7 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou take the words from a book written by men to be the word of God (without proof)
You take the words from a book written by men to be the word of God (without proof)
Subjected to as many tests of discipline as are available to us at any given point in time--- up to and including the present--- and yet it remains standing.
you haven't seen God
And that's a problem: why? You haven't seen Gerald Ford, yet you were pretty c . But then what would folks such as yourself do with all that free time on your hands?[/b]
Subjected to as many tests of discipline as are available to us at any given point in time--- up to and including the present--- and yet it remains standing.
Subjected to tests of discipline by the people who believe it is true...it doesn't stand for the people who believe the Qu-ran is the word of God...It doesn't stand to those like myself.
you haven't seen God
And that's a problem: why? You haven't seen Gerald Ford, yet you were pretty certain of his existence. Now that he's gone, how would you go about proving he ever existed?
Gerald Ford is not a portrayed to be a supreme being capable of creating & defying natural laws. Nor is it true that Gerald Ford always has and always will exist. The difference isn't subtle.
you haven't seen people walk on water
Jesus' walking on water was not for my benefit. It was for the benefit of those who were alive during the first advent. Those who exist prior to the second advent have different tests of faith, one of which you and I are discussing now.
I see nothing here (and seen, felt, or heard, smelt, or tasted anything prior to this discussion) that pursuades me to have faith.
what we know about physics suggests that this is impossible
Absolutely right: 'what we know about physics' being key, of course. Given our increasing development in the field, I wouldn't be surprised to have His mastery over the physical world eventually explained. If not, we can always ask Him later. You are a believer, I assume?
No I am not a believer and I do not hold to the idea that we can ask him later because my belief is that there is no God...secondly you still have not provided any counter-examples that shake up even the most simple logical inferences we draw from our experience of the physical world that would justify the *claim* that Jesus walked on water...the challenge is still open.
all the creatures of the world fitting into an ark would require a very *very* big ark
Asked, asked and asked again; answered, answered and answered again.
But not answered very well...(Noah managed to fit all the dinosaurs inside there as well?!?)
the legacy of which no-one has found (very suspicious that!)
Not all that curious, really. In fact, I would be surprised to see it ever discovered, given how long ago that ark settled on the mountains in Ararat. However, should it ever be found, it would only be as relevant for the generation which found it as the miracles were for the generation of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Legacy left behind need not just be the ark (though it is still curious to me that no-one can find it), but the area in which it was first constructed and the methods employed to build it...Sorry I made a mistake, did God just click his fingers and make the ark build itself out of magic wood high up in the sky and then set down this collosal vessel after it's completion?
An alternate fallacy is belief that some of you made a mistake
There is always that possibility. But then what would folks such as yourself do with all that free time on your hands?
Find other things to debate about.
Originally posted by AgergIt doesn't stand to those like myself.
[You take the words from a book written by men to be the word of God (without proof)
Subjected to as many tests of discipline as are available to us at any given point in time--- up to and including the present--- and yet it remains standing.
Subjected to tests of discipline by the people who believe it is true...it doesn't stand for the people ...[text shortened]... do with all that free time on your hands?[/b]
Find other things to debate about.[/b]
I suggest to take a closer look at the standards you employ. While I certainly don't call into question your intellectual integrity, I seriously doubt that you have an objective standard by which you gauge the histrocity of any given event and/or person.
Gerald Ford is not a portrayed to be a supreme being capable of creating & defying natural laws that always has and always will exist. The difference isn't subtle.
What is attributed to God is not relevant in the response to your complaint that God has not been seen.
I see nothing here (and seen, felt, or heard, smelt, or tasted anything prior to this discussion) that pursuades me to have faith.
Wish there was someone to blame for that. I guess it just comes down to one simple fact: you were not predestined to share in His glory.
counter-examples that shake up even the most simple logical inferences we draw from our experience of the physical world that would justify the *claim* that Jesus walked on water...the challenge is still open.
Apparently experience has not taught you that we don't know everything about anything. Apparently you naively assume that we currently hold all information about all things. Some are not so naive. Some have faith.
But not answered very well.
And we dance funny, too.
but the area in which it was first constructed and the methods employed to build it
Lost me there. What legacy are you referring to here?
Find other things to debate about.
And until then, you will debate about the most important thing that comes to your mind: God.
Originally posted by dottewellWe think humans could run on water for a few steps if they had feet the size of snowshoes or open umbrellas," McMahon answers.
