Creation Answer Book

Originally posted by Penguin
[b]Nicksten has apparently missed seeing this post of yours. So let me
answer you by saying that the the Muslims, like anyone else, can claim
whatever they wish. However, they can NOT CORRECTLY claim that
Allah, the god of the Koran or Quran is the Creator God, since that
title belongs only to the God of the Holy Bible.

Nicksten seems to disagre ...[text shortened]... he Bible. You have no more claim to the truth than the Muslims.

--- Penguin.[/b]

It rather looks like you are not understanding me. I have tried to be clear but it is obvious that there is a huge misunderstanding of what I said...You are going around in circles and starting to make no sense at. Maybe me too - not blaming anyone.

Every religion can answer the 3 questions you've given and they will ALL be the same answers I have given. Well at least i assume 99%.

To us (All religions except the FSM) we believe we are right on our answers. Can you proof me wrong? No no need to cause it is logic for a person to stand fully behind in what he/she firmly believes in.

To me as a Christian, I believe they are all wrong by choosing their god, as I only believe the God of Christianity is the one true God. And this I believe to be absolutely true.

If after this there is more misunderstanding, tough!

Originally posted by lausey
Before you get condescending and claim I am uneducated. I have been pointed to thousands of sources which claim to collaborate the bible. All of which were dubious and easy to refute.

I assume you tried reasoning the Bible and all the sources scientifically?

Originally posted by lausey
I am talking over many years, and thousands is reasonable. More often than not, they are circular arguments themselves. For example, an event described in the bible, then "evidence" is looked for which happen to fit, which in turn is said to "prove" the bible. I have just come across the arguments so many times and there hasn't been a single one which I haven ...[text shortened]... ble as true, and I will have an alternative explanation which wouldn't be supernatural.

I guess you are one point down already by me just calling one name : universe.
Many atheist and some few evolutionists believe that it is possible that there could have been a creator of the universe, a physical being.

Originally posted by Nicksten
I guess you are one point down already by me just calling one name : universe.
Many atheist and some few evolutionists believe that it is possible that there could have been a creator of the universe, a physical being.

Now you are arguing semantics. Just because it is called "universe", doesn't mean there has to be one. Hence why they are often called "multiverses". It is only called "universe" because that is the only one we can observe.

I am an agnostic atheist. I never did rule out the possibility that there is a creator (albeit extremely small). Although the possibility of any specific creator as defined by the world religions is infinitely smaller.

I would agree that a gnostic atheist (i.e. someone who says there is definitely no god of any kind) is also a ludicrous view.

My arguments are against a specific creator (i.e. one defined by the bible in this case, which I will class as much validity as Allah).

Originally posted by Nicksten
I assume you tried reasoning the Bible and all the sources scientifically?

Yes.

Originally posted by lausey
I am talking over many years, and thousands is reasonable. More often than not, they are circular arguments themselves. For example, an event described in the bible, then "evidence" is looked for which happen to fit, which in turn is said to "prove" the bible. I have just come across the arguments so many times and there hasn't been a single one which I haven ...[text shortened]... ble as true, and I will have an alternative explanation which wouldn't be supernatural.

Yep, fair enough.

Originally posted by Nicksten
It rather looks like you are not understanding me. I have tried to be clear but it is obvious that there is a huge misunderstanding of what I said...You are going around in circles and starting to make no sense at. Maybe me too - not blaming anyone.

Every religion can answer the 3 questions you've given and they will ALL be the same answers I have given. ...[text shortened]... this I believe to be absolutely true.

If after this there is more misunderstanding, tough!

Ah, ok, that makes more sense.

So you say that anyone who fervently believes in a religion with a creation story will give the same answers to those 3 questions, merely substituting their own deity and sacred text. If so, then I agree with you, there is nothing contentious in that.

You also seem to be saying that all these people of different religions are equally justified in their beliefs. If so, then again I agree with you.

However, I also maintain that there is actually a correct answer to those 3 questions, irrespective of anyone's fervent beliefs, that actually does correspond to real events that really happened. I think you also agree with this, and that you believe that your 3 answers are the correct ones. And that likewise the followers of other religions also believe their answers to be the correct ones.

So the question is "how do we find out whose answers really are the correct ones?". Everyone believes their answers to be the correct ones but which answers really are? You can't just say "my answers because I believe them and my sacred text says so" because everyone else will say the same thing. We have to have something outside of our personal faith and our sacred text.

Without some objective evidence to support your particular belief and text you have to accept the same value for your answers as you ascribe to the Muslim's answers or the Hindu's or the Sikh's.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Nicksten
It rather looks like you are not understanding me. I have tried to be clear but it is obvious that there is a huge misunderstanding of what I said...You are going around in circles and starting to make no sense at. Maybe me too - not blaming anyone.

Every religion can answer the 3 questions you've given and they will ALL be the same answers I have given. ...[text shortened]... this I believe to be absolutely true.

If after this there is more misunderstanding, tough!

Sorry to add a 2nd reply to the same post but I thought this deserved a response. You said:

To us (All religions except the FSM) we believe we are right on our answers. Can you proof me wrong? No no need to cause it is logic for a person to stand fully behind in what he/she firmly believes in.

Yes everyone believes they have the right answer. But there can actually only be one true right answer and that answer is right whether anyone believes it or not.

