Jump to content
IGNORED

Can science go forward...


Isaiah 6:8

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  171
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  4,813
  • Content Per Day:  0.64
  • Reputation:   150
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  09/26/2003
  • Status:  Offline

But it's not from the hurricane that we are being protected when we worship. It's from his adversary who wants to steal, kill and destroy. Again, from the opinion of the believer would you take our word for it that worship is actually for our advantage?

As far as I can remember, it's not going to be Satan who will judge and cast us into Hell, but God. What do you think it says about God's omnipotence if Satan is able to cast us into Hell willy-nilly without God's nod of approval? Not a very flattering picture, I imagine, which of course is not allowed by the Christian ideology. Even if it were Satan casting us into Hell (which it isn't), it stands to reason that he's doing it only with God's permission.

Actually, I think it will be the saints who will judge the sinners. Hell originally was created for satan and the demons and satan has an influence here on earth. Hell is complete separation from God. You seem to be constantly dismissing God as arrogant while constantly forgetting that he has an evil adversary. God said "it is my will that NO MAN should perish". God wants to keep us from hell. So much so that he sent his son to die for us and live amongst us, enduring torture pain etc. You call this God arrogant? You can continue to choose to see God as arrogant, but that is your choice, and it seems the free will part is what you don't like.

Humans seem to be prone to worship. We see grown men yelling screaming, waving flags or whatever, dressed up with makeup and worshipping their favourite football team. We see young girls having idols that sing. They write fan letters, have posters, attending every concert screaming or crying their eyes out. Worship is part of our make up, which again, makes us very different from animals.

Really?

Yes, do you not agree we humans are prone to worship?

"Let everything that has breath praise the LORD." - Psalm 150:6

Not sure why this is here.

"Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying: "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!"" - Revelation 5:13

Again, not sure why you've included this. Is it because the Bible speaks of praise? I did address praise and worship in another thread. From the point of the believer, can you at least try to understand that this is what we like to do? Just as football fans like to praise their favorite team?

If we merely want to be protected from the hurricane, we can decide to just believe the captain exists, on our deathbeds.

For some reason, I highly doubt that such a shenanigan would work with an allegedly omniscient God who knows our every thought and intent before we even form them.

God is looking for sincerity. If we are sincere, like the thief crucified with Christ, we are saved. It doesn't matter what you think. You can't pretend to have mind like God's in order to be able to understand.

I'll start over and forget the analogy for a moment. If a supernatural God exists and created the world and everything in it, can science prove this or is science limited?

I can see you're also beginning to realize that presenting analogies apparently isn't quite working in your favor.

No, that's not it at all. I just for now need you to see that science cannot disprove or prove God. In the analogy, you keep saying the ship has been proven not to exist. I need you to see that science cannot prove that God, heaven and hell don't exist because they are in the supernatural realm - a place where science cannot go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  171
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  4,813
  • Content Per Day:  0.64
  • Reputation:   150
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  09/26/2003
  • Status:  Offline

But you're right that science is limited. Science is limited to what is useful. Science is not able to prove nonsense, for example. But with that said, science would be able to detect signs that the world was indeed created by the Christian God since the world and everything in it is not supernatural. We'd be able to prove, for instance, that the world is indeed only ~7000 years old, that the Earth is older than the sun and moon and stars, that life appeared spontaneously over a period of six days instead of evolving over hundreds of millions of years, our genetic variance would indicate that we and all other species were descended from only one male-female pair only a few thousand years ago, and various other such claims. As it is, not only do we find zero evidence for these claims, we find credible and consistent evidence from almost every field of science agreeing that they are dead wrong.

And there are certainly scientists today who can prove all of this. Maybe the analogy should state that there are are scientists who have studied the natural world only in the viewpoint of Fred, for years and years. However, some of those scientists, even with that kind of background, still favour the claims of Paul. That would be fair, right?

I am baffled that anyone who can liken the belief to a fairy tale, can debate for hours on the existance and spend so much time trying to prove it wrong. Actually, I am not really baffled. From my position, God is still calling you and that is why people choose to continue to fight against it.

Assuming your logic is valid, you must feel a very strong call yourself from agnosticism and atheism!

Atheism and agnosticism are not spiritual and have no spiritual entities that love me and gently try to persuade me.

And back to the bigger picture, can you still call Paul, or the captain arrogant?

I can, and I've already explained why. Theists are arrogant according to the very same reasoning with which you argue that atheists are arrogant. Post #158 sums up my argument, I believe.

artsylady, on 26 December 2011 - 07:52 AM, said:

I find them to be very different. Let's get a brand new analogy for you. You start a new job. You are bored due to lack of work and decide to check your personal email. Your boss gets angry and fires you because of it. So you start a new job. Your boss tells you ahead of time that using personal email on company time is grounds for firing. Do you see the difference?