Not if he had massive flat, webbed feet, like a duck.
I'd be interested to know if the Bible rules this out.
A human water-walker would have to raise his or her umbrella shoes up to their ears, like the J.C. lizard does, to get the required slap speed. Then they would need to furl their feet and pull them out of the air cavity in about a quarter of a second.
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1996/04.04/BiologistsDisco.html
đ
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellAnother possibility would be that he was standing on the shoulders of someone breathing through a reed. The popularity of snorkelling in Israel may be partly attributable to its resonance with this primitive messianic breathing apparatus.
Not if he had massive flat, webbed feet, like a duck.
I'd be interested to know if the Bible rules this out.
Edit--I don't see that trickery along these lines would detract from the lesson. Rather it would have encouraged the disciples to think outside the boat.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageTrue. But to be honest, were I the son of god, I think I'd probably have given this particular miracle a miss. It has the whiff of Siegfried & Roy about it (sans tigers).
Another possibility would be that he was standing on the shoulders of someone breathing through a reed. The popularity of snorkelling in Israel may be partly attributable to its resonance with this primitive messianic breathing apparatus.
Edit--I don't see that trickery along these lines would detract from the lesson. Rather it would have encouraged the disciples to think outside the boat.
Originally posted by dottewellJust thinking aloud--
True. But to be honest, were I the son of god, I think I'd probably have given this particular miracle a miss. It has the whiff of Siegfried & Roy about it (sans tigers).
Assume Jesus, unlike Chesney Hawkes, didn't think he was the one and only Son of God, but had attained the status of a prophet (no mean feat). And he was looking for ways to jolt people's minds into reality, then known as God. And he came up with various ways of doing this. Later on, when he was being turned into God, the stories acquired that legendary patina that makes them a little unbelievable. The po-faced editors would have left out bits like "and the apostles saw he was standing in two inches of water and laughed out loud, realising what nincompoops they were".
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI suggest to take a closer look at the standards you employ. While I certainly don't call into question your intellectual integrity, I seriously doubt that you have an objective standard by which you gauge the histrocity of any given event and/or person.
It doesn't stand to those like myself.
I suggest to take a closer look at the standards you employ. While I certainly don't call into question your intellectual integrity, I seriously doubt that you have an objective standard by which you gauge the histrocity of any given event and/or person.
Gerald Ford is not a portrayed to be a supreme being And until then, you will debate about the most important thing that comes to your mind: God.
Perhaps you are correct to doubt my objectivity, I am honest enough to say that I think the Bible is mostly a collection of fables that you and others have taken as real (though I won't argue that Jesus didn't exist, I hold that he was not the son of God, more just a person with exaggerated tales told about him.)...I would be intrigued by tangible evidence however...I have seen nothing of the sort.
The question of objectivity also applies to you and other Christians as well. Infact I would say that this is more so because you have much to lose by discovering that is in fact false, thus you will always contrive some way to resolve that which is questionable to yourself and other theists...again, what about those who think that the Qu-ran is the book of truth and the Bible isn't?
What is attributed to God is not relevant in the response to your complaint that God has not been seen.
Well firstly, whether or not I can prove that Gerald Ford existed or not isn't exactly relevant to my initial question but you asked so as to evade the issue. Secondly my counter-response is very relevant because if your god does exist then he has the means to show it...Gerald Ford does not.
Wish there was someone to blame for that. I guess it just comes down to one simple fact: you were not predestined to share in His glory.
From this I can infer that your god is a bit of a meanie, and has decided that some of his creations get to be in his gang whilst others don't.
Apparently experience has not taught you that we don't know everything about anything. Apparently you naively assume that we currently hold all information about all things. Some are not so naive. Some have faith.
It isn't necessary that we know all things (nor do I hold that we do...as you know), that humans cannot walk on water is a logical deduction based on what we do know to be true. (of course, there exists the possibility that the countless billions of occasions that *much* (being careful with my words) of what we know has proved to be accurate may be just one *very* big coincidence, thus rendering what we know to be entirely wrong)...As I said feel free to provide us with a counter-example.
Lost me there. What legacy are you referring to here?
Was alluding to the fact that the size of the ark must have been colossal, (he got 2 of every animal in there?...did he fit the dinosaurs in there too?) and the resourses/ structures used in order to build it must surely be a legacy yet to be discovered...though I don't doubt for a second that you can produce some convenient answer that requires *faith*.
