Originally posted by Bosse de NageYes, I would much rather be dominated by a small clan of Amazonian fitties in crocodile bikini's than The Church anyday. Let's put the girls back in charge, instead of all feeling guilty about are own sexuality all the time we can just feel guilty about not taking out the trash.... And anniversaries would be like Christmas, and nobody forgets Christmas!............
Mad, bad, and dangerous to know...You've hit on an important critique of monotheism--it's out of balance with the feminine.
Originally posted by TomPMaybe the definition of God, rather than the argument for the existece of God, is what ye Christian scholars out there seek?
Could there be scientific truth in Religion re-interpreted?
Evangelists and neocons tend not to believe in evolution or the big bang, they believe that God created the earth just after the historically well documented Agricultural Revolution. It is also well documented that the Virgin Mary appeared as a latter addition to the Bible so that the central st ...[text shortened]... o form. These kinds of ideas are dangerous, kids, just look at the American Dream...............
I didn’t really make this thread just for the “Christians scholars” but for everybody. I think it’s interesting to debate how God could or could not exist based on what we presently know (though I typically argue for his existence). That’s an interesting point you brought up though. Knowing the scripture or other peoples description of God is of little use really. I’ve always maintained that God needs to be experienced. Do you think that God can be defined in terms of human words and logic?
Since Christian philosophers have Monotheised previously Polytheistic pragmatic science, maybe a Christian God should be defined as the ultimate abstraction from pragmatic reality.
Actually, Hinduism is currently believed to be the world’s oldest religion and they worship one God that is expressed in many different ways.
i.e. An ideal with no form. These kinds of ideas are dangerous, kids, just look at the American Dream...............
Religion is dangerous. Of that most people can agree.
1 edit
Originally posted by TomPMaybe the definition of God, rather than the argument for the existece of God, is what ye Christian scholars out there seek?
Could there be scientific truth in Religion re-interpreted?
Evangelists and neocons tend not to believe in evolution or the big bang, they believe that God created the earth just after the historically well documented Agricultural Revolution. It is also well documented that the Virgin Mary appeared as a latter addition to the Bible so that the central st o form. These kinds of ideas are dangerous, kids, just look at the American Dream...............
I didn’t really make this thread just for the “Christians scholars” but for everybody. I think it’s interesting to debate how God could or could not exist based on what we currently know (though I typically argue for his existence). That’s an interesting point you brought up though. Knowing the scripture or other peoples description of God is of little use really. I’ve always maintained that God needs to be experienced. Do you think that God can be defined in terms of human words and logic?
Since Christian philosophers have Monotheised previously Polytheistic pragmatic science, maybe a Christian God should be defined as the ultimate abstraction from pragmatic reality.
Actually, Hinduism is believed to be the world’s oldest religion, and they worship one God that is expressed in many different ways.
i.e. An ideal with no form. These kinds of ideas are dangerous, kids, just look at the American Dream...............
Religion is dangerous, of that most people can agree.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressUh…sorry about that. Must have hit the post button twice by mistake. 😳
[b]Maybe the definition of God, rather than the argument for the existece of God, is what ye Christian scholars out there seek?
I didn’t really make this thread just for the “Christians scholars” but for everybody. I think it’s interesting to debate how God could or could not exist based on what we currently know (though I typically argue fo ...[text shortened]... t the American Dream...............[/b]
Religion is dangerous, of that most people can agree.[/b]
Basically there must be a first cause of everything, something must be eternal, this is standard logic.
Either:
a) matter is eternal
this cannot be as, by standard logic, anything which is eternal is not affected by time and therefore cannot be destroyed but we know matter can be destroyed.
b) matter came into being by itself (big bang theory) this is absurd, it is obvious to anyone that nothing can come into existance by itself.
c) matter was created by an immatterial being (commonly known as God). This is the only remaining logical option.
1 edit
Originally posted by princeoforange"Basically there must be a first cause of everything, something must be eternal, this is standard logic."
Basically there must be a first cause of everything, something must be eternal, this is standard logic.
Either:
a) matter is eternal
this cannot be as, by standard logic, anything which is eternal is not affected by time and therefore cannot be destroyed but we know matter can be destroyed.
b) matter came into being by itself (big bang theory) thi ...[text shortened]... ted by an immatterial being (commonly known as God). This is the only remaining logical option.
Why? [edit; you have to define your terms better. time only exists within this universe - therefore, the universe HAS existed forever. There couldn't be anything before it because there was no time for anything to be.]
"matter is eternal
this cannot be as, by standard logic, anything which is eternal is not affected by time and therefore cannot be destroyed but we know matter can be destroyed."
You'e obviously never heard of either the theory of relativity of the law of conservation of energy. (first law of thermodynamics)
"matter came into being by itself (big bang theory) this is absurd, it is obvious to anyone that nothing can come into existance by itself."
It's also 'obvious' that the world doesn't move through space, or the wind would be blowing all the time. Many things are obvious - doesn't mean they are correct.
"matter was created by an immatterial being (commonly known as God). This is the only remaining logical option."
So, what created god then? If god can exist forever, so can matter. Or the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER. The big bang is every bit as logical as god, and more provable.
I'd suggest you go out and take a degree course in physics, then come back to this argument.
Originally posted by princeoforangeShame the Kalam argument proves nothing. It is three unlinked unprovable assumptions.
Basically there must be a first cause of everything, something must be eternal, this is standard logic.
