Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)

Ran man, you are not only acting crazy, but you really are crazy. Why quote yourself? Do you wish this topic to be closed? Don't like what's in here? Man, grow up or go back to your swimming friends ...

Quote:

---

This is like me asking, if the sun is really a ball of fire millions of miles away, why is it a small spot hanging over my head. You're looking at it with an irrelevant point of view.

---

Aahh, I see so my point of view is irrelevant? Well that's something new *sigh* But honestly, couldn't you think of anything better?

Quote:

---

This reminds me of a children's story I once read. In the The Last Battle by C.S. Lewis there are these dwarves in a barn with the main characters. The main characters are calling out to them, and even though its bright as day the dwarves claim they can't see a thing. When the main characters try and feed them some of the delicious food, and wine, the dwarves eat some and spit it out saying, "Why would you feed us hay." Finally Aslan stops the characters and says, "Some people blind themselves to the truth, and there's nothing that can open their eyes." Quite a poignant statement, me thinks. And since some of the people on this forum will believe anything a philosopher says, it must be true! I can just apply what Lewis wrote to anyone I want, and I'm right! Its amazing how that works.

---

Dwarves you say? <sarcasm> Riiight, all children's books about dwarves contain valuable moral knowledge indeed. <end of sarcasm> If there's one kind of people that dares to open their eyes, then it's the atheists, not the theists who believe in their fairytale bible.

Cheers

Quote:

---

Aahh, I see so my point of view is irrelevant? Well that's something new *sigh* But honestly, couldn't you think of anything better?

---

Quote:

---

Dwarves you say? <sarcasm> Riiight, all children's books about dwarves contain valuable moral knowledge indeed. <end of sarcasm>

---

Quote:

---

If there's one kind of people that dares to open their eyes, then it's the atheists, not the theists who believe in their fairytale bible.

---

My fairytale makes more sense than your fairytale!

Quote:

---

there still must be a reason the universe came into existence.

---

Quote:

---

Because we scientifically know that everything that has a beginning, has a cause.

---

Quote:

---

1. If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone.
2. But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.

---

Quote:

---

If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not.

---

I guess this guy flew to all edges of the universe then ... How does he know? I thought no true borders where discovered yet?

Quote:

---

There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old.

---

Quote:

---

1. A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.
1. Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself.
2. Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe.
1. An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exist.
2. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe.
3. An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite.
1. An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.

---

Yup, at first I thought he was going to admit that things can pop out of nowhere, because it would make sense at exactly that point, but no he goes for an 'uncaused cause'. Pfffff... Uncaused means not caused but still causing something to happen, how can something that has no cause cause something else? When he would do the math, he would see that 'something comming from nothing' is actually equal to 'an uncaused something causing things to happen'. But why should this uncaused something be 'greater in size and duration than what he 'creates''? God can be infinitely small too, if he would be infinite in the first place. Size get's rather irrelevant when something is infinite. Apart from that, we are able to create things both larger and smaller than ourselves, so ... A God that can't can not be almighty.

I also kinda missed the part 'why' this uncaused cause would be God. Supernatural? Why put God outside of the natural? A rethorical question off course, since we can't find anything that truly leads to him/her/whatever.

Quote:

---

An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite.

---

Quote:

---

An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe.

---

Quote:

---

The very first statement is in error I think. The universe can be in mmmm, how do you say that, 'in harmony when it comes to energy production and consumption', so any loss of energy need not be when it's infinitely old.

---

Quote:

---

I pretty much agree with the second statement though, if it's NOT infinite, then it must have had a beginning. That's quite rational.

---

Quote:

---

(like you doubt the existance of the place of the other universes, I doubt this 'infinite' place a God would be.)

---

Quote:

---

Well, unless you believe Gods can pop out of nowhere, like life can, then there's no problem.

---

Quote:

---

I guess this guy flew to all edges of the universe then ... How does he know? I thought no true borders where discovered yet?

---

Quote:

---

Circular reasoning, or at least so it seems to me. 'There can be no infinite events, because infinite events would mean an infinite place or universe for them to happen.'

---

Quote:

---

Well, the last part is quite questionable. Remember the line, with an infinite amount of points on it? Well the line itself has a finite touch to it, but what if all those infinite points on the line are infact events? I think infinite events can happen within a limited space, as the line example proves, besides I pretty much doubt the universe will implode into nothingness someday, so that makes the duration irrelevant (infinite).

---

Quote:

---

Yup, at first I thought he was going to admit that things can pop out of nowhere, because it would make sense at exactly that point

---

Quote:

---

but no he goes for an 'uncaused cause'. Pfffff... Uncaused means not caused but still causing something to happen, how can something that has no cause cause something else?

---

Quote:

---

But why should this uncaused something be 'greater in size and duration than what he 'creates''?

---

Quote:

---

God can be infinitely small too, if he would be infinite in the first place. Size get's rather irrelevant when something is infinite. Apart from that, we are able to create things both larger and smaller than ourselves, so ... A God that can't can not be almighty.

---

Quote:

---

Apart from that, we are able to create things both larger and smaller than ourselves, so ... A God that can't can not be almighty.

---

Quote:

---

I also kinda missed the part 'why' this uncaused cause would be God.

---

Quote:

---

An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe.



Yes, and thus would mean this uncaused cause doesn't exist.

---

Quote:

---

3. The universe may have had an internal cause (f.i. multidimensional membrane collision) or no cause (f.i. spontaneous phase transition).

---

Quote:

---

Ok, so we have some pre-universal state. What then caused this pre-universal state? Where do these membranes come from, or these 'phase transitions' that are spontaneous, in the first place?

---

Quote:

---

As far as uncaused...things. I would like to know how science proves something does not have a cause. As far as I remember you never really answered that question. I wondered how we can prove anything other than that we don't know the cause. I don't know how to prove a negative. It was like scientists 50 years ago proving that vestigial organs have no purpose. Surprise! They do.

---

Quote:

---

Doesn't exist naturally? Yes. That's why it would be a supernatural cause. Again, you're looking to the universe to explain something greater than the universe. I think this is faulty reasoning, but I don't know how to convince you not to think this way.

---

Prove to me that there even is something like 'supernatural' , prove to me there is even something bigger than the universe for that matter and maybe you could indeed convince me that my reasoning is faulthy ...

Yes, well maybe I find it just to hard to grasp the fact that there might indeed be a God, but when I have any doubts about something I usually believe in what I do know for sure. The reality I'm living in has up to now never ever shown me any signs of supernaturality (lol, does that word even exist? It sounds funny hehehe ). Why should I thus believe otherwise?

It's too easy for me to believe in something that you can't see, feel or notice, only to comfort your conscious with a wishful something as a God. If I would start believing in him now, then I would not truly believe without any prove. It would be hypocritical from my side.

Cheers

Quote:

---

Both models assume an eternal space existing before, beside, and after the universe. As you or someone else here went to great lenght to explain, eternal things need no cause.

---

Quote:

---

You are, as to my knowledge, still brooding over an answer on the debunking of the "appendix purpose" weeks ago.

---

Quote:

---

The same goes for the science proof for things without cause - we've already discussed Bell's theorem and radioactive decay of single atoms here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bells_Theorem

It's a little annoying to refute all creationist arguments just to see them repeated some time later. I think we should make a rule "When something is refuted, it must not be used as an argument anymore". Otherwise we'll never make progress in this discussion.

---

Ok, so you either don't know how they prove something has no cause, and you're hoping I'll find out by reading the literatature, or...You do know and you're just not saying because you don't feel like it and you're hoping I'll find out by reading the papers.

Frankly, the sources are so lengthy, and non layman friendly that it really isn't going to help much. What I'm saying is I don't quite get it, and after getting halfway, most of the way, or all the way through something about Bell's Theorem and not seeing any real discussion of uncaused events, I tend to get bored.

I don't really know what I'm supposed to get from reading those sources. I mean, I see what you're talking about, but your sources certainly don't entertain a question like mine. They just seem to assume I'll agree that these events for sure have no cause. That's kind of one sided, and is hardly satisfying my curiosities about the theorem. Certainly I'm not saying Bell's Theorem is false as a whole. I think the idea that we can say with certainty that there is an event for which there is for certain no cause is shaky ground to be on.

Quote:

---

I think we should make a rule "When something is refuted, it must not be used as an argument anymore". Otherwise we'll never make progress in this discussion.

---

Quote:

---

Prove to me that there even is something like 'supernatural'

---

Quote:

---

prove to me there is even something bigger than the universe for that matter and maybe you could indeed convince me that my reasoning is faulthy ...

---

You assume automatically that the default position is your position; namely that it makes more sense that an 'infinite' nothingness created the universe than an 'infinite' something. You're trying to control the argument by making me assume you're right and thus forcing me to argue against your position.

I could point out that the majority of the world believes in some kind of creator, play that card, and try and 'control' the argument, but I think we're both better off sticking to specific logic on this one.

If you have a problem with the logic used so far, feel free to cite a specific example. If you feel you have irrefutable logic that there doesn't need to be a creator, please give it and I'll show you why you're wrong. But you need to be specific, and keep it on a level playing field because I'm not going to have you forcing me to chase you all over the debate.

Quote:

---

You assume automatically that the default position is your position; namely that it makes more sense that an 'infinite' nothingness created the universe than an 'infinite' something. You're trying to control the argument by making me assume you're right and thus forcing me to argue against your position.

---

You are reading the wrong things between the lines I think. I'm not trying to control anyone, infact you seem to dodge the whole point(s) I made. I don't force anyone to belief anything, infact if you think so, then you should think about it. Why did you think that I was 'forcing you into believing something'? Not only is this untrue in my opinion, but if you really think so, then you should ask yourself wether I'm not simply right, but you don't wish to give in...

By the way, there's no 'default position' involved, since science has proven that 'something can come from nothing', but yeah you don't believe that obviously, since it would contradict your belief.

Cheers

Quote:

---

You are reading the wrong things between the lines I think. I'm not trying to control anyone, infact you seem to dodge the whole point(s) I made. I don't force anyone to belief anything, infact if you think so, then you should think about it. Why did you think that I was 'forcing you into believing something'? Not only is this untrue in my opinion, but if you really think so, then you should ask yourself wether I'm not simply right, but you don't wish to give in...