And until then, you will debate about the most important thing that comes to your mind: God.
No...not most important, and secondly, not necessarily "God".
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergI would say that this is more so because [theists] have much to lose by discovering that is in fact false...
[b]I suggest to take a closer look at the standards you employ. While I certainly don't call into question your intellectual integrity, I seriously doubt that you have an objective standard by which you gauge the histrocity of any given event and/or person.
Perhaps you are correct to doubt my objectivity, I am honest enough to say that I think the Bibl your mind: God.[/b]
No...not most important, and secondly, not necessarily "God".[/b]
I've never seen a reverse of Pascal's Wager and I somehow think there might be a reason for it. Allow me to put it on an even keel:
If theism turns out to be wrong, then the theist would have spent a relatively short and ultimately meaningless life falsely thinking that they had meaning and purpose -- the problem is that this would not be any different to non-theists who in the greater scheme of things have led equally worthless, meaningless and short lives, and knew that they were such.
The converse of this is where it gets a little tricky for you: if theism turns out to be true...
3 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseI've never seen a reverse of Pascal's Wager and I somehow think there might be a reason for it. Allow me to put it on an even keel:
I would say that this is more so because [theists] have much to lose by discovering that is in fact false...
I've never seen a reverse of Pascal's Wager and I somehow think there might be a reason for it. Allow me to put it on an even keel:
If theism turns out to be wrong, then the theist would have spent a relatively short and ultimately meaningl ...[text shortened]... ew[/i] that they were such.
The converse of this is where it gets a little tricky for you.[/b]
If theism turns out to be wrong, then the theist would have spent a relatively short and ultimately meaningless life falsely thinking that they had meaning and purpose -- the problem is that this would not be any different to non-theists who in the greater scheme of things have led equally worthless, meaningless and short lives, and knew that they were such.
The converse of this is where it gets a little tricky for you.
Not necessarily, I certainly don't think my existence is meaningless without a god...I like existing, certainly more than I like the idea of not existing...I also get some enjoyment out of these little skirmishes.
Also if in the grand scheme of things the converse actually *was* true then on the day of reckoning I'd have grounds to ask why I was created (by him) with a mindset to be skeptical, coupled with the fact that no tangible evidence that could even raise just a tiny bit of doubt of my conviction has been offered.
2 edits
Originally posted by Agerg[/b][/b]Not necessarily, I certainly don't think my existence is meaningless without a god...
[b]I've never seen a reverse of Pascal's Wager and I somehow think there might be a reason for it. Allow me to put it on an even keel:
If theism turns out to be wrong, then the theist would have spent a relatively short and ultimately meaningless life falsely thinking that they had meaning and purpose -- the problem is that this would not be any different t upled with the fact that no tangible evidence that could sway even my mind has been offered.
...ultimately meaningless. You die; the universe eventually implodes; boo-hoo-hoo. The equation will always = 0.
Also if in the grand scheme of things the converse actually *was* true then on the day of reckoning I'd have grounds to ask why I was created (by him) with a mindset to be skeptical, coupled with the fact that no tangible evidence that could sway even my mind has been offered.
The question could be asked whether you are an honest skeptic -- one who would accept a proposition given sufficient evidence. This of course further begs the question: what would you consider as "sufficient evidence"? Are you so married to your own skepticism and intellectual independence that anything would convince you? Why should you not be skeptical of the veracity of your own “mind”?
I certainly don't think my existence is meaningless without a god...
On a complete tangent: what is meaning but a momentary illusion -- an accidental connecting of purposeless synapses in the brain?
1 edit
Originally posted by Agerg[/b][/b]...no tangible evidence that could even raise just a tiny bit of doubt of my conviction has been offered.
[b]I've never seen a reverse of Pascal's Wager and I somehow think there might be a reason for it. Allow me to put it on an even keel:
If theism turns out to be wrong, then the theist would have spent a relatively short and ultimately meaningless life falsely thinking that they had meaning and purpose -- the problem is that this would not be any different t e evidence that could even raise just a tiny bit of doubt of my conviction has been offered.
What is your conviction?
Originally posted by HalitoseGo for Pantheism; you're part of the ultimate Unity and will some day return to it. It lacks the egotism of Christianity (where YOU get to exist forever more or less in this form) but it does provide an ultimate meaning (as much as Christianity, at any rate).
[/b]Not necessarily, I certainly don't think my existence is meaningless without a god...
...ultimately meaningless. You die; the universe eventually implodes; boo-hoo-hoo. The equation will always = 0.
