1:1 In the beginning God created the heaves and the earth.

Originally posted by adam warlock
I happen to think that morality and God are mutually exclusive if you present the Biblical God, so I won't be arguing with you. The thing is that deciding on the non existence of God because of the Big Bang isn't doing any justice to rational inquiry.

Who says I want to avoid the fight? There you go making assumptions about me. Even today I got on a ...[text shortened]... reationists mouths: once again I totally agree with you. They're bizarre and very dangerous.

===================================
I happen to think that morality and God are mutually exclusive if you present the Biblical God, so I won't be arguing with you.
===================================

Who then would you submit, from human history, exhibited a higher degree of morality than Jesus Christ ? Albert Einstien perhaps ? They poor man could not even be faithful to his first wife.

==================================
The thing is that deciding on the non existence of God because of the Big Bang isn't doing any justice to rational inquiry. ... I just happen to disagree with the idea that Big Bang implies the non existence of God.
==================================

I agree with you Adam. Not only does any Big Bang not indicate no Creator of the Cosmos, but even if Evolution is true, I think it definitely reveals Intelligent Design anyway.

What a Program, this Evolution, if it is so. Any program of that kind of ability surely requires an intelligent programmer to have designed it.

=============================
You used a very similar argument from one I've see from Hitchens but that argument is just a non sequitur wrapped with wishful thinking.

As for the nonsense that comes out of creationists mouths: once again I totally agree with you. They're bizarre and very dangerous.
===================================

That's Media hype. They are not all bizarre and very dangerous. Neither are non-creationists all very dangerous and bizarre.

That's Media hype to spoon feed you on propoganda that the Boogy Man is a Creationist.

Where's your skepticism ??

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===================================
I happen to think that morality and God are mutually exclusive if you present the Biblical God, so I won't be arguing with you.
===================================

Who then would you submit, from human history, exhibited a higher degree of morality than Jesus Christ ? Albert Einstien perhaps ? The ...[text shortened]... ed you on propoganda that the Boogy Man is a Creationist.

Where's your skepticism ??[/b]

Who then would you submit, from human history, exhibited a higher degree of morality than Jesus Christ ?

Gandhi or Dr Martin Luther King?

Also, a significant portion of Jesus life is unknown. He was born, vanished for thirty years or so and then reappeared and was then dead a few years later. I think it would be a little presumptious to stand him on a pedestal when so little is known about his life. He could have got up to anything in those 'missing' thirty years!!

Originally posted by jaywill
Who then would you submit, from human history, exhibited a higher degree of morality than Jesus Christ ?

Sophie Scholl, Oscar Romero, Christoph Probst, Hans Scholl, Rosa Luxemburg, Aristides Sousa Mendes, Bakunin (maybe an overstatement).

All of them infinitely better than Jesus in my eyes. I have a very deep admiration for Sophie Scholl and Oscar Romero. Those two should be on top of anyone's list if they even start to think about morality and ethics.

As for Jesus Christ: He said he spoke in parables in order to people to go Hell, he condoned the genocide of the Canaanites and the Amekelites, he rejoiced with the thought of people going to Hell, he condoned the stoning of disobedient children... Hardly a moral figure in my book...

Originally posted by adam warlock
Sophie Scholl, Oscar Romero, Christoph Probst, Hans Scholl, Rosa Luxemburg, Aristides Sousa Mendes, Bakunin (maybe an overstatement).

All of them infinitely better than Jesus in my eyes. I have a very deep admiration for Sophie Scholl and Oscar Romero. Those two should be on top of anyone's list if they even start to think about morality and ethics. ...[text shortened]... to Hell, he condoned the stoning of disobedient children... Hardly a moral figure in my book...

=====================================
Sophie Scholl, Oscar Romero, Christoph Probst, Hans Scholl, Rosa Luxemburg, Aristides Sousa Mendes, Bakunin (maybe an overstatement).
=======================================

I would like to see what these find people would say about themselves. They may be very good. But if I asked them if they were superior in morality to Jesus Christ, what would they say ?

Ghandi and MLK did not suggest that they came close to the level of Jesus though they both admired and learned something from Jesus.

I think to say the God of the Bible and morality were mutually exclusive was your vastly overstatement.