---

Quote:

---

By the way, there's no 'default position' involved, since science has proven that 'something can come from nothing', but yeah you don't believe that obviously, since it would contradict your belief.

---

Something coming from nothing isn't a problem for my belief. Because technically even if matter can be created out of a vacuum, there's still something in place. Otherwise where or when does the matter go?

My qualm is with the idea that an infinite nothingness could somehow create our universe. It defies logic. But since you seem to have given up on the logic portion of our discussion, I guess we don't need to bother with that.

Quote:

---

@ Phemox

Where has science proven something can come from nothing? The basis of science is matter and energy.. all things that are something are either matter or energy.. or if you like..anitmatter.. all are composite of "something" regardless of its infinitessimal smallness (which I suppose is what we term as "nothing" after a certain point of immeasurability to us). Neither comes from nothing. Sporatic neogenesis is not physically possible for matter or energy (springing forth from nothingness) and neither is it possible for more complex arrangements of matter/energy, such as radio isotopes.. Roentgen rays, DNA sequences, living tissue.. to spring forth..from absolutely nothing ("nothing"..cannot suddenly become.. Phemox..or ICEman or X Rays or Muon Neutrinos.. all of those are composite of noncomplex matter or energy..which granted beyond our scale of detection.. are not "nothing".)

---

Quote:

---

The same goes for the science proof for things without cause - we've already discussed Bell's theorem and radioactive decay of single atoms here.

---

Quote:

---

If things..especially complex things could come from nothing (as opposed to apparent nothing), nothing in the physical universe would make sense scientifically.

---

Quote:

---

Nothing is essentially a linguistic concept anyway.

---

I agree. But you either have to believe the universe came from absolutely nothing (thanks to thermodynamics, which simultaneously makes the idea of a creation from nothing sound stupid).

Or you can believe that an unobservable, theoretical, and unimaginable (and apparently infinite) something exists outside of and beyond our universe that created the universe (in some cases these are membranes)....Which is what some scientists believe.

Hm...that last one sounds pretty familiar.

Quote:

---

Radioactive decay is RANDOM, but not causeless. I looked into it a bit more, and unless I've been mislead, its caused by the 'strong' and 'weak' forces in a nucleus.

Bell's theorem, is a bit over my head at this point, so I can't refute what its implications are in depth for the time being. But as far as I know, it only involved things reacting to no cause whatsoever. I don't see the relevance.

Vacuum energy is matter appearing out of a vacuum (a vacuum that includes energy, space, and time). So it does nothing to explain how an infinite nothing could have caused time or space, or for that matter useable energy to be converted or to create matter.

---

Quote:

---

Why must time be infinite in both directions? It is equally infinite if it goes forward forever.

---

Quote:

---

Sorry for the double post. But as a side note, in quantum mechanics subatomic particles can appear or dissapear at random "out of nowhere".

---

Quote:

---

Yes, but it's pure arrogance to assume that
A) such an infinite higher plane is in any way connected to our minds (souls)
B) that this unimaginable existance is in any way sentient, or able to communicate to human beings.
C) ancient writers were totally aware of it's nature.

---

Quote:

---

In addition, since such an unimaginable infinite plane has been admitted to be a possibility, having no source (since it is infinite) then one can just as easily state the possibility of:
A) An infinite universe in all dimensions

---

Quote:

---

the 'big bang' being a tiny, perhaps commonplace natural event with a cause from many many quadrillion lightyears away.

---

Quote:

---

Confusion about me saying the big bang being commonplace and whatnot

---

Quote:

---

A) An infinite universe in all dimensions

You mean a universe that infinitely large? And infinitely old? Or am I mistaking what you mean?

..........................

However, this is a whole lot of speculation. Which is fine, because I speculate that my God exists, but speculation shouldn't be considered scientific, although now if you slap the word theory on speculation it automatically becomes true and unquestionable. But, anyway, that's my response to this. It COULD have happened this way. It is physically possible, but I see no valid reason to assume it was. Especially when we haven't been able to observe cosmic evolution in the least. If the universe is infinite, then it was created that way, with no beginning, which would maybe imply we were created by an intelligent designer.

I don't know if I missed anything, but there you go.

---

Quote:

---

Foreword: Thanks for the totally on-topic reply, i don't think you missed anything.

---

Quote:

---

A note about arrogance: What I meant here was that religions always assume that we are the chosen people, a great race which the creator watches over, we have supernatural elements that return to him - but nothing else does - and all that.

---

Quote:

---

I meant that this was arrogance on the part of our species when we are in fact tiny and insignifigant on the grand and glorious scale that is the universe.

---

Quote:

---

It's pretty much the opposite of arrogance to accept we are so tiny.

---

Quote:

---

Anyways, what I meant in my prior post was that what we call 'the universe' and assume is the extent of what exists,

---

Quote:

---

Basically what we think of as the universe is a supercluster of clusters of galaxies, expanding in all dimensions from a central point. Maybe there are tonnes of superclusters. This would be part of the infinite universe argument

---

Quote:

---

In any effect we have some arguable evidence for stellar evolution, the lifecycles of stars, and expansion of the supercluster which we see through red shift.

---

Quote:

---

So yes, I Suggested infinite time and space. Entirely because it's physically possible.

---

Quote:

---

As to anything being created infinite, I believe this statement is a contradiction in terms, and would put your creator beyond infinite.

---

Quote:

---

There is a priciple in science called Ockham's razor: If you have two different hypotheses that both explain the same observation, the hypothesis that is less complicated and makes less assumptions is normally the true one.

---

Quote:

---

No Christian that I know of asserts only humans will return to God. In fact, the bible says the entire creation will eventually be restored. Its not like we're necessarily going to some far away place. It seems more like we're going to a place much like this one, except our sin won't have corrupted it.

But.

The alternative to the arrogance of religion is the arrogance of naturalism. We're the greatest living thing that nature has ever created (as far as science can tell us) and we're the ultimate standard for right and wrong. That sounds fairly arrogant to me, too.


I agree with what you say here, to an extent. I don't think we're completely unimportant. However, its important to stay humble, since after all pride is what got us into the situation we're in now.

---

Quote:

---

We can still be tiny while still existing as the result of a creator.

---

Quote:

---

Maybe its because I care more for testable science, but the only way we could maybe speculate on some other extra-universal existence is with mathematics. But either way, we can come up with all sorts of mathematical 'language' to describe something beyond the universe, and still be completely wrong, even if the math pans out. I don't find it very important to try and figure out if there is some natural state outside the universe. How could we even comprehend it? What exists beyond space? And stuff like that.

---

Quote:

---

I think our universe is made up of matter, space, time, energy, what have you. What you're saying here sounds like a multiverse theory. I don't buy the whole multiverse thing, because the whole idea is just a way to rationalize away the fine tuning of the universe.

---

Quote:

---

I think red shift is still quite an open topic, but I'm rather ignorant on astronomy or whatever.

Watching stars die, however, doesn't prove that they are created. I find it interesting that every source I read calls the birth of stars a sure thing, but I have yet to see any source provide any proof that stars have been born except they are sure that they are.

---

Quote:

---

Then we get back into thermodynamics. I don't know if this applies to what you're saying, but if the universe is infinitely old, then there would be no more usable energy. The universe would be completely dark and motionless and completely cold.

---

Quote:

---

I was speaking more in terms of something infinitely large, because I don't believe something could be infinitely old (due to thermodynamics once again). Perhaps, if the universe were infinitely large that might solve the useable energy problem. I don't know all of the physics on that, but then that would make the big bang a useless theory (the universe would have to have been infinitely large to begin with, otherwise it could only be infinitely large by expanding for an infinite amount of time, and that brings us right back to thermodynamics). In which case, I think it would be all the more logical to assume that we were created, perfectly ordered, right from the start. Frankly, I hope the universe is infinitely large. But we'll see.

---

Quote:

---

I still have yet to hear an explanation of where it all came from. What I see is the question pushed back into infinity. The universe was created by the big bang, which was created by thing a, which was created by thing b, which was created by thing c. And its all speculation. So...Okham's razor works against you on this, I believe. Its more likely that we were created out of an infinite nothingness, by a creator, than that we have an infinite regress of events that we can barely even comprehend, none of which even explain the big question but simply explain the event after it that hadn't answered the question either. Its similar to watching science chase its tail like a dog.

It baffles my mind.

---

Quote:

---

Well actually evolutionary theory would have us believe we're incredibly flawed creatures which have sacrificed most of our physical perfection for social and mental development. A shark, or those bacteria that can repair their dna and are thus immortal, would be the ultimate lifeforms since they've been in stasis so long.

---

Quote:

---

Also, I'm pretty sure most christians I know don't believe animals have a soul, and thus that they do not return to the creator. I've debated that a few times with people actually.

---

Quote:

---

At the same time it begs the question of how the time before time came to be... which isn't really even applicable since well.. there's no time...

---

Quote:

---

An incredibly massive supercluster of superclusters would not be a multiverse, just an infinite or near-infinite universe since all that would seperate expansion points would be space, time, and energy.

---

Quote:

---

We're watching stars be born right now.

---

Quote:

---

Infinite universe = infinite energy.

---

Quote:

---

It baffles my mind how you don't see a creator as pushing the question back in the exact same way

---

Quote:

---

Fair enough. But I was thinking in terms of deciding what the ultimate intelligent power is. According to theists, we're ignorant little runts, barely able to hold it together (in a sense). According to atheists, we're never wrong because there is no such thing as wrong. I was thinking more in terms of that.

---

Quote:

---

You can't use time existing now as proof of the supposition that it has a reason for existing. So given those two possibilities, why should time even exist in the first place? And if time doesn't exist at one point, then it doesn't exist for an eternity in which case time will never exist.

---

Quote:

---

Well, I personally have the assumption that God did inspire the bible, and He didn't lie about himself. By His definition, He wouldn't need a creator.