Either:
a) matter is eternal
this cannot be as, by standard logic, anything which is eternal is not affected by time and therefore cannot be destroyed but we know matter can be destroyed.
b) matter came into being by itself (big bang theory) thi ...[text shortened]... ted by an immatterial being (commonly known as God). This is the only remaining logical option.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnztime only exists within this universe - therefore, the universe HAS existed forever. There couldn't be anything before it because there was no time for anything to be.
"Basically there must be a first cause of everything, something must be eternal, this is standard logic."
Why? [edit; you have to define your terms better. time only exists within this universe - therefore, the universe HAS existed forever. There couldn't be anything before it because there was no time for anything to be.]
"matter is eternal
t you go out and take a degree course in physics, then come back to this argument.
Best simple statement of this I have ever seen (being a lowly lay-person). Rec’d.
What struck me—though I know this is not your “meat” Scotty—since I’ve been playing in the wilderness of Hebrew tonight, is that the Hebrew word olam, generally translated as universe, explicitly refers to both space and time. Also, the first verse of Genesis can be very accurately translated as: “With beginning, God made the heavens and the earth.” What was before that? Nothing—there was no “before.”
As a side note, in Jewish mystical theology, there “was” no “God” in the theistic sense either—there “was” ein sof, the “without end.” Now, since I am not a supernatural theist, I read all this allegorically, symbolically and metaphorically. In the Jewish mystical text ha Zohar, that first Genesis verse is rendered (taking the Hebrew word order with literal exactness): “With beginning ____________ created God (or gods, elohim), the heavens and the earth.” The blank stands for the nameless, ineffable ein sof, the metaphysical ground of being from which all emanates (creation in the Zohar is really emanation or manifestation, like the emptiness-and-form metaphysics of Buddhism).
Originally posted by vistesdMore proof that the Bible can be read in such a way as to fit any given set of facts or lies. Whenever a long held Christian belief, which has in the past been upheld by statements from the Bible, is shown to be false, the Bible is immediately reread, retranslated and shown to actually say something else. Luckily every hebrew word has multiple meanings and every sentence could be allegoricall, symbolical or metaphorical, but never ever wrong!
I read all this allegorically, symbolically and metaphorically.
The basic flaw in all this logic is that the english translation does not say that at all. If there were mistakes in the translation then why is it suddenly assumed that the hebrew version is 100% accurate and never had mistakes when copied over and over through generations. Much of it actually being traditions passed down verbally. If God kept it accurate all that time why did he leave off when it came to translation to english and other languages ?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead(1) I am not a Christian, so don’t have any Christian beliefs to defend.
More proof that the Bible can be read in such a way as to fit any given set of facts or lies. Whenever a long held Christian belief, which has in the past been upheld by statements from the Bible, is shown to be false, the Bible is immediately reread, retranslated and shown to actually say something else. Luckily every hebrew word has multiple meanings an ...[text shortened]... all that time why did he leave off when it came to translation to english and other languages ?
(2) I am not a “supernatural theist,” so don’t have any need to defend the theistic God.
(3) I am not a “creationist;” I let the scientists deal with things like cosmology and evolution—I have never used any of the texts from any of the religious traditions to critique or counter science.
(4) “Allegorical, symbolic and metaphorical?” Absolutely. Literalistic/historicistic readings are historically late in the game. These are stories, myths and poetry. Might as well rail against Tolkein. (I don’t claim divine authorship for these stories, either.)
“Never, ever wrong?” Since I am not a fundamentalist/literalist, I don’t know what that means. What I can say is this: I don’t think saying “God” and quoting scripture absolves anyone of anything—that is, if murder is wrong, it’s wrong. Again, I don’t subscribe to divine authorship; I don’t subscribe to notions of scriptural inerrancy.
(5) 100% accurate? I’m not sure what you’re getting at. If you mean something like: “This is the one right way to read this,” then all I can say is that, with the Hebrew, that is impossible. The language doesn’t allow it— translators’ best notwithstanding. Since I don’t claim divine authorship for these texts, I can hardly claim divine maintenance or whatever.
I enjoy wrestling with the mythologies and the original language. “Religiously,” I am in the Zen camp, but there is a stream of that as well in Judaism and other traditions—it’s called the “perennial philosophy.” I'm undoubtedly a heretic in any tradition. I don’t believe in the supernatural.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressThe issue with your theory is that you take key points to support your theory and throw everything else out the window.
The scientists and skeptics on this site have tried to use science to show that there is no God, but can science actually show that there is a God?
1. Can science show that there was a so called beginning?
Most of us are willing to accept that we exist, but the question is were we deliberately created, or are we a chance accident? Atheists ar ...[text shortened]... gent creator. The anthropic principle is one of the ways that science has tried to justify this.
You neglect to mention the things (anything made of matter or energy) that produce hydrogen to resupply.
The multiverse is essentially a living, breathing organism of its own. I wonder - did you ever notice the similarity between an atom and a solar system and a galaxy and what they describe the universe to be?
Originally posted by KnightWulfeFor shame, KW! Haven't you heard there are no patterns, not even the slightest indication of design anywhere in the un-poetic universe? Get with the latest scientific theories, please.
The issue with your theory is that you take key points to support your theory and throw everything else out the window.
You neglect to mention the things (anything made of matter or energy) that produce hydrogen to resupply.
The multiverse is essentially a living, breathing organism of its own. I wonder - did you ever notice the similarity between an atom and a solar system and a galaxy and what they describe the universe to be?