Why was not history in the Western world divided by a line Before and during - Sophie Scholl or Oscar Romero ? Why was not history segmented to before Christoph Probst, or Hans Scholl and "in the year of" Probst or Scholl?

But western civilization divided history to Before Christ and In the Year of Our Lord. Do you think the impact of these candidates on the human race was stonger than Christ ?

They may indeed have been good. But Jesus was not just good. Jesus was glorious. Jesus Christ was gloriously good.

Oscar Romero and Sophie Scholl may be good. But are they splindidly good, radiantly good, gloriously outshining all other human beings who have walked the planet ?


=============================
, Rosa Luxemburg, Aristides Sousa Mendes, Bakunin
===============================

Thankyou for these candidates. You strike my interest in who some of them were. But they do not seem to be like the 800 pound Gorilla in the living room of human history. Jesus Christ is very difficult to miss or ignore. One has to DEAL with His claims. Either you have to believe Him or you have to energize your intellectual forces to prove to yourself He is not to be taken seriously, so as can be seen on this Forum.

============================
All of them infinitely better than Jesus in my eyes. I have a very deep admiration for Sophie Scholl and Oscar Romero. Those two should be on top of anyone's list if they even start to think about morality and ethics.
===============================

I'll look into them. I will especially try to notice what they themselves would say about Jesus. I wonder if either of them presumed to be able to have Jesus Christ as thier pupil.

Thanks

==============================
As for Jesus Christ: He said he spoke in parables in order to people to go Hell, he condoned the genocide of the Canaanites and the Amekelites, he rejoiced with the thought of people going to Hell, he condoned the stoning of disobedient children... Hardly a moral figure in my book...
=============================

I'll take up this challenge in another post. I question its validity.

Originally posted by finnegan
Nonsense. The Biblical account includes countless statements about the way the World was created and how things developed from there. Apart from the creation, the popular one which is often argued is about Noah, the Flood, the "dispersion" and that is used to support all sort of stuff. So the Bible makes statements about this physical universe in which we ...[text shortened]... ving their bible questioned. There is only one truth and you own it. Well - I will not serve.

Well Finnegan, I'm not comfortable arguing on the side of the theists, but I have to go with them on this point. Personally, I very much doubt that our universe is anything other than some zany cosmic accident, and our development similar, however this is by no means certain. There are many theories as to how the 'Big Bang' came about (if indeed this is how it all started - also unproven), and there is not sufficient evidence to discount any one of them, including that of a moment of creation by some all-powerful superbeing. Understand I'm not in any way arguing for the biblical god - to me that's just a bunch of fables and stories, some well-intentioned, some not so, but the work of man just the same. I just don't see sufficient evidence to altogether discount the possibility of some kind of god.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=====================================
Sophie Scholl, Oscar Romero, Christoph Probst, Hans Scholl, Rosa Luxemburg, Aristides Sousa Mendes, Bakunin (maybe an overstatement).
=======================================

I would like to see what these find people would say about themselves. They may be very good. But if I asked them if they were ...[text shortened]... =============[/b]

I'll take up this challenge in another post. I question its validity.[/b]

Except for Bakunin and Rosa Luxemburg all of them were Christians and said their actions were driven by their Christian conscience.

I don't know if Sophie Scholl or Oscar Romero were the best to ever walk the Earth, but they certainly were better than Jesus. 😉

Apart from these people I also greatly admire Malalai Joya and all the Afghan people that stands behind her and risk their lives for the prospect of a better tomorrow. I'd take lesson from Malalai any day of the week before I'd even start to think about learning something from Christ.
He clearly had some good stuff to him, but if one is to take the Biblical account seriously at all times, then he wasn't the sacrosanct, uber goodytwoshoes we are lead to believe.
He didn't bring no substantially new message for the world (except from the concept of Hell), and his actions certainly weren't a novelty at his time either.
Laozi, Buddha, Confucius all are before Christ and basically came up with the same message.

I don't think I have to give you quotes on Jesus being delighted with eternal suffering in Hell for some souls, but if you want I can provide the quotes for all the other situations. Then you can tell what you think.