---

Fair enough, eventhough pure phylosophical off course. This assumption of divine inspiration from the writers of the bible can't be known for certain. Infact, by Gods definition it's not possible to ever know something like that. Now, that's what I call paradox. Off course I'm a bit biased, but those humans have written something about that which they can't possibly know off, that is describing the nature of God, and at the very same time that describtion defines that it can't be known, since God can be/do/act whatever he wants or likes. The very problem in this odd circle of socalled knowledge lies in the fact that eventhough God is nowhere near what or how humans are according to the very same definitions, he still get's described by human invented definitions. You don't have to be smart to see what's wrong here. This automatically makes the bible untrue.

In the bible it should say "we don't know what or who God is" instead, infact it shouldn't even have the word 'God' in it, devine inspiration or not, but God would definately have lied if he would explain it in human invented definitions to his followers that wrote the bible. Needless to say that this also makes the bible untrue on beforehand. Sure, from the human perspective we need human invented definitions to describe everything around us and comprehend everything, but according to the bible God can not be understood ('God works in mysterious ways' ), well then any given definition would be wrong. Maybe it's me, but I think it's not possible for us to know anything about him, human definitions only make us 'think we know', but we don't know. Remember, I haven't said anything about wether or not this disproves God's existence/none-existence.

Quote:

---

Indeed, but this raises an interesting paradox. If the universe is infinite, that means at any given point in time (we'll use an absolute amount for the point for simplicity's sake, say one second) an infinite amount of energy is being used. What's X if infinity - infinity = x.

---

Quote:

---

I'm not quite following your reasoning here. I'd say we rather think that there's no right, instead of wrong. Every theory we could think off could be wrong in any or all aspects of such a theory, so wrong definately exists.

---

Quote:

---

If time doesn't exist at one point, that would mean that absolutely nothing happens in the infinite nothingness for an infinite amount of none-existing time.

---

Quote:

---

There's one problem though, can such a thing even exist?

---

Quote:

---

Infinite none-existing time?

---

Quote:

---

When thinking abstract it could simply indicate the moment before 'time' started, but a start of something implies time too don't you think?

---

Any time before time would be infinite and there can be no time before the time before time.

Quote:

---

The moment before the start could, no even more correct 'would' be another time (a moment, an indication of a time related event(s)). (think of someone with a stopwatch, time within time, although this is more artificial, this is how you could comprehend it.)

---

Quote:

---

General movement, relative or 'absolute' distances between objects and velocity make that there's time. There can only be no time, when nothing happened in the past and nothing will happen in the future, everything would have to be totally empty. (no objects, no relative distances, thus no 'time' between objects, no velocity either.)

---

Quote:

---

This assumption of divine inspiration from the writers of the bible can't be known for certain.

---

Quote:

---

Infact, by Gods definition it's not possible to ever know something like that. Now, that's what I call paradox.

---

Quote:

---

Off course I'm a bit biased, but those humans have written something about that which they can't possibly know off, that is describing the nature of God

---

Quote:

---

he still get's described by human invented definitions.

---

Quote:

---

'God works in mysterious ways'

---

In other words his reasoning is Holy, and thus mysterious to the human animal which is subject to its sinful nature. We may wonder why God does things the way He does, but that doesn't mean He doesn't do things.

Quote:

---

human definitions only make us 'think we know', but we don't know.

---

Quote:

---

I don't think there is actually a paradox here, since it doesn't make any sense to do calculations whilst thinking in absolutes when your talking about infinity (that's sort of beyond 'absolutes'). I don't say you can't make calculations with it, but it starts with little odd things like. Take infinity and do infinite-1, that would still be infinity, right? Right. Now let's do that calculation an infinite amount of times, what would happen to infinity? In my opinion exactly nothing, since the first infinity -1, still is infinity.

---

Quote:

---

Well...that's the difficult part. But it raises some interesting questions. If God didn't create us, then it was an infinite regress of natural events that lead to the creation of the universe. If God created everything, then at some point there was nothing, and it all sprouted out of his creativity from such a state as timeless time, and matterless space, and spaceless....ness.

---

"If God created everything ..." wowow, hold on, there was NOTHING remember ... Nothingness .. no god , no nothing, just empty spaceless-ness, so how did God somehow show up there? He is the nothingness? Aaw, so he is basically nothing? Well, why doesn't our theory satisfy you then? All came from nothing without cause. Okey, I'm just making some fun here off course, but explain to me why would it be a 'regress of natural events', why not simply '*poof* and the universe came into existence without cause, which started the (chain)reaction of events that made life possible and that caused what we see around us now'?

Quote:

---

I say we don't know what's right because we're not the source of right and wrong. Atheists say we are the source of right and wrong, and because of that there is no right and wrong.

Not to kickstart the relativism debate.

---

I don't want to get into the relativism debate either, but how can you even deny that it works this way? You can't proof absolute truths, so why keep dreaming about them still? However you can disproof something by falsifying.

Quote:

---

Only so that we can grasp something about Him. I mean, you wouldn't describe evolution to a chinese person using english, would you? You'd want to speak their language.

---

Quote:

---

"If God created everything ..." wowow, hold on, there was NOTHING remember ... Nothingness .. no god , no nothing, just empty spaceless-ness, so how did God somehow show up there?

---

Quote:

---

Well, why doesn't our theory satisfy you then?

---

Quote:

---

but explain to me why would it be a 'regress of natural events'

---

Quote:

---

why not simply '*poof* and the universe came into existence without cause, which started the (chain)reaction of events that made life possible and that caused what we see around us now'?

---

Because before the 'poof' there wouldn't be time. In the period where time doesn't exist, it will continue not to exist for eternity.

Quote:

---

I don't want to get into the relativism debate either, but how can you even deny that it works this way? You can't proof absolute truths, so why keep dreaming about them still? However you can disproof something by falsifying.

---

Quote:

---

You've slightly missed my point with this. We couldn't possibly comprehend him by reading some definitions that don't even come close to what he is, because it's not in his language, THIS makes him lie about himself automatically through the bible.

---

Quote:

---

Time can't not exist for an 'eternity', yet at the same time saying 'there was no time' or 'before time' is equally nonsense. 'Outside of time' is more accurate.

---

Quote:

---

There was never a time when time did not exist.

---

Quote:

---

Well, anything anyone says on this is conjecture. But I meant a physical nothingness. God isn't a physical being, even if He can manifest Himself in the physical universe. So technically I don't think a physical nothingness means no God.

---

Quote:

---

There are some things we can never know for sure, because we weren't there to witness them. Science doesn't determine what God is capable of, its just knowledge determined by testing the known universe.

---

Since science didn't find anything pointing towards a God, the general consensus it that it thus doesn't exist. Some consider God to be impossible to prove because he supposedly is outside of the physical, not that we could even know this off course when true. Nice ... Anyways, my point is, and I think you've stated that too, we can't really know in the end, we haven't witnissed him. And my conclusion would be, then why believe?

Quote:

---

So...In that case no matter what explanation, or theory on a pre-universe state, you give me, I can always ask, "Where did that come from?" You'd have to have a cause. But then what caused that cause? It would have to be an infinite regress of causes, otherwise you would have to say that it all came out of nowhere. And that takes us back to the problem of the second option.

---

Quote:

---

Ah, but where in the bible does it claim to reveal everything about God? He really tells us very little about Himself. So He reveals only what we can understand. We can understand that He is creative, that he is absolutely just and holy, and that He is loving. I don't see why that would be a lie.

---

Quote:

---

Really, it all relates to which idea is more egocentric (theism or atheism). The only problem is, if one system of belief (religion) is more egocentric, does that make it false?

---

My personal world view theory is actually quite egocentric too. It's based on theories about actions/reactions, events, (hopefully ) by reason and evidence. I won't get into details to much, because then I would still be typing for some 8 hours I think, but it's egocentric too. It is however not ignorent by stating that we know things we can't know (it's relativistic).

Cheers

Quote:

---

Who says God isn't physical?

---

Quote:

---

I heard people say they thought God is in all and everything (it's a possibility),

---

Quote:

---

or maybe bounded to the physical

---

Quote:

---

How do we know this? Or better, what reasons are there to believe this to be true?

---

Quote:

---

We simple can not know this, just like the nature of any God and any of it's habits, influence or shape, unless we get some clear evidence about any of this.

---

Quote:

---

Since science didn't find anything pointing towards a God,

---

Well then, I hope I cleared that up for you.

Quote:

---

Some consider God to be impossible to prove because he supposedly is outside of the physical

---

Quote:

---

not that we could even know this off course when true.

---

Quote:

---

we haven't witnissed him. And my conclusion would be, then why believe

---

Quote:

---

Partly it's not about the part he does mention about himself, but the part he doesn't or didn't explain.

---

Quote:

---

People state God doesn't lie, God supposedly gave information about who or what he is like and this was written down in the bible, right?

---

Quote:

---

God supposedly is greater than any set of human definitions could possibly describe him by, that's also straight out of the bible, which makes his own explanation about himself incomplete at least, and in error in my opinion.

---

Quote:

---

It may sound as a difference of interpretation of the bible, but remember I'm reading the same words in the book you are

---

Quote:

---

Either the universe has existed forever, in which case we wouldn't be alive right now because the universe would be in a complete state of entropy.

---

Quote:

---

We are here
In this holy cave today
To celebrate
The reincarnation
Of Domingo de Santa Clara
The man who convinced us
That there is no Lord
For His name is Buddha, Allah, Shiva, Jahve
Outside our bodies
We are God
'Cause only we can create the idea
Of His existence in our holy brains

---

Quote:

---

Who Made Who?

---

Quote:

---

Attributed to the essence of life.
Assimilated to believe in one god.
Silenced in what we don't wanna hear.
Flesh and soul, are only mine.
GO!
God's worthless promises.
ROCK!
Only my mind can save me.

---

Quote:

---

Blind talking (blind talking)
Take us so far (take us so far)
Broken down cars (broken down cars)
Like stronger old stars (like stronger old stars)
Blind talking (blind talking)
Served us so well (served us so well)
Travelled trough hell (travelled trough hell)
We know how it felt (we know how it felt)
Lift me up, lift me up
Aiah Nouwamba
Lift me up, lift me up
Aiah Nouwamba

---

Quote:

---

Here comes the woman
With the look in her eye
Raised on leather
With flesh on her mind
Words as weapons sharper than knives
Makes you wonder how the other half die
Other half die

---

Quote:

---

Therefore the exact opposite is true even if the universe lost all heat.. zero entropy. Dont bandy about science you obviously dont understand.

