January 23, 2007 at 3:21 pm
NLHBYou ask if I am a "Christian". That's an interesting question for me.
I suppose it depends what a "Christian" is? If in very general terms a Christian is someone who follows the teaching of the Lord Jesus as recorded in the Bible - then I am a Christian.
If you mean do I believe in the Trinity, that I have an immortal soul which goes to heaven / hell when I die, and that the earth will be destroyed once the church is "raptured" up to heaven - then I am most definitely not a Christian!
My understanding is that the promise made in Eden, elaborated on to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and fulfilled in Christ is termed "The Hope of Israel". It is a hope in the resurrection of the dead through faith in Christ at his return. It is a hope that waits patiently for the establishment of a kingdom on the earth with Jesus Christ reigning from Jerusalem. The conditions on the earth in this new age will differ significantly from now, life span will be lengthened, human excesses will be subdued and disease will be suppressed. The final culmination of this purpose is that God will be all in all.
This is the consistent message of the Bible from beginning to end. The first stage of the final phase of this purpose has taken place, as predicted, with the re-establishment of the Jews in their historic homeland in unbelief. The next stage involves their repentance and the subduing of the nations of the world under the rule of Christ with a wonderful time of justice, equity and blessing to follow.
This is the "gospel as preached to Abraham", and it is the hope that I believe describes most accurately the true Christian faith.
Shaun
Other Comments by shauntheboy
630. Comment #18914 by shauntheboy on January 23, 2007 at 3:37 pm
D_UNow yuou are telling me that god, created an infintie and hugley complex universe, with no materials, no obtained or researched knowledge (as he was alone and "knows everything" *chukle*) nothing there for him to use (and i mean literally nothing!) and yet he created the universe, the effiel tower did not come from nothing.
Err... not quite sure where you get your information about how the creator of the universe "created" and where He got His knowledge from? But if it makes more sense to believe that "nothing" spontaneously became "something" without any intervention design or purpose - then you are entitled to that opinion.
de nihilo nihil !
D_U your logic is, I'm afraid, seriously flawed.
So you see you really cant compare the 2, it is just (yet another) ridiculous theist analogy that means next to nothing.......i will still however address your respones in time and apologise for not adding this point sooner
D_U you haven't answered my little block of 7 questions that I asked earlier on this page. I challenge you to give me 7 straight answers to those questions. That's all - nothing more, nothing less - they are not "trick" questions, they aren't "hard" questions. Just answer them!
.... you cant argue with the logic in my statement above!
I think I just did....!
Shaun
Other Comments by shauntheboy
631. Comment #18917 by NoLongerHaveBelief on January 23, 2007 at 4:21 pm
>>Comment #18911 by shauntheboy<<Thanks Shaun. For myself, faith is no longer a virtue, not to be scrutinized.
However, I admire your faith and wish you well in 2007.
Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief
632. Comment #18953 by Quetzalcoatl on January 24, 2007 at 1:06 am
Re Comment 18903- Shauntheboy:Thank you for your comments. I should quickly point out that I wasn't merely referring to contradictions between the Old and New Testaments. I was also referring to contradictions within the testaments themselves. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
I will go into more detail about the contradictions, major and minor, later on, as I'm supposed to be working right now!
Re Comment 18907- Truth1010: Huh? Can you clarify please? How exactly is the Scientific theory of evolution an attack upon Science?
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
633. Comment #18978 by Theo on January 24, 2007 at 6:26 am
Quetzacoatl,The New Testament has often been claimed to be an improvement/addition/replacement to the Old Testament. There are also numerous examples of glaring contradictions and some quite appalling moral guidelines within the Bible itself, that belie its claim to be the Word of a "loving" God.
Firstly I said that the Bible claimed to be the final revelation of God to man, not the Old Testament. The Old Testament stated that a New Testament was imminent, and therefore when the N.T. was established, it declared that it was final thus sealing the entire Bible. If however, the N.T. stated that there was another covenant coming, then I would have been open to latter documents. But even if that were the case, the Koran and book of mormon would still come up short because of external and internal contradictions.
Through my own conversations and reading of articles on this website, I've seen that Christians confronted with these issues often say that they "know" it is true because they have prayed on it- another parallel with the Mormons you mentioned.