Originally posted by jaywill

======================
If there is, kindly point it out. Hence, the proposition that God made the World fails to predict correctly what we observe in our universe. By contrast, the laws of physics have been incredibly successful and as such merit our support.
===========================

I think you should visit the lectures of Dr. Hugh Ross on ...[text shortened]... he universe.

Check it out, why don't you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkpzLg0R29g[/b]

OK I have watched the lecture you recommended. I might look at more but I will comment on what I heard.

Hugh Ross is a physicist I know and in the talk refers to his "twenty year project" called "Reasons to Believe." So I also know that he is working to push a particular view: he has a project and is not neutral. That's ok - people can do that if they are upfront about what they are doing. It does mean we have to take his known views into account when he claims to evaluate evidence.

He points out in this talk that "bad science" is not acceptable in education and he explicitly says that much bad science has been promoted in support of creationism. He disapproves of that. Good man.

By the same token (and as a physicist) he presumably knows what good science looks like and would wish to conform to the very high standards of good science.

He relies heavily late in this talk on some material in a 1970 paper by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose. This argues that classical Relativity Theory would lead us to conclude of the Big Bang that it represents a beginning of time, and that no time can exist prior to that moment. Hugh Ross says this supports what the bible says - that time was created by God at the point of creation. Indeed Hugh Ross celebrates this confirmation for his reading of the bible.

Hugh Ross does not mention that both Hawking and Penrose have since refuted their own conclusion because Classical Relativity breaks down in the initial moment (the Planck time) and thus has nothing whatever to say. They were wrong and they openly say as much. Instead we turn to Quantum Physics, not relativity. This leads to - or opens up - new possibilities.

I am open to the possibility that Hugh Ross will notice this important change in a later talk but in the one I watched, he made use of the 1970 article to score important debating points when he knows perfectly well that no serious scientist would rely on a refuted paper, especially when the refutation comes from and is openly explained by the authors of that article.

Ross also (I did not hear him say this but it is the nature of his argument) seems to hold with an old Islamic argument to this effect: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause 2. The universe began to exist 3. Therefore the universe has a cause. However, we know very well - and Hugh Ross does as a physicist committed to good science - that in Quantum Mechanics (which is directly relevant to the Big Bang and is the best scientific model to study this) stuff happens without a cause.

He can't have his cake and eat it. He can't pick and choose bits of good science that suit and omit to mention matters that directly undermine his argument. Well he can, since he patently does, but I am not going to be persuaded by such methods.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Well Finnegan, I'm not comfortable arguing on the side of the theists, but I have to go with them on this point. Personally, I very much doubt that our universe is anything other than some zany cosmic accident, and our development similar, however this is by no means certain. There are many theories as to how the 'Big Bang' came about (if indeed th ...[text shortened]... don't see sufficient evidence to altogether discount the possibility of some kind of god.

But that is the whole point!!!! The whole point is to debate the biblical God. You may feel unable to discount "some kind of god" but we are not debating some kind of god, we are debating the biblical kind of God and that is certainly the view of my opponents here.

Originally posted by finnegan
But that is the whole point!!!! The whole point is to debate the biblical God. You may feel unable to discount "some kind of god" but we are not debating some kind of god, we are debating the biblical kind of God and that is certainly the view of my opponents here.

Really? Oh well, my bad - in that case it's a crock.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Holy cow, it's hard to believe what comes out of the mouth of the God naysayers, innit?

One smallish catch to your better alternative. Physics refers to the natural universe. When we view the natural universe and work backward, we have determined that there was a moment from which the entire thing emanated. Prior to that moment, nothing. The laws of physics apply to the natural universe. They certainly do not apply to nothing.

The laws of physics do indeed apply to nothing. They frequently describe properties of nothing. They make important statements about nothing. I have encountered many discussions in books about physics and about mathematics and while I freely acknowledge I lack the special education and training to make a criticism of this material - let alone to properly describe it all - the fact is that nothing is a very real and live topic of discussion and investigation in physics and in mathematics.

To give one example only, in 1918 the mathematician Emmy Noether proved that the most important physical laws of all - conservation of energy, linear momentum and angular momentum - will automatically appear in any model that does not single out a special moment in time, position in space and direction in space. They would work if the universe appeared from an initial state in which there was nothing. What is more I think I can give you a link to the paper if you want (it is a lot to type out).