---

Quote:

---

Time is not a constant. Time exists because of several reasons for instance it changes with an objects speed. So it is possible that time started with an event like the big bang.

---

Quote:

---

By the way, I can't believe you guys are still engaging this uneducated hick in scientific discussion. Doesn't he ever get boring?

---

Quote:

---

But if there was no relative motion (no time), then there was nothing happening...forever. You don't escape the problem.

---

Quote:

---

This is interesting but there is not enough knowledge at the time to expain this perfectly.

---

Quote:

---

I personally can imagine that all is an eternal circular flow of elements. Sometimes energy gets compressed and explodes again and all starts again. So time changes for every object in this circulation. There is simply no beginning and no end. Every end is a new beginning.

---

That's because you're an atheist.

Thermodynamics beats you again.

You can be an atheist, and deny that we were created, but at least admit that you have no reason to believe this.

But seriously, there was a beginning, and there will be an end, whether natural or unnatural. The logic is pretty simply. But even if the universe has existed forever, why does it even exist at all? Don't bother answering that, because it hasn't existed forever.

Quote:

---

God's god is called Double-God. Double God's name is Double Double God, and so on. It just keeps going on and on like that forever.

---

Quote:

---

If I were god, I sure would be annoyed to be worshipped by masses of people who did not look for a greater truth and did not delve deeply into the vast universe of creation. I would want them to prosper, grow and expand to their maximum potential, to become God-like themselves and not to fall into group-think, or blindly obedient to a small set of rules.

---

Infact, that's the irony here. What If there really is a God out here somewhere then I'm sure those blindly obedient people A.) are wrong about a lot of things, far more wrong than right and B.) I wonder how that God's reaction would be when he finds out that they are worshipping a none-existing clone God instead of Him hehehe... Revenge is sweet, or?

Quote:

---

But at least quoting rock and roll in a philosophical discussion is a lot more 'enlightened'. You're representing atheism pretty well here, A Russell. Keep it up.

---

Oww, I thought the avarage atheist according to the church listens to death metal and worships satan? Isn't that what you've been told? Not? Oww, now that would be a definate first!

Quote:

---

Well let's assume He is for the moment. That causes a glaring paradox, because God already exists as a physical being, but He created the universe. Well how can He create the universe if it must already exist for Him to be physical?

---

There's no paradox, since this can be explained. There's either no God(most likely explanation), or He didn't create the universe(ooww, and then what? God's God? -> thus there can be no God at all..) ... If He isn't physical, well that causes some paradoxes... How can a none-physical being influence the physical(science more or less ruled out 'magic', so try again ), and how could we know or tell this, since we can't notice it. Again, the most logical explanation is that he doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

Isn't it arrogance to assume that you know for sure that those things aren't true? I mean, you can say you haven't been convinced, but to say for sure that the belief is arrogant, would be arrogant for the same reason.

---

It's definately NOT arrogant to state we don't know and think you are wrong, it IS however very arrogant to think your God exists and you know this to be true as a fact, because you do seem to claim this...

You've turned this argument around, just like the 'why would I believe in a God without any evidence' argument of me earlier(different thread I think). You've also stated that you could believe for exactly the same argument, that's very odd reasoning imho.

If we don't know something at all, you can't go claim what you wish to be true, that's ignorance's finest and plain arrogance. Truth is we don't know, stating otherwise either requires the proper evidence of proof, or would simply be the arrogance of stupidness.

Cheers

Quote:

---

the very notion of thermodynamic modelling of the universe has been questioned, since the effects of such factors as gravity and quantum phenomena are very difficult to reconcile with simple thermodynamic models, rendering the utility of such models as predictive systems highly doubtful

---

Quote:

---

Yeah you're absolutely right. That was regretfully a cheap stab at you, and wasn't very good form either, so accept my apology-- it was my 8 o'clock over-caffeinated sarcastic manic flip-out.

---

Quote:

---

But that you thought my suggestion of fostering awe of the cosmos is "not caring about anything"?

---

Quote:

---

I'm convinced that whatever circumstances (sure you can call them god too) put us here in reality wants us to explore and create and search for meaning, we are meaning-seakers

---

Quote:

---

and that we must put now expand our search beyond the same 2000 year old pre-enlightenment primate mythologies into the new realms being discovered by mathematicians, scientists, philosophers, physicists, astronomers, astrophysicists and biologists.

---

Quote:

---

If I were god, I sure would be annoyed to be worshipped by masses of people who did not look for a greater truth

---

What is this greater truth? I would be annoyed, as God, if people kept insisting that they need to search for some truth besides God.

You seem to think God requires something magical from us. Like we need to immediately give up on living our lives, and become something...else. You don't suddenly not care to understand anything. You don't stop searching for truth, in fact the truth then becomes more clear because you have a direction, instead of wondering wherever your mind takes you. You're starting from the source of ultimate truth.

Quote:

---

and did not delve deeply into the vast universe of creation.

---

Quote:

---

I would want them to prosper, grow and expand to their maximum potential, to become God-like themselves and not to fall into group-think, or blindly obedient to a small set of rules.

---

Quote:

---

If not, what do you think god wants of you and why?

---

Not that I could even if I tried, but I'm sure He doesn't want me to be God-like. If he created me to be God-like, then I would be God-like.

I think he wants me to be 'the light of the world.' To allow the Holy Spirit to 'flow like a fountain' through me. The world is fallen (before you claim arrogance, this includes me). As a christian its my job to spread the good news to those who will respond to God's call. Pretty simple. I already know what the good news is, so that's the only thing that seperates me from anyone else (well that and I have faith in Jesus' sacrifice).

Anything else is an abstract of human existence. My desire to become a scientist may not be directly important to God's commands, but He could use my job to reach others. Or to reach me...

I don't claim to know what God's will is for my life, but I have faith that it will be done.

Quote:

---

Let's role-play that you are god, and try to answer this question: What you would expect of humanity and why?

---

Quote:

---

Infact, that's the irony here. What If there really is a God out here somewhere then I'm sure those blindly obedient people

---

Quote:

---

A.) are wrong about a lot of things, far more wrong than right

---

Quote:

---

I wonder how that God's reaction would be when he finds out that they are worshipping a none-existing clone God instead of Him

---

Quote:

---

Oww, I thought the avarage atheist according to the church listens to death metal and worships satan?

---

Quote:

---

Isn't that what you've been told? Not? Oww, now that would be a definate first!

---

Quote:

---

There's no paradox, since this can be explained.

---

Quote:

---

If He isn't physical, well that causes some paradoxes... How can a none-physical being influence the physical

---

Quote:

---

(science more or less ruled out 'magic', so try again )

---

Quote:

---

and how could we know or tell this, since we can't notice it. Again, the most logical explanation is that he doesn't exist.

---

Quote:

---

It's definately NOT arrogant to state we don't know and think you are wrong, it IS however very arrogant to think your God exists and you know this to be true as a fact, because you do seem to claim this...

---

Quote:

---

You've turned this argument around, just like the 'why would I believe in a God without any evidence' argument of me earlier(different thread I think). You've also stated that you could believe for exactly the same argument, that's very odd reasoning imho.

---

Quote:

---

If we don't know something at all,

---

Quote:

---

you can't go claim what you wish to be true, that's ignorance's finest and plain arrogance.

---

Quote:

---

I love how you set yourself up here as somehow better than others. Like you aren't blindly obedient to your sinful nature, or blindly obedient to the world's philosophy. Blindly obedient to the psychological barriers you've erected to keep God out.

What you've said here is just a way for you to self-reaffirm your own beliefs. How do you know you're not wrong? How do you know your philosophy and worldview are holding you back? In fact, according to you you're not more right than anyone else, so that means if you believe anything about anything, you're stuck in group-think, and you're blindly obedient to your beliefs.

---

Quote:

---

Nope, the average atheist doesn't believe in God, as the namesake implies. Churches don't spend time talking about atheists. They warn about letting things like death metal influence your mind. But that's all.

---

Quote:

---

You seem to think God requires something magical from us. Like we need to immediately give up on living our lives, and become something...else. You don't suddenly not care to understand anything. You don't stop searching for truth, in fact the truth then becomes more clear because you have a direction, instead of wondering wherever your mind takes you. You're starting from the source of ultimate truth.

---

Quote:

---

I won't get into all of the religions, but the bible is full of prophecies that came true, wisdom that anyone can access, and a no-nonsense doctrine. What do you think God will say when He finds people have ignored the obvious signs He's left for everyone?

---

Which prophecies came true, and exactly which hints? There are to many questions to say the least surrounding the bible itself, so it's hardly possible to see it as direct evidence for anything. e.g. There is no evidence for a worldwide flood rather exactly the opposite, 'judgement day' hasn't come yet either, the world still exists.

The vague prophecies that you must mean, like the socalled prophecy of world war II in the bible is so vague it could have meant anything. But please do come with examples, if there are more convincing or clear ones.

Quote:

---

Well, by definition this non-physical being created the universe. So influencing the physical wouldn't be that difficult.

---

Quote:

---

No it can't because without God the universe doesn't exist. I defy you to come up with a logical explanation for the existence of the universe that excludes a supernatural creator.

---

You must have meant without God the universe might not exist, not "doesn't exist". Again, this clearly shows YOUR arrogance. Anyways, that's quite irrelevant, but just because you see God as a requirement for the existence of the universe, doesn't mean he actually is. There are plenty of ways the universe could have come into existence, with or without a creator. I don't think the Christian concept of God is THE most logical explanation for the existence of the universe. Infact, what makes it even logical according to you? I don't think creation of the earth is possible in those 6 or 7 days, especially not if literally meant.