Also if in the grand scheme of things the converse actually *was* true then on the day of reckoning I'd have grounds to ask why I ...[text shortened]... but a momentary illusion -- an accidental connecting of purposeless synapses in the brain?
7 edits
Originally posted by Halitose...ultimately meaningless. You die; the universe eventually implodes; boo-hoo-hoo. The equation will always = 0.
[/b]Not necessarily, I certainly don't think my existence is meaningless without a god...
...ultimately meaningless. You die; the universe eventually implodes; boo-hoo-hoo. The equation will always = 0.
Also if in the grand scheme of things the converse actually *was* true then on the day of reckoning I'd have grounds to ask why I but a momentary illusion -- an accidental connecting of purposeless synapses in the brain?
But that proposition I accept to be true...I have resigned myself to the fact that I shall one day expire...wish I didn't have to but one day I shall. I am certain that I won't be bothered what happens to the universe afterwards...From your perspective however, finding out that you will not achieve eternal happiness in the loving embrace of God up in heaven; and will in fact just cease to be upon death would be far more harrowing I espect.
The question could be asked whether you are an honest skeptic -- one who would accept a proposition given sufficient evidence. This of course further begs the question: what would you consider as "sufficient evidence"? Are you so married to your own skepticism and intellectual independence that anything would convince you? Why should you not be skeptical of the veracity of your own “mind”?
If a proposition was presented to me where no other explanation for it could be found, having no hope of such an explanation being found, and that the proposition itself did not raise contradictions (the question: where did the universe come from is no such proposition btw for despite my lack of an explanation, the one offered by theists yields a contradiction...who created god? who created the place where he was when he created the universe?) then I may be inclined to give it some thought and respect.
God doing something like making me able to walk on water...or making it so I can fly (without planes etc...), or even just strutting about warping the world and defying natural law for us all to see would be pretty compelling.
On a complete tangent: what is meaning but a momentary illusion -- an accidental connecting of purposeless synapses in the brain?
now where did I put that thinking cap?...
Originally posted by AgergBut that proposition I accept to be true...I have resigned myself to the fact that I shall one day expire...wish I didn't have to but one day I shall. I am certain that I won't be bothered what happens to the universe afterwards...From your perspective however, finding out that you will not achieve eternal happiness in the loving embrace of God up in heaven; and will in fact just cease to be upon death would be far more harrowing I espect.
[b]...ultimately meaningless. You die; the universe eventually implodes; boo-hoo-hoo. The equation will always = 0.
But that proposition I accept to be true...I have resigned myself to the fact that I shall one day expire...wish I didn't have to but one day I shall. I am certain that I won't be bothered what happens to the universe afterwards...F ...[text shortened]... f purposeless synapses in the brain?[/b]
now where did I put that thinking cap?...[/b]
Uh... The theist will have spent a life of bliss, possibly (and often) happier than the non-theist; then when dead, the theist would of course be too dead to realise the incorrectness of his/her belief, while the non-theist would be too dead to even gloat -- there'd be no "I told you so".
If a proposition was presented to me where no other explanation for it could be found, having no hope of such an explanation being found, and that the proposition itself did not raise contradictions (the question: where did the universe come from is no such proposition God doing something like making me able to walk on water...or making it so I can fly (without planes etc...), or even just strutting about warping the world and defying natural law for us all to see would be pretty compelling.
I apologise in advance if this turns out to be a rant, but this is a matter I feel passionately about due to the nature of the dialogue in this forum.
By the criteria you gave for finding a proposition compelling, how do you hold anything to be true?! Your position is frankly absurd. I surmise that you are strongly non-atheistic if not atheistic, yet by your epistemological methodology, you should be nihilistic and not believe in anything!
You seem to be what I would call a "dishonest skeptic"; one who holds to his skepticism for intellectual (and often moral) expediency -- not out of an honest pursuit of truth -- often taking the intellectual higher-ground without realising how porous it often really is.
btw for despite my lack of an explanation, the one offered by theists yields a contradiction...who created god? who created the place where he was when he created the universe?) then I may be inclined to give it some thought and respect.
Uh... you seem to have misunderstood the theistic arguments from causality -- only created phenomenon need a cause. God is by definition necessary and therefore uncreated. You may reject this definition of God, but then it is not due to the theist having posed a contradiction, but by your prejudice or inability to accept the concept of a necessary (in the philosophical sense) being.