Edit - the link seems to be out of date for the article - probably a relief. Wikipedia does cover this work but I think this is a distraction beyond making the point I have made. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Really? Oh well, my bad - in that case it's a crock.

We always hurt the ones we love. (Oscar Wilde - the Ballad of Reading Gaol). Some do it with a sword. Some do it with a word.

😳

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Holy cow, it's hard to believe what comes out of the mouth of the God naysayers, innit?

Accusatory and defamatory, Christians get branded as anti-science, anti-thought, anti-reason, anti-freedom--- in complete rejection of the historical record, as though no one will call you on it. Well, you've been called. The overwhelming majority of the founding f say otherwise. Of course, you will do everything you can to dismiss them and their views, .

Now that you refer to the founding fathers of the US, quite accurately, I think it is easiest to remind you what I said to you in an earlier debate in answer to the same claim. You will concede that I do not hold the views that you allege. You wrote:

Is your opinion of anyone who voluntarily takes the name 'Christian' so diminished that your default position is one of contempt toward their intellect? If so, can you out-of-hand dismiss the plethora of examples of highly regarded Christian thinkers throughout history?..."

I replied:

Well for more than a thousand years many highly intelligent people thought Aristotle the last word on natural philosophy. I do not think they were stupid or even foolish - they were just wrong. Ditto for Ptolomy's cosmology and Galin's medicine. I have two choices, I can dismiss them out of hand (and that is a perfectly justified position - after all they were wrong) or I can regard them with fascination as people who did their best and laid the foundations without which we would not have arrived at modern thought at all. Human knowledge including science proceeds by disproving what has gone before and replacing poor theories with better ones. I do not believe that we can arrive at wisdom in one perfect step. Isaac Newton was an alchemist. Pythagoras was a mystic. The market for astronomy and related developments in mathematics was almost exclusively to support astrology, and Copernicus was initially accepted not for any theory he produced (that was ignored for a long time) but because he offered a better way to calculate the positions of planets and stars for astrological predictions. Oh it's silly to mock early thinkers for their lack of modern techniques and theories. As Newton said, he could only see so far because he stood on the shoulders of giants.

So you will concede that I do not hold anachronistic attitudes towards people who lived in earlier times. What I do have great trouble with is people in this day and age who seek to revert back to an ignorant past and willfully confuse other people trying to make sense of their world now.

The point about fundamentalisms - true of certain Jews and Muslims as for evangelical Christians and be clear I DO NOT say ALL Jews, ALL Muslims, nor ALL Christians - is that they are not really recovering a historical truth, but fostering a very modern, intolerant and damaging innovation.

Originally posted by finnegan
The laws of physics do indeed apply to nothing. They frequently describe properties of nothing. They make important statements about nothing. I have encountered many discussions in books about physics and about mathematics and while I freely acknowledge I lack the special education and training to make a criticism of this material - let alone to properly de ...[text shortened]... straction beyond making the point I have made. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

I've been reading the link provided and I'm not yet convinced that you've summarized it correctly or that it applies to the subject matter at hand.

Originally posted by finnegan
Now that you refer to the founding fathers of the US, quite accurately, I think it is easiest to remind you what I said to you in an earlier debate in answer to the same claim. You will concede that I do not hold the views that you allege. You wrote:

Is your opinion of anyone who voluntarily takes the name 'Christian' so diminished that your defa ering a historical truth, but fostering a very modern, intolerant and damaging innovation.

Christianity is nothing, if not tolerant. We're all here, right?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I've been reading the link provided and I'm not yet convinced that you've summarized it correctly or that it applies to the subject matter at hand.

I did not summarise the link all. I got into providing a link to confirm that the guy exists. But I am no mathematician and no physicist and to me it is Greek. Admit you are the the same. There is a real problem that both you and I have to make sense of claims that are outside our own expertise. Even my alleged arrogance has boundaries.

Nevertheless, what I was responding to was your claim that the laws of physics do not apply to nothing - and without having to understand the physics of nothing (which would certainly sell millions of copies if I understood them and could communicate them, as evidenced by books about Zero and Infinity) what matters to me and to the debate was that the laws of physics apply.