I can't see or feel God, but maybe that's because he is gone now? If he's gone now, then what guarantee is there that he even once was around? I can't discover evidence of God's activities in the past, but maybe that's because his traces are very life itself? Considering evolution and the like, that for starters would contradict the biblical creation. If that's true then that still doesn't really provide anything that could answer the question wether or not his existence would make more sense than his none-existence would, which logically renders him totally irrelevant. ('+1-1=0') I don't see any evidence of divine interference either, maybe that's because there isn't any? Can I even trust the bible with all this knowledge, since they more or less claim to know what can't be known or seen, they specifically claim that 'God helped' more than once...

I find parting the seas and walking the water very fascinating to read about, but is it strange to demand some evidence before believing it as fact? I'm fascinating about superheroes that can fly too, wouldn't it be amazing if a human could fly like superman? Well, we all know we can't do that, so why believe in 'walking on the water' and changing 'water to wine'? Okey, I'll stop talking about some of the personal arguments against the possibility of a creator, I know you might think I'm far off from your question at the moment, but look at it like this, is there one reason why a creator would actually really make sense? I think a creator get's excluded automatically when you approach the question with pure logic. How did or more important how could the creator come into existence? If you think the universe requires a creator, then so must the creator require one for the exact same reason. So you tell me, what makes more sense?

Quote:

---

Everyone is a witness to the creation so they're without excuse. [Romans 1:20]

---

Quote:

---

Again, this is a claim without any reasoning. Tell me why you believe we can't know God exists?

I've already told you why we can.

---

Quote:

---

I already know what the good news is, so that's the only thing that seperates me from anyone else (well that and I have faith in Jesus' sacrifice).

---

Quote:

---

As a child I often called god to send me a sign. There was never a sign.

---

although i dont call me very religous (in fact i already had a phase of pure satanic beliefs back some time) i can talk with god (atleast what i call god)
you just have to calm your squirky minds down so you can hear it.. ask your question and listen carefully:)

to the question:

god's god is god. nothing more nothing less

Quote:

---

You will get only answers that you can imagine with your mind.

---

Quote:

---

... I dream only crazy things at strange locations, other planets, living under water and things like that? Maybe my god is a sci-fi god

---

maybe you are an alien

Quote:

---

You think I do not know it better because you apparently do not think that evidence is required before believing ANYTHING.

---

Quote:

---

Off course this makes my own believe superior to yours in MY opinion, why would I deny thinking I'm more right than you are? At least I've got good reasons for it ...

---

Quote:

---

Infact, you still haven't told me why you believe in God, except your statement that you believe the bible to be true, but what kind of reasoning is that?

---

Well, you've either intentionally ignored what I've previously posted, or you don't agree with my evidence, but you haven't given a reason why.

For instance, the prophecy in Psalms centuries before Jesus was born about how He would die. In the psalms it says, "They peirce my hands and feet." Executing people on a cross wasn't even around back then. Please see my reference in the previous post. Later in that verse it talks about people drawing up lots for the clothing. Which is what happened to Jesus after being stapled to the cross. Kind of a strange coincidence.

I doubt you'll see this as 'proof' but its one of many reasons I find the bible to be likely. Amongst others are things we take for granted scientifically being shown to be true in the bible.

-The stars being greater in number than sand on a beach (certainly wouldn't look that way to an ancient). Genesis 15:5 Jeremiah 33:22 Hebrews 11:12
-The earth being round, and having rotation (day and night). This includes a reference to some that are asleep, and others are working in the field in seemingly the same moment. If the earth were flat, it would be day everywhere, or night everywhere. Luke 17:34-36 Isaiah 40:22 (Also seems to suggest that space is expanding, although I don't really think I agree with that).
-The earth is floating 'on nothing.' Job 26-7
-Jews and Arabs are descended from one man. Link.
-Predicts the hydrological cycle at a time everyone else thought rain came from the 'gods' with no further explanation. Why wouldn't Israel give an equally ignorant account? Is it possible that they're the true 'myth'? Job 36:27-28 Amos 9:6
-The bible also seems to predict that air molecules have weight. Job 28:25
-Predicts entropy (thermodynamics). Psalms.102:25-26 Isaiah 51:6
-Time had a beginning. 1 Timothy 1:8-9
-Springs in the sea. Job 38:16

There are more.

On the other hand, the atheist creation myth of evolution caused some dentists to remove wisdom teeth when they shouldn't have. Causing problems. Good work. But anyway, this isn't about evolution.....I'm just taking a stab.

These of course aren't the only reasons I find the bible to make sense. But they're among the reasons. The bible hasn't conflicted science on any testable hypothesis since it was written until today. In fact, its predicted some things which we later discovered to be true.

This alone seperates it from any other religion, and also lends it some credibility. In fact, every other religion appears to be a false branch of the Jewish beliefs. As if there was someone trying to spread confusion around or something...:)

Amongst the many other predictions about historical events (nations being destroyed), Jesus' life, and so on. Those are the clues that should pique our physical minds. But that's no replacement for a spiritual understanding of God's word, which is more important than any prediction.

Other reasons would include the no-nonsense doctrine. (For instance, the idea that nothing we can do will please God and the only thing that will save us is that He offers us salvation despite our complete inability to do what's right. Most other major religions focus on 'works' as a means of salvation. Jesus Himself showed such an amazing understanding of the Torah, that He continually put the religious 'experts' of His day to shame in such simple ways. What He says makes sense, etc.

Anyway, whether or not you find any of this interesting, or convincing is your deal, I'm just explaining why I think there is evidence. So no need to respond to my evidences, let's keep this to the point, because now I want to get the explanation I still haven't received. What possible reason could the universe exist without a creator? Tell me, what natural process creates nature?

But therein lies your problem. In order for a natural process to exist to create the universe, the universe must exist. You can't have the universe before the universe is created.

So, if you could just break it down logically, that would be great.

Quote:

---

Yes, and another indication that they don't have a clue about death metal in the first place

---

Quote:

---

just like christianity trying to prohibit the use of condoms in Africa.

---

Quote:

---

If they would have a better understanding of things, they wouldn't make themselves this ridiculous all the time.

---

Quote:

---

Mmm, when you keep telling yourself that you can know things you can not know, then how could things get more clear when it comes to truth?

---

Quote:

---

There is no evidence for a worldwide flood rather exactly the opposite,

---

Quote:

---

'judgement day' hasn't come yet either, the world still exists.

---

Quote:

---

like the socalled prophecy of world war II

---

Quote:

---

Way to go, that's like saying, the color green is green, simply because we defined it as green, so it must be green. It still doesn't prove that it's actually green in reality though.

---

Quote:

---

but it says 'God is blablabla', that's even worse than stating 'we know ... ', where off course we couldn't possibly know and that's exactly where the bible gives it away!

---

Quote:

---

Anyways, that's quite irrelevant, but just because you see God as a requirement for the existence of the universe, doesn't mean he actually is.

---

Quote:

---

There are plenty of ways the universe could have come into existence, with or without a creator.

---

Quote:

---

I think a creator get's excluded automatically when you approach the question with pure logic.

---

Quote:

---

How did or more important how could the creator come into existence?

---

Quote:

---

If you think the universe requires a creator, then so must the creator require one for the exact same reason.

---

Quote:

---

So you tell me, what makes more sense?

---

Quote:

---

Exactly where did you tell me?

---

Quote:

---

I've already explained why it doesn't automatically makes sense, infact the opposite makes more sense, and not because I want to be more right than you, but because of proper reasoning, not by fantasizing about what might be.

---

Quote:

---

How can we possibly know God's existence?

---

Quote:

---

It's obvious that we can't know, since we haven't seen him or met him,

---

Quote:

---

Well, keep on 'proselytizing.

---

Quote:

---

You call me an atheist? Interesting. I call me an open minded being and I will believe in everything that sounds logic and is founded with evidences. God and creationism is not.

---

Quote:

---

As a child I often called god to send me a sign. There was never a sign.

---

Quote:

---

So I read books and studied alot of knowledge and found way more logic in it.

---

I've studied a lot of atheist philosophy and I have yet to hear anything that makes sense. So we'll call it even.

Quote:

---

It is not that you can call someone an atheist and then say: You must say that because you are one of them. We do not have rules like a religion prays. We are free and we think free. That's why we can learn from everything even from you.

---

Quote:

---

Do you know all evidence in existence? No? Then you don't know what is and what isn't based on evidence. You can say that you don't know of any evidence, of course, but you can't claim something does or does not have evidence definately.

---

Quote:

---

And my god is from the outer space, haha. I will start to worship his/her being right now, hahumba, hahimba, cooka coomba, calimba...

---

Quote:

---

-The stars being greater in number than sand on a beach (certainly wouldn't look that way to an ancient). Genesis 15:5 Jeremiah 33:22 Hebrews 11:12
-The earth being round, and having rotation (day and night). This includes a reference to some that are asleep, and others are working in the field in seemingly the same moment. If the earth were flat, it would be day everywhere, or night everywhere. Luke 17:34-36 Isaiah 40:22 (Also seems to suggest that space is expanding, although I don't really think I agree with that).
-The earth is floating 'on nothing.' Job 26-7
-Jews and Arabs are descended from one man. Link.
-Predicts the hydrological cycle at a time everyone else thought rain came from the 'gods' with no further explanation. Why wouldn't Israel give an equally ignorant account? Is it possible that they're the true 'myth'? Job 36:27-28 Amos 9:6
-The bible also seems to predict that air molecules have weight. Job 28:25
-Predicts entropy (thermodynamics). Psalms.102:25-26 Isaiah 51:6
-Time had a beginning. 1 Timothy 1:8-9
-Springs in the sea. Job 38:16

---

Quote:

---

The earth being round, and having rotation (day and night). This includes a reference to some that are asleep, and others are working in the field in seemingly the same moment. If the earth were flat, it would be day everywhere, or night everywhere.

---

Quote:

---

The earth is floating 'on nothing.'

---

Quote:

---

Jews and Arabs are descended from one man.

---

Quote:

---

Predicts the hydrological cycle at a time everyone else thought rain came from the 'gods' with no further explanation. Why wouldn't Israel give an equally ignorant account? Is it possible that they're the true 'myth'?

---

Quote:

---

The bible also seems to predict that air molecules have weight.