Actually, yes, I do. My boss isn't in the business of universal love and salvation. He's not even in the business of charity. He's in the business of making a profit, and I'm going to get fired if he thinks I'm not conducive towards that end goal. There's actually nothing illogical at all with an all-powerful God banishing us to Hell for all of eternity for not worshiping him. Like your boss analogy, it makes a lot of sense and a lot of people have no problem understanding the concept, even if they might not agree with it. It's when theists claim that God is kind and loving as well that they trap themselves in an embarrassing paradox, which they then try to extricate themselves from using special pleading, gross double standards, invalid analogies, and/or plain old nonsense.

You missed the point entirely. Again, you tried to change my analogy to say that after you decide not to accept Paul's offer, you then find out that a hurricane awaits. In reality, we know that hell or heaven awaits. The consequenses and not a surprise and have been told to us before hand.

artsylady, on 26 December 2011 - 07:52 AM, said:

Well, if you can tell me how you can prove that heaven or hell cannot possibly be true, you might have a point here.

The point is that a lot of Paul's claims have been shown to be false. Dubious of his remaining claims, you ask him if he can actually show solid proof of the existence of the ship and captain so as to trump Fred's evidence and dispel your doubts, and that's when Paul calls you arrogant and demands that you ignore the evidence.

Here you go again. "Paul calls you arrogant and demands that you ignore the evidence?" Where does this even come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  171
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  4,813
  • Content Per Day:  0.64
  • Reputation:   150
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  09/26/2003
  • Status:  Offline

I will change the original analogy due to points made from our discussion. Here you go. New additions in bold.

Let's say you grew up on a desert island with limited food. You had to work to gather food, water and firewood, but you survived. There are others with you on the island.

One day, a man named Paul rows up on a boat and greets you. He tells you a bit about the history of your island and how it was created. He tells you that if you leave the island, he will row you out to a magnificent huge cruise ship. On that ship there is an unlimited food supply of sumptuous appetizers, delectable entrées, and a tempting array of desserts, prepared by top chefs and available around the clock. He tells you there is a captain. You will most likely want to worship the captain because he has done all of this for you and it will benefit you emotionally. There are beautiful clothes to don, fabulous social activities with many wonderful and exciting people. On the ship, you don't have to lift a finger if you don't want to. Gone are the days of hard toil. You can simply relax or you can engage in some of the ship's many fun activities. He also sends you a warning that very soon, the island you are on will be completely destroyed by a hurricane - The cause of the hurrican is unknown. But Paul says it will happen.Paul then allows you time to think about his offer and rows back out to sea and out of sight. He tells you that his motivation for all of this - his visit, his message etc is that he loves you and doesn't want to see harm come to you.

The next day another man, Fred, rows up to the shore and greets you. Fred tells you that Paul is a liar. He tells you a different way in which the island was created. He tells you that no cruise ship exists and that there is no hurricane that is about to destroy your island.

Now you are very confused and unsure of what to do, undoubtedly. You have two completely different people telling you completely opposite stories that will affect your life. You start asking scientists who are on the island who were all educated their entire lives in a belief that would favour Fred's rendition. However, even though they were all educated formally this way, there are some who see that Paul's explanation fits the evidence better. Their numbers are much smaller by comparison but they are adamant Paul's story is more conclusive. Neither can prove or disprove the story of the cruise ship because they have no way to leave the island to find out, and it seems the ocean out there is a very big place.

Now.. do you decide to reject Paul as the liar because you feel he has given you no choice? Or do you decide to not believe Paul because you believe him to be arrogant? Do you dimills Paul as the liar because you don't like the consequenses he has presented for the future of your island?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  171
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  4,813
  • Content Per Day:  0.64
  • Reputation:   150
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  09/26/2003
  • Status:  Offline

If Paul created the hurricane then he's an evil man isn't he?

The hurricane is actually symbolic of a human death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  171
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  4,813
  • Content Per Day:  0.64
  • Reputation:   150
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  09/26/2003
  • Status:  Offline

I'm not sure about philosophy, but if I had to make a guess, I'd say chimpanzees have it too to some degree given that they are among the few species that are self-aware.

Pardon? That's quite a garguantan guess. You think chimps sit around wondering if there is a god, why we're here, what happens to them when they die? Please tell me why do you think this?

It sounds like you don't put much value on the intelligence, communication, speech, reasoning, philosophizing that separates humans from other mammals as well as the spiritual aspect of humans. Am I getting this correctly?

This question seems to have gotten missed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  171
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  4,813
  • Content Per Day:  0.64
  • Reputation:   150
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  09/26/2003
  • Status:  Offline

Another point missed was this.