I understand that you are new to this blog; therefore I should point out that if you were to follow my posts you will see that the flawed thinking of a few theists have no bearing on my own thinking. I am opposed to such so called reasoning and will continue to do so, however it must be pointed out that atheists should not be in the habit of faulty generalizations. On this thread I have experienced rude insults and name calling. Though it is a common stereotype of atheists, I do not believe that all atheists behave in that manner. I have had the pleasure of debating with persons such as BillySands and J.C. Samuelson who did not fit that stereotype. Therefore I kindly ask that the broad brushing of both atheists and theists be stopped.
I know that in your response to Shauntheboy you will provide evidence for your concerns so I will be waiting.
Other Comments by Theo
634. Comment #19050 by Quetzalcoatl on January 24, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Re Comment 18978: Theo-Fair point, and my apologies. Looking back over my comment, I can see how it could be misconstrued. I should have written "SOME Christians confronted..." I've no wish to make sweeping generalisations, inadvertently or otherwise. I certainly hope I don't conform to any stereotypes.
As regards your point about the New Testament "sealing" the Bible. I assume your view (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the books of the New Testament are "valid" (for want of a better word. I'll use this term a lot), as close to God's Word as is possible for humans to produce. However, practically all of the books that form the New Testament were written decades after Jesus' death, including the Gospels. Also at one time what the Church included within the NT was very different. Over the centuries, books have fallen from favour, discredited books have been introduced, and lines added. In the first 300 years following Christ, there was no universally accepted testament.
My point is- I don't see how the New Testament can claim to be "valid" when everything about it was written and decided decades and centuries after Christ, by people further and further removed from whatever may or may not have happened. It's often been said that religion is manipulated by human desires and misinterpretations- how much of that was going on when what you consider the "valid" New Testament to be was being decided upon?
Re Comment 18903: Shauntheboy-
In response to your query, the following is a brief list of contradictions that I've unearthed, both during my time as a Christian, and through other means. As per my earlier comment, it includes both contradictions within the individual testaments and between them. For brevity's sake, I've tried to pick out the more major ones.
Ex 20:13- God forbids killing.
Ex 32:27- God commands killing.
Lev 11:44, 20:7, 19:2- Man is to be holy.
Rev 15:4- Only God is holy.
John 3:13- No one has ascended into heaven before Jesus.
2 Kings 2:11- Elijah ascended into heaven.
John 5:40- People choose not to come to Jesus.
John 6:44- People can only come to Jesus if God wills it.
2 Chron 6:36- Everyone sins.
1 John 3:6, 9, 5:18- Believers do not sin.
Mark 15:34- God forsakes Jesus.
John 10:30, 14:10, 16:32- God is inseparable from Jesus.
Job 1:6-7, 2:1-2- Satan is free to act as he pleases.
Jude 6- The angels who rebelled against God are chained up.
1 John 3:9- No one born of God sins.
Rom 3:23, 1 John 1:8- Everyone sins.
Ecc 1:4- The Earth will exist for ever.
2 Pet 3:10- The Earth will be destroyed.
And my personal favourite-
1 Cor 14:33- God is not responsible for confusion.
Isa 45:7- God is responsible for confusion.
As I said, a very brief selection. Some of them might not seem particularly significant to a Christian, but I've tried to pick the more important ones to me.
Re Comment 18911, what you seem to be describing is your belief in a "Heaven on Earth", so to speak. May I ask what particular group within Christianity you belong to (ie Catholic, Presbyterian etc), as I've never heard that belief before. Just curious.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
635. Comment #19170 by timelord on January 25, 2007 at 11:05 am
Reply to Comment #10189 by Richard Richard,
you say, "only a fool would say "there is no God"."
but.. Jesus said in Matt. 5:22, "...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
Are you ready for a roasting?
Incidentally, notwithstanding his statement above, Jesus repeated called people fools: Matt. 23:17,19 "Ye fools and blind..." Luke 11:40 "Ye fools,..."
Or is it that I'm just not studying the Bible "properly"?