---

Quote:

---

Predicts entropy (thermodynamics).

---

Quote:

---

Have you ever looked up at the Milky Way? You can see a heck of a lot stars on clear night away form outdoor lights. Back then they didnt have any artifial electric lihgts and air polution..

---

Quote:

---

Obviously there always is day and night(execpt at polar latitudes)... and not everyone who knew this fact thought the Earth was round.

---

Quote:

---

The ancient Greeks figured that out too,

---

Quote:

---

That someone could have a thought that was somewhat near the truth, even without seeing it first? That's called reasoning...and frankly not a very profound leap either.

---

Quote:

---

However, this is almost certainly NOT TRUE.

---

Quote:

---

and even if it were, how can that be prophetic? Maybe they just had good record keeping.

---

Quote:

---

I'm not sure "everyone else" thought rain came from the gods.. where do you get this idea from?

---

Quote:

---

such the Greeks agains, knew better.

---

Quote:

---

anyone can tell that air has some weight...just fill a leather skin up with air, and light a fire underneath, the air will rise, then when it cools off, the air sinks.

---

Quote:

---

Uhuh, and Nostradumus predicted lots of stuff too.

---

Quote:

---

Even a few evidences are way more than creationism that provides simply no evidences at all.

I will not respond to all your other quotes that sound completely out of logic to me.

---

Quote:

---

Here's the thing, we're going to forever go in logic circles (an endless loop if you will)

---

Quote:

---

because if you say that things cannot be created uncaused, then god needs a cause, and since god is by definition omnipotent, and you state that things can only become/create less complex things, there can be no cause - which makes your logic contradictory, and no god more likely.

---

Quote:

---

Kind of reminds me of an old myth that the world rested on the back of four giant elephants on a giant turtle. When asked what the turtle rested on, a head priest would reply 'it's turtles all the way down'

---

Yeah, that reminds me of the atheist's view of universal origins.

Quote:

---

I have yet to see any evidence that an infinite regression of events is less plausable then an omnipotent being.

---

Quote:

---

For instance, the prophecy in Psalms centuries before Jesus was born about how He would die. In the psalms it says, "They peirce my hands and feet." Executing people on a cross wasn't even around back then. Please see my reference in the previous post. Later in that verse it talks about people drawing up lots for the clothing. Which is what happened to Jesus after being stapled to the cross. Kind of a strange coincidence.

I doubt you'll see this as 'proof' but its one of many reasons I find the bible to be likely. Amongst others are things we take for granted scientifically being shown to be true in the bible.

---

The oldest biblical text known is one from 60-70 years after christs dead, so off course this is no evidence whatsoever.

A prophecy in a text that's written after all those things supposedly happened is hardly a prophecy.

Quote:

---

Even on a clear, light pollutionless sky, it certainly would not seem that there are more stars than sand on the beach.

---

Maybe, however based upon what can be seen (not just where I live), it's likely that there would be more stars than sand on the beach. And that's what this is about, not the exact amounts.

Quote:

---

[about the Greeks] Your source? It would be important to know when, amongst other things.

---

Lol, omg, maybe it's time to research a bit more into the Greek civilization, because the ancient Greek civilization was one of the greatest and those Jews were mostly just shepherds with hardly any scientific knowledge. The Greek civilization (aswell as the ancient Egyptian civilization) was definately before the nomadic jews you are referring to.

Archaeological records do not show any signs of larger organised groups of sedimentary populations in those periods, nor any records of any scientific knowledge, as opposed to the Greeks and Egyptians. So, infact it's more justified to ask YOU to come with your sources here instead.

Quote:

---

Read my source. The verse talks about people sleeping and working at the same time which is the important aspect of that verse.

---

Yes, nightshifts maybe? Lol, okey just kidding.

Quote:

---

But my point was that you can't say with certainty that creationism has no evidence, because you don't know all possible evidences. That doesn't mean creationism does have evidence, but it means you need to 'check' your comments about what you think you know.

---

Quote:

---

Its difficult not to make the connection between what we know for sure to be true because of science, and what they knew to be true through God.

Compare that to the ripoff of Jewish belief, Islam. The Quran says semen comes from the chest. This is what happens when someone is just pulling stuff out of their butt. They make incorrect assumptions, and they certainly won't consistently get scientific principles right thousands of years before we know for sure it really is right.

---

You should study the Quran and biology first before copy & pasting stuff from those pro-christian/anti-islamic pages.

They say this: '"Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted - Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:" S. 86:5-7'

Now where does it mention semen comming from the chest? The Quran simply states that man is created from the ejaculated fluid, which is emitted from within the abdomen. Infact semen consists of the secretions of several glands but only 5 per cent comes from the testicles, so they aren't as far off as you think, they are at least 95% right here .

(link)

Cheers

Quote:

---

1). There cannot be an infinite regress of events because then time would be infinite.
2). If time is infinite, we'll never exist because at any point infinitely past, we will still have an infinity to go before we exist.
3). Thus, the universe has a beginning.

Can we at least start here? Can you agree on these things?

---

Quote:

---

The oldest biblical text known is one from 60-70 years after christs dead, so off course this is no evidence whatsoever.

A prophecy in a text that's written after all those things supposedly happened is hardly a prophecy.

---

Quote:

---

Maybe, however based upon what can be seen (not just where I live), it's likely that there would be more stars than sand on the beach. And that's what this is about, not the exact amounts.

---

Quote:

---

and those Jews were mostly just shepherds with hardly any scientific knowledge.

---

Quote:

---

Archaeological records do not show any signs of larger organised groups of sedimentary populations in those periods, nor any records of any scientific knowledge, as opposed to the Greeks and Egyptians. So, infact it's more justified to ask YOU to come with your sources here instead.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, nightshifts maybe? Lol, okey just kidding.

---

Quote:

---

No, you are wrong here. There is no evidence, saying there might be evidence doesn't change this and has no value either. He didn't state there 'never will be evidence' unless I've missed something, so his comment was perfectly okey.

---

Quote:

---

You should study the Quran and biology first before copy & pasting stuff from those pro-christian/anti-islamic pages.

They say this: '"Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted - Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:" S. 86:5-7'

---

Quote:

---

According to your thinking, the number "0" can never exist because you had to go over infinite many negative numbers before reaching "0".

---

Quote:

---

I would agree that our current universe had a beginning. However thinking that this is the only universe and there is nothing else before or afterwards is not logical, but religious.

---

Quote:

---

I've already provided my sources, and Israel has never been a large nation. Many of these beliefs were not held by other nations, sometimes even America/Europe until further scientific investigation took place. So, most of this Greek stuff doesn't apply or matter. If the Greek's got something right, you would think we wouldn't need to relearn some of those things.

---

Quote:

---

Are you suggesting that since these things had to be relearned after the greko-roman era, they did not know them? Look up greek or roman science. Google it.

---

Quote:

---

The reason we had to relearn these things is quite simple. The rise of christianity combined with other factors destabilized the roman empire, most documents were thus destroyed. Next, the church's ascension after the decades of ensuing chaos allowed it to clamp down on scientific development (which would challenge it's assumptions) through limiting education and literacy to priests. This went on for centuries.

---

I looked up the fall of the roman empire and it appears stagnation had more to do with it than anything else. But that's an internet search, which I'm sure is no more reliable than whatever atheist christian-bashing site you got your information from.

In school, they focused more on the peak of Rome than its fall. But I'm sure they didn't attribute the fall of an entire empire to christianity, while ignoring all of the economical, political, environmental, social and etc. issues that apparently were overridden by christianity because its such a huge influence. You can't see it, but I'm rolling my eyes right now.

Quote:

---

Next, the church's ascension after the decades of ensuing chaos allowed it to clamp down on scientific development

---

Quote:

---

through limiting education and literacy to priests. This went on for centuries.

---

Quote:

---

Maybe you mean that the oldest copy of the texts is that old. I don't know that that's true, but the originals are much younger than Jesus.

---

Quote:

---

Both of your comments are wrong. Nobody can know all evidences. Its really not a major point here, I'm just criticizing these 'grand' claims you guys make. Either you know all evidences and you know there is no evidence of creation, or you don't and all you can say is that there is no known evidence of creation. Which is at least a legitimate claim because then you aren't ruling out any future evidence, or evidence that you don't know of, or ignore.

---

It's not about knowing all the evidences at all. It's about making claims that make sense.

Invisible or unknown evidence is no evidence. period. Considered the topic it's highly unlikely that there ever will be evidence about a creator, let alone creation. I don't think any 'future evidence finds' should limit our claims, because our claims are based upon what we KNOW NOW, not on what we don't know or might know later, you can't know if there will be any future evidence for sure either, so why bother following this reasoning?? I'm more or less a fan of relativism like you know, so I care less or at least different about 'truths'. Stating "there is no known evidence of creation" won't be of any more value, and is quite the same kind of statement-thing. Yes, it might seem more specific towards what we DO know, but when I'm using your reasoning, what's known to one person might not be known to others, so where does that leave us??

Quote:

---

So let's be more generous and say we can see 20 stars per centimeter squared. That's 2000 stars per meter squared. Which overall is 616,000 stars. Which is 0.0616% of 1 trillion

---

Quote:

---

He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4)

First off, sperm is hardly a drop. Anyone old enough to have 'discovered' himself knows this. Or those males who have had intercourse with a female would also know. A drop is a small quantity of liquid upon which gravity has caused to 'drop' towards the earth. Now, I'm not going to dispute the use of language, its really not important. But semen does not originate in the chest (how else would you describe between the backbone and the ribs?) That much is clear. There are no two ways around this. You can say that the testicles originate in the groin before descending, but they don't descend from between the ribs and the backbone.

---

When it falls down, it's drops, in theory only about a drop is required for a succes. This is more a language issue than something else by the way. 'Between the backbone and the ribs' is said, and yes I expected you to come with those arguments, however just to show you how silly your bible and most of it's socalled literal explanations are, maybe those words were methaphorical for 'from the inside of the body'? This is also how a lot of muslims who are less extrem explain the text.

Again, it's not stated from the chest, but from between the backbone and the ribs, it is a difference, kinda ...