What would you expect from a person born in a Muslim country, raised by a Muslim family, indoctrinated in Muslim schools and mosques to hold as a belief system as an adult?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  200
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   5
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/11/2011
  • Status:  Offline

Actually, I think it will be the saints who will judge the sinners. Hell originally was created for satan and the demons and satan has an influence here on earth. Hell is complete separation from God. You seem to be constantly dismissing God as arrogant while constantly forgetting that he has an evil adversary. God said "it is my will that NO MAN should perish". God wants to keep us from hell. So much so that he sent his son to die for us and live amongst us, enduring torture pain etc. You call this God arrogant? You can continue to choose to see God as arrogant, but that is your choice, and it seems the free will part is what you don't like.

Given how theists constantly claim that non-believers will go to Hell anyway, it seems to me that we are faced with two possibilities: either the theists are wrong, or - for a supposedly all-powerful supreme being - God's will apparently doesn't count for much.

Keep in mind that I'm not calling God arrogant. You and nebula have labeled non-believers as arrogant simply for the "crime" of disagreeing with you and having the temerity to voice it out, except that the basis for your judgment turns out to apply just as much on your own selves, making you just as arrogant as, if not more than, you claim we are. Besides, are you certain you want to make the argument that God enduring torture and pain proves that He's not arrogant? Here we have a supposedly infinite, transcendental, omnipotent creator of the universe, yet being crucified on a wooden stake created by a primitive species on a tiny planet in some obscure corner of the universe is somehow a big deal for Him? Really?

Not sure why this is here.

Again, not sure why you've included this. Is it because the Bible speaks of praise? I did address praise and worship in another thread. From the point of the believer, can you at least try to understand that this is what we like to do? Just as football fans like to praise their favorite team?

Those verses are there to prove that the Bible itself claims that animals worship as well. I believe you were saying something about how worship sets us apart from animals?

God is looking for sincerity. If we are sincere, like the thief crucified with Christ, we are saved. It doesn't matter what you think. You can't pretend to have mind like God's in order to be able to understand.

Well, nothing seems to be stopping you from pretending that you understand. As for sincerity, I honestly don't see how deliberately waiting until you're on your deathbed to recant and plead for forgiveness can be interpreted as an example of sincerity by any standard. Can you elaborate?

No, that's not it at all. I just for now need you to see that science cannot disprove or prove God. In the analogy, you keep saying the ship has been proven not to exist. I need you to see that science cannot prove that God, heaven and hell don't exist because they are in the supernatural realm - a place where science cannot go.

Yes, I have no argument with that. However, as I've already explained, God has been repeatedly interfering with the natural world since and starting with creation. There is no reason that these interferings would not leave behind detectable evidence, and yet not only do we fail to find any evidence whatsoever that those interferings occurred, we find copious amounts of proof that the manner of the interferings as described in the Bible were false. This is what I need you to see. If a supposedly all-knowing and all-powerful God fails at such a catastrophic level in His attempts to put forward an accurate description of the natural world, why on earth should we trust Him regarding the supernatural?

And there are certainly scientists today who can prove all of this. Maybe the analogy should state that there are are scientists who have studied the natural world only in the viewpoint of Fred, for years and years. However, some of those scientists, even with that kind of background, still favour the claims of Paul. That would be fair, right?

I see that you have conveniently neglected to name any of those scientists. Can you please tell us who they are and reference their work? Because if they have really and literally proved a young Earth, six-day creation, Adam and Eve, etc, I believe that they deserve to at least be nominated for the Nobel Prize for their work, if not win it outright, and I say that without sarcasm. So please, tell us who these scientists are.

Atheism and agnosticism are not spiritual and have no spiritual entities that love me and gently try to persuade me.

No, but apparently the concepts still hold a great deal of appeal to you, seeing how much time and energy you devote to denying them and fighting back the urges.

Do you see how ridiculous your so-called logic is yet?

You missed the point entirely. Again, you tried to change my analogy to say that after you decide not to accept Paul's offer, you then find out that a hurricane awaits. In reality, we know that hell or heaven awaits. The consequenses and not a surprise and have been told to us before hand.

I have already tendered an apology and offered to amend my analogy to say that Paul warns you during his first visit of the consequences of rejecting his offer. For someone who keeps bringing up this discrepancy, you have yet to tell us what difference would it make.

Here you go again. "Paul calls you arrogant and demands that you ignore the evidence?" Where does this even come from?

Well, I must say that I'm quite baffled by your about-turn. Are you trying to deny that you have labeled non-believers as arrogant? Are you trying to deny that you have told me, during the course of this discussion, to ignore solid evidence that is detrimental to the Christian ideology?

Edited by Valoran
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  200
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   5
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/11/2011
  • Status:  Offline