Other Comments by timelord
636. Comment #19745 by rsquared on January 29, 2007 at 5:58 pm
This is a wildly entertaining and educational forum, I'm glad I found it.A question for creationists that I've wondered about since reading my (beautifully illustrated) children's Bible somewhere around 3rd grade:
If all of us are descended from Adam and Eve, how did they populate the earth without some major incest going on for several generations? I grew up catholic with many questions about religion, but that was the first one that I recall. I don't think "incest" was in my vocabulary in 3rd grade, but even my childish brain new something was amiss back then. If they received a special dispensation from god in the interest of populating the earth, is there a chapter and verse reference forthcoming?
Other Comments by rsquared
637. Comment #19885 by the great teapot on January 30, 2007 at 1:11 pm
shaunththboyNear the beginning of this thread you dismissed the ridiculing of the laws of the old testament as outdated. Saying that current laws will be outdated and will not be appropriate in the future.
But were n't the Laws of the old testament revealed by an all knowing God. Why did he not just introduce the correct laws to us in the first instance?
if we are so imperfect that we need to be gradually introduced to the true laws why did he make us so.
Perhaps he enjoys playing games no matter who must suffer while he plays them.
Other Comments by the great teapot
638. Comment #20209 by BillySands on February 1, 2007 at 4:17 am
Quetzelcoatlthere is a good selection of contradictions etc at this site http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/
rsquared
There is no passage to explain this, and the literalist is left with the forbidden practice of incest.
Other Comments by BillySands
639. Comment #20500 by Quetzalcoatl on February 3, 2007 at 11:00 am
BillySands-Thanks for the link. I'd recommend that site to anyone who asserts the Bible is "the literal truth". If they still assert it afterwards, there is no reasoning with them.
I've also been looking back over the comments, and found an interesting section on page 8 where there was a quick discussion about angels and sinning. One of the useful things about this site is that it provides answers for those who don't believe, but can't express precisely why with the same eloquence as Dawkins and others like him.
Theo, Mark Taunton, Shauntheboy etc- still awaiting your comments.....
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
640. Comment #20508 by Mark Taunton on February 3, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Quetzalcoatl: I've been very busy of late - sorry for the silence. I will try to respond soon to your request of me.I took a quick look at the site Billy gave the link for. The one item I read showed straightforward abuse of the text, by taking it out of context, which in my experience is the main method employed by those who cast doubt on the Bible's truth. It also made reference to a particular set of "Christians" (see Shaun's comment above, on why I put that in quotes), commenting on their erroneous and dangerous ideas (and I believe they are indeed in error). But the errors which some make in their use of the Bible (supposing it justifies their own views, because they claim to follow Jesus) are not logically proof that the Bible itself is wrong. Jesus himself predicted that many would misrepresent him and make false claims about themselves, purporting to follow him but actually having gone astray from his teachings and example.
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
641. Comment #20557 by shauntheboy on February 4, 2007 at 6:09 am
Quetzalcoatl,Thanks for your response. I've just tuned in today to catch up with posting and thankfully there hasn't been a lot. I'll try and provide you with a response soon, but I have a lot on at home and work at the moment so it might not be during this coming week. Sorry.
The site Billy links to has the usual lack of objectivity expected from such. No effort is made to objectively present both sides of the debate,or understand the context or culture many of the examples flow from.
One thing the site does do however, is to provide encouragement to the likes of Me, Mark and Theo when we see the calibre (lack of) of the arguments against the Bible.
Shaun
Other Comments by shauntheboy
642. Comment #20617 by BillySands on February 5, 2007 at 5:51 am
Mark and shaun,The trick is to read it then judge for yourself. There are many things on that site that I do not believe to be true contradictions etc, but there are plenty of real ones too. You seem to be employing a tactic of rubbishing claims for lack of objectivity, but that is har
601. Comment #18031 by shauntheboy on January 18, 2007 at 3:01 am
An intelligent God with a purpose, responsible for the order and complexity of life or abiogenesis?
There is evidence for design and purpose. There is no evidence for abiogenesis.
Billy said:"Would the real God please make himself known?"
He has to those who are willing to see it, and He will even to those who don't want to see it. All in good time Billy and not according to your demands or mine!
Shaun
Other Comments by shauntheboy