"It says simply that man is created from the liquid that is ejaculated. During coitus that liquid springs from the abdomen (“between the ribcage and the spine”). The semen contains many things. Between 95 to 98% of it consists of fructose, prostaglandin hormones, metal and salt ions, lipids, steroid hormones, enzymes, basic amines, and amino acids. All those are produced from the glands located in abdomen."

Besides, this is what the dictionary says about it;

Quote:

---

The Exact Arabic words are just four: “Khuliqa minm Maain Daafiq”

Khuliqa = created ; Minm = from

Maain = liquid, fluid, juice, water ; Daafiq = anything that flows out, gushes out, pours out, wells out, sheds. (From the Hans Wehr Arabic to English Dictionary)

---

Quote:

---

I've already provided my sources, and Israel has never been a large nation. Many of these beliefs were not held by other nations, sometimes even America/Europe until further scientific investigation took place. So, most of this Greek stuff doesn't apply or matter. If the Greek's got something right, you would think we wouldn't need to relearn some of those things.

---

I guess it's because of stubborn people like you that knowledge get's lost and forgotten in the first place.

The fact that the Greek had certain knowledge doesn't mean suddenly the whole world had that knowledge, damn how shortsighted... And you'd be surprised how little actually has been 'relearned' by the people you are talking about, they were tribal sheppards, not engineers or math specialists or whatever. I don't say sheppards can't be clever, but it definately was no high civilization.

Quote:

---

Really, I've always found it quite curious that christianity is indefensible, but those who dislike, disagree with, or despise christianity rarely fail to defend Islam. I don't get the connection.

---

What exactly do you mean with this? Just because you fail to understand the Quran doesn't mean it's indefensible. You see, same pointless argument made that christianity always uses in it's defense.

Quote:

---

Exactly, when God and the bible are put in the hands of regular people, it reduces the abuse of the bible. God was never meant for the powerful few. That's a good point.

---

Quote:

---

That's a completely misrepresentative metaphor. Let's try it this way.

Subtract infinity from zero. Then from that number (whatever it would be), start counting up one number at a time, every second for eternity until you reach zero. How long will it take you? So in a sense, while zero exists, it can't be counted to sequentially from any number that is infinitely less than zero.

---

Quote:

---

In fact, you might then be able to answer a question for me that I haven't heard answered yet. QM theory states that because anything is possible at the atomic level, there's a universe for every possible outcome. But why? Just because anything is possible in our universe, doesn't mean that the other possibilities have occured.

---

Quote:

---

about 1000 years before jesus was born this method was used to punish slaves and people who did something "anti-religious".

---

Quote:

---

2.) even more important is the fact that jesus was just one jesus in a big row of them.

---

Quote:

---

here the problems of all prophets and martyrers start: with their death their ideas will die as well

jesus from nazareth though had the brilliant idea to come back from the dead and this made him way more popular then the other ones. allowing to establish a religion on his interpretation of the current religion.

---

Quote:

---

hope you dont take this personal. because its not ment that way. I think its ok to be religious i just dont like the idea that one HAS to eliminate or replace the other.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, that might be, but 70 years is a long time and you can't proof wether the originals were 'much younger than Jesus', this is a statement based upon pure faith and faith only. I was looking at what we do can tell for sure, more or less (besides, a copy of what? another copy? or a copy from the original?).

---

Quote:

---

It's not about knowing all the evidences at all. It's about making claims that make sense.

---

Quote:

---

Invisible or unknown evidence is no evidence. period. Considered the topic it's highly unlikely that there ever will be evidence about a creator, let alone creation.

---

Quote:

---

Again, it's not about exact amounts at all. The bible also stated 'more stars than sand on the beach', have any idea ho w many sand grains there are on the beach? Which beach? It doesn't say 'all beaches' and doesn't indicate how big the beach is. Eventhough our view is basically 2D when looking at the stars, we can distiquish a gradient and 3D-ish movement of stars when looking at the sky at different times. It's perfectly possible to estimate a enormous amount of stars to be out there by just looking at the sky. Infact the 'more stars than sand on the beach' statement is rather vague compared to what can really be seen!

---

Quote:

---

When it falls down, it's drops, in theory only about a drop is required for a succes. This is more a language issue than something else by the way.

---

Quote:

---

'Between the backbone and the ribs' is said, and yes I expected you to come with those arguments, however just to show you how silly your bible and most of it's socalled literal explanations are, maybe those words were methaphorical for 'from the inside of the body'?

---

Quote:

---

Besides, this is what the dictionary says about it;

---

Quote:

---

They have a similar construction of strategy to be able to defend against almost anything. JUST LIKE CHRISTIANITY HAS, and they are making the same kind of nonsense claims based upon some vague statements.

---

Quote:

---

What exactly do you mean with this? Just because you fail to understand the Quran doesn't mean it's indefensible. You see, same pointless argument made that christianity always uses in it's defense.

---

Quote:

---

How could you even know, you are not God. Oww wait, the bible must have said so, right? Now I only wonder why it said these specific things that really can't be known ... not that it would ring any bells for you though.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, I just wanted to point out how illogical your assumption was. You do not need to count up from minus infinity to reach zero.

---

Quote:

---

In the same way you do not need to wait an infinite amount of time for existing at the present moment, just as you do not weed to walk an infinite long distance for being at your present location. Yet, infinite numbers can exist as well as infinite time and infinite space. You can not reach a point in an infinite distance, but things can very well exist at that point.

I hope the difference is understandable.

---

I agree with the distance asessment, but not the time asessment. I guess it might be the way I visualize time. I see the 'present' as a point on a line. The only way the rest of the line even exists is if the present 'reaches' it. Give me some think on this, because this is an interesting way of looking at it.

Thanks for the other info too. I only skimmed over it now, but it should make an interesting read tomorrow.

Quote:

---

In this 'pre-universe' state, we have an infinite regress of causes, but we don't know the final outcome yet because we can't assume our universe a priori or the experiment is contaminated (as well as illogical).

---

Quote:

---

If each step progressively leads closer to the universe from a 'lower' event, then it will have acheived the universe an infinite amount of time ago. Which means our universe would be dead right now because it would have existed an infinity ago.

---

Quote:

---

Excuse me. What I should have said was that the writer of that particular book wouldn't have known about crucifixion as a means of execution. I hadn't looked up information on this that recently. But either way, the writer wouldn't have known.

Even if the writer did now, to predict that specific means of death when there's a multitude of ways to kill a person (perhaps more popular being stoning or beheading), is still pretty astonishing. Especially when you combine it with the multitude of other prophecies that were made about Jesus.

---

What do you mean the writer wouldn't know about this? It was a common thing to do, you can hardly miss a cross with a mourning person on it, now can ya... Anyways, yes, it might be a coincident that he predicted the 'right' way of execution, yet he could have meant another 'jesus' too.

Besides, I could predict that the weather will be exactly 35' degrees celcius tomorrow, if I turn out to be right, that still would mean exactly nothing ... There's no way to rule out chance in such a prediction. Well, I know you might believe in angels and the like, or maybe not, but at least in those predictions by these persons with a certain power to predict. What makes you so sure it's not purely chance? I think you will reply that there are so many predictions that according to you came true, that chance is unlikely, however unless you trully believe in magic so to speak, this 'lack of chance' can only mean they have been cheating it. It's like in a casino, if a guy get's a bit too lucky and wins too much, he becomes suspicious and they will observe and investigate it. Now explain to me why this doesn't or shouldn't apply to the biblical predictions ...

Quote:

---

You mean prophets? Yes, the most widely known one would be John 'the Baptist' who was beheaded during Jesus' lifetime. I don't see how that affects anything.

---

Quote:

---

In my opinion, if there really was a jesus like in the bible stated, then he most likely must have been a fraud to, we have no logical reason to believe a human to be able to perform the miracles claimed. Can't remember the name, but a very smart person once said: "There's no such thing as a 'super hero with special powers',yet it's one of mankinds most fascinating ideas to speculate about."

---

Quote:

---

But people are forgetting that there is no evidence anyone like Jesus actually existed.

---

How many times did you guys accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist. And here you go doing exactly what you chastised me for (not) doing.

There's so much going on here, that there's very little a lone person like me could do to handle these posts. But I'll do what I can anyway. As I'm sure you're all glad to hear.

Quote:

---

i am sorry but i dont think you got my points right.

the cross was the standard punishment method for slaves and low level criminals (stoning and beheading where absolutely not popular public punishments for the romans).

---

Quote:

---

all of this has happened years and years before jesus was born. a lot of prophets or messias where killed on the cross before him and a lot after him.

---

Quote:

---

predicting that he would die by the cross is like predicting today that somone who robbs a bank will get punished by arresting.

---

Quote:

---

the resurrection point is not somthing to argue about subernatural things or the bible its simply the observation that the only way to keep your "religion" alive

---

Quote:

---

(usualy religions die after the messias and his prophets died) is to make something subernatural that is big enough to leave a mark.

---

Quote:

---

knowing the standard punishment leaves only two options: not to die by the cross or to get resurrected. only these two icons will show the people that you are god sent.

---

Quote:

---

the scientific approach to this is not accepting that jesus is the son of god and to find evidence for that

---

Quote:

---

i am amazed what people like copperfield can do. and you will agree with me that he is probably not the son of god but a good magician.

---

Quote:

---

if you keep the same distance to the supernatural when talking about jesus as you would do when you think about david copperfield you can investigate how much of the written is true.

---

Quote:

---

keeping an emotional distance to the topic can help a lot

---

Quote:

---

i have heared a lot about predictions so far but either they are so vague that you can interprete god and the world into every sentence or they simply need to be bent so much to fit that they lose all context.

---

Quote:

---

and if we are sceptical with all the stories above, why cant we be as sceptical and questioning when it comes to religion.

---

Quote:

---

do we have to accept everything said or written just because its said or written?!

---

Quote:

---

the bottom line of religion is that you want to believe. for e variety of reasons and nothing said could change that.

---

Quote:

---

but again, not understanding something is not reason engough to say its supernatural.

---

Quote:

---

where did the universe come from? how did it come from nothing? what is "nothing"?

good questions, but because you fail to have an answer isnt profing god in any way.