Can I prove you wrong? No. Neither can you or I prove the Muslim or the Sikh wrong. And that is the problem with supernatural explanations for things: not only can they not be proven right, but they can't even be proven wrong! If evolution were wrong then it would be easy to prove it wrong, since it make predictions: it predicts that no dog will ever naturally give birth to a cat. So one way to prove it wrong would be to show a dog giving birth to a cat.

Can you think of any such prediction made by your religion? Something simple like "there will be fewer Christian criminals that non-Christian ones" or "No Christians will die of AIDS". Something that, if shown false, would persuade you that your religion was wrong?

If there are no such tests then you have no logical justification for asserting that your religion is right.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
Sorry to add a 2nd reply to the same post but I thought this deserved a response. You said:

[b]To us (All religions except the FSM) we believe we are right on our answers. Can you proof me wrong? No no need to cause it is logic for a person to stand fully behind in what he/she firmly believes in.

Yes everyone believes they have the right answer. B ...[text shortened]... ou have no logical justification for asserting that your religion is right.

--- Penguin.[/b]

I was watching a lecture at one of the skepticons last year [the other week ;-) ]
and one of the speakers (who works on the singularity project) was talking about a
conversation he had had with a theist regarding artificial intelligence and this theist said
that it was impossible for them to create artificial sentience as sentience required a soul
and that only beings created by god had souls (or something similar) and the speaker
responded by saying "so, If I build a sentient AI I just disproved your religion?"....

Religions make no predictions for two reasons.

first, god is supposed to be beyond comprehension and can do anything thus no explanation
that says 'god did it' has any predictive power because you have no idea why or how god did
it and if god will ever do it the same again.

Second, any prediction made by religion is a test of that religions validity, and theists hate tests.
At least fair and unbiased ones that show their religion to be a load of crock.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I was watching a lecture at one of the skepticons last year [the other week ;-) ]
and one of the speakers (who works on the singularity project) was talking about a
conversation he had had with a theist regarding artificial intelligence and this theist said
that it was impossible for them to create artificial sentience as sentience required a soul ...[text shortened]... hate tests.
At least fair and unbiased ones that show their religion to be a load of crock.

To you is sentience just the ability to experience pleasure and pain or does
it go beyond this definition?

Originally posted by Penguin
Sorry to add a 2nd reply to the same post but I thought this deserved a response. You said:

[b]To us (All religions except the FSM) we believe we are right on our answers. Can you proof me wrong? No no need to cause it is logic for a person to stand fully behind in what he/she firmly believes in.

Yes everyone believes they have the right answer. B ...[text shortened]... ou have no logical justification for asserting that your religion is right.

--- Penguin.[/b]

If Babylon is rebuilt like Saddam Hussein tried to do and people
make their homes and live there again, I would believe that proves
the Bible prophecy concerning Babylon wrong.

Originally posted by Penguin
Ah, ok, that makes more sense.

So you say that anyone who fervently believes in a religion with a creation story will give the same answers to those 3 questions, merely substituting their own deity and sacred text. If so, then I agree with you, there is nothing contentious in that.

You also seem to be saying that all these people of different religions ...[text shortened]... rs as you ascribe to the Muslim's answers or the Hindu's or the Sikh's.

--- Penguin.

Yes you are right in all of this. And it will be difficult to proof that the answers I am giving on behalf of Christianity are the correct ones, even though i believe them to be. And even if everyone believed in a God it too would be difficult to proof which God as there are many.

There is no other religion that matches that of Christianity and plus the Bible offers eternal live after death with the Creator whom has created all of this. I am taking my chances and living according to the Biblical laws - and by following these rules and laws will only make me an those following it a better person I believe. None of the laws within the Bible are ridiculous to not follow, and once you get to know what God actually stands for (which is love) you have got nothing to loose.

People have said this many times and allow me to say it again: I'd rather take my chances believing in God to find out He doesn't exist than to live life without God and die finding out He does exist.

This is how we should be living here on earth - to be an evangelist for Christ but yet we rather fight to those that has wondered off. It is hard for us all but the end of our lives will finally answer our questions - but who can we tell 🙂

Originally posted by googlefudge
I was watching a lecture at one of the skepticons last year [the other week ;-) ]
and one of the speakers (who works on the singularity project) was talking about a
conversation he had had with a theist regarding artificial intelligence and this theist said
that it was impossible for them to create artificial sentience as sentience required a soul ...[text shortened]... hate tests.
At least fair and unbiased ones that show their religion to be a load of crock.

I am prepared to take reasonable tests....................well I am waiting 🙂

Originally posted by Nicksten
I am prepared to take reasonable tests....................well I am waiting 🙂

It's your religion, not mine.

It's not up to me to tell you what your religion predicts about the world that might be tested.

Originally posted by RJHinds
To you is sentience just the ability to experience pleasure and pain or does
it go beyond this definition?

Sentience is a really tricky concept, and is a concept from a field in which I am not expert,
so I am not going to try to define it.

However it is far more complex than simply experiencing pleasure or pain.
And includes such things as self awareness, abilities of abstract thought and reasoning,
as well as ability to experience the world...

The wiki page has some stuff on it, but is not definitive.

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

For the purposes here I am talking about a Strong AI which has human (or greater) levels of
intellect and reasoning abilities.