---

Quote:

---

science needs proof and evidence to be true, religion needs believers to be true.

---

Quote:

---

we do not understand the terms infinite or nothing.

---

Quote:

---

the thing we dont understand is that mater needs mater to be created. its something we asolutely cant understand that maybe just a little "white" or "black" and the infinite ammount of time are enough to "create" something.

---

Quote:

---

because if the universe was created supernatural who created the time before that? and how can there be something if there is no time?
and if god can exist without time, how come that nothing else can?
did god created "white"?

---

Quote:

---

You're assuming that all events are preceded by a sequence of causes. This, however, is not the case in nature. We've already discussed this some weeks ago -> Bell's theorem.

Under the assumption of infinite time you can also safely assume that there are infinite many events (if there is an event at all). But you can not assume that all these events are necessarily connected by cause-effect relations.

---

Quote:

---

No. It would only mean that many (in fact infinite many) universes would be dead right now.

---

Quote:

---

Your thinking seems still restricted to the assumption that our universe, and/or our time, is in some way unique or privileged. However there is no logical reason to assume that.

---

Quote:

---

What do you mean the writer wouldn't know about this? It was a common thing to do, you can hardly miss a cross with a mourning person on it, now can ya... Anyways, yes, it might be a coincident that he predicted the 'right' way of execution, yet he could have meant another 'jesus' too.

---

Another Jesus with all of the other details correct? Including not just the death, but the birth and life? Read the link I posted above. That's just a small sampling of the prophecies.

Many of these prophecies were made in such a way that they wouldn't seem to predict anything, until they actually happened.

Quote:

---

Besides, I could predict that the weather will be exactly 35' degrees celcius tomorrow, if I turn out to be right, that still would mean exactly nothing

---

Quote:

---

but at least in those predictions by these persons with a certain power to predict. What makes you so sure it's not purely chance?

---

Quote:

---

I think you will reply that there are so many predictions that according to you came true, that chance is unlikely, however unless you trully believe in magic so to speak, this 'lack of chance' can only mean they have been cheating it.

---

Quote:

---

It's like in a casino, if a guy get's a bit too lucky and wins too much, he becomes suspicious and they will observe and investigate it. Now explain to me why this doesn't or shouldn't apply to the biblical predictions .

---

Quote:

---

Even today there are quite some 'prophet'-like people, claiming to be able to perform all sorts of holy miracle stuff, from talking to dead people's ghosts to healing others by performing some sort of ritual. Well, not one of them has been proven to be something other than a simple fraud, still large amounts of people believe them.

---

Quote:

---

In my opinion, if there really was a jesus like in the bible stated, then he most likely must have been a fraud to, we have no logical reason to believe a human to be able to perform the miracles claimed.

---

Quote:

---

Its not about going arround and fake people to believe. i think he knew exactly what the people wanted to hear/get/have at this period of time.

---

Quote:

---

during his time religion was more or less a work or law. you have to obey, obey, obey.

---

Quote:

---

But people are forgetting that there is no evidence anyone like Jesus actually existed.

---

Quote:

---

Based on His life, death, and evident existence. Its fair to say that it would be illogical to believe that people lied about His life, to gain absolutely nothing (except certain, gruesome death). It may not be 'scientific' to believe in miracles without evidence. But it certainly isn't logical to believe these miracles were simple parlor tricks.

---

Quote:

---

That's an ok metaphor, but it puts it in a negative light. Now let's imagine we come up with a theory of evolution, and it consistently makes predictions that come true. Do we go, "Hmm, let's be suspicious because its almost TOO true."? Perhaps not.

---

Quote:

---

His tricks aren't in any way similar to what Jesus did.

---

You'd be surprised at what exactly Copperfield can do. Anyways, before the exageration of the story it could very well have been very similar copperfield's 'magic', turning water into wine for example.

Cheers

Quote:

---

Based on His life, death, and evident existence. Its fair to say that it would be illogical to believe that people lied about His life, to gain absolutely nothing (except certain, gruesome death). It may not be 'scientific' to believe in miracles without evidence. But it certainly isn't logical to believe these miracles were simple parlor tricks.

---

Where logic and wishful thoughts collide ...

(Why would people NOT lie about him? Have any idea how much he actually gained ?)

Cheers

Quote:

---

No, eventhough skepticism is very good, basically that would be like seeing exactly how someone actually 'cheated'. Enough evidence to be able to state that it actually happened that way so to speak. So then it would be a bad methaphor indeed...

---

Quote:

---

Anyways, before the exageration of the story it could very well have been very similar copperfield's 'magic', turning water into wine for example.

---

Quote:

---

first of all i would say that thinking time is a line with a start and an end is wrong.

---

Quote:

---

maybe the question of the universe is wrong. maybe we shoulnt ask who created it but where.

---

Quote:

---

thats not the case. the typical jewish punishment was probably stoneing but political prisoners had to be handed over to the protector and as other political and religous prisoners only the roman administration was allowed to call the death penalty and the standard for religious motivated riots and actions was and continued to be the cross.
eversince the roman invasion (one or two days before jesus was executed) and with all political prisoners.

---

Quote:

---

dont you think that writing this passage in the most important scroll of the jews had some reason.
and dont you think that either the romans knew that, the jews and jesus who was raised "a little bit religious".

---

Quote:

---

the psalm also states things about swords and lions as well.
so either is all a metaphor or none of it.

---

Quote:

---

you think he knew that when he raised his voice againt the priests and held public hearings without the permission of the jewish leaders?!

---

Quote:

---

exactly! because his whole religion was(is) based on this.

---

Quote:

---

imagine some of those weirdo newwave religion leaders who take your money for a spaceship actually manages that some alien rocket would land on the earth and take you away.
man, i no time....hordes would follow like cattle.

---

Quote:

---

funny to see how you change your oppinion or the damand of evidence when you need it. i can remember sentences from you like "as long there is not 100% proof it cant be accepted as truth"

---

Quote:

---

anyway, you are comparing two different things here. while the whole atom theory answers things the whole jesus "theory" just opens more questions.

---

Quote:

---

While the atom theory allows me to build supernukes and ct scanners based on it i have to find workarrounds and accept the supernatural to make the jesus theory work.

---

Quote:

---

you are not understanding how martyrism works. take for example someone like bin laden as an example how a way of live can bind and fascinate people to do whatever you say.

---

Quote:

---

(and now i dont wanna hear any "how can you compare jesus with bin laden" bullshit)

---

Quote:

---

jesus on the other hand got rid of this with the simple slogan: "read my lips! no more taxes!"
pretty smart and you are right. absolutely nothing the average citizen liked and exactly what the religous crowed wanted to have

---

Quote:

---

a personal note: i dont get the point why jesus has to be the son of god

---

Quote:

---

Where logic and wishful thoughts collide ...

(Why would people NOT lie about him? Have any idea how much he actually gained ?)

---

Quote:

---

But turning water into wine really isn't that important. How about a bigger one like healing a blind man that everyone knew had been blind his whole life? That's not a copperfield-style trick

---

Quote:

---

I don't find it useful dwelling on theories that either have no 'proof' or solve absolutely nothing.

---

Quote:

---

Then why bother about Jesus at all?

---

Quote:

---

the general problem when talking about prophecies from written books starts when people ignore the fact that the ones who killed jesus read that stuff as well.

---

Quote:

---

the entire texts of such books are not more then presumption and guessing. If bent enough or you accept enough things the texts can fit to something you need.

---

Quote:

---

if jesus wouldnt have been nailed to the cross the interpretation of the phrase "pierced my hand and feet" would be something like "they tried to stop me from doing gods work and spreading it arround the believers". simply because pierced hand stand for the unability to continue to work and the feet wouldnt allow you to go arround.
Either by real punishment, an assassination attack or the unability to move or do by some sort of arrest or the fact that his followers quit and so on and so forth.

---

Quote:

---

allowing room for everything, interpreting the happened to the texts and puttin all of this on hear-saying and the fact that most of this was written by religious motivated people later on is not a good basement for a fact.

---

Quote:

---

for example the koran also mentions the story of jesus and his death. in their version he doesnt rais from the dead.

---

Quote:

---

And one more thing i totaly disagree with you is the fact that jesus is a must for a true believer.
because this is not what religion is all about.

---

What does this mean?


So this Sai Baba guy or whatever had some christ-like claims. Which, if anything, gives Jesus more credibility. Everything is beginning to happen exactly as He said it would.

I don't base my faith in Jesus on His miracles, by the by.

Quote:

---

But turning water into wine really isn't that important. How about a bigger one like healing a blind man that everyone knew had been blind his whole life? That's not a copperfield-style trick, you'd have to claim that its a lie.

If copperfield came and healed my cousin who has been deaf her whole life, I would be truly stumped as to how he could fake that.

---

Quote:

---

By this reasoning I can prove the koran wrong. How? Because the bible says otherwise. But this, like your statement, just begs the question. Contradicting beliefs aren't very good proof.

---

Quote:

---

I'm only stating that it's possible to trick people like this, I'm not saying it must have happened this way, there's no way in knowing this.

---

Quote:

---

That's also a reason why any text about 'history' can be very questionable. It's also not any different when it comes to the bible, so basically this argument is valid. Yes, contradicting beliefs are not good proof, they proof nothing, however extra caution of taking everything for granted would be in place nevertheless.

---

Quote:

---

Really, most people aren't converted to Christianity once they're convinced the bible is 100% accurate. I suppose atheists could call this a psychological 'glitch' in the human mind, but we base our belief off of a personal 'revelation' of God which is typically brought on by reading the bible.

---

Mmmm, if there is such a glitch then I would be really surprised about it. I think it's more like, people usually don't get convinced of christianity simply by reading the bible.

I don't believe in these personal 'revelations' either, a person can decide what's right for example, without feeling enlightened or something or 'touched by the devine'. You might see what I mean, 'personal revelation' is kinda vague and pretty much solely based upon emotion, what kind of 'proof' or reason to believe is that?

You'd be surprised to know how much bad things happen just as we act out of pure emotions ... ow and then I'm not even talking about hate,

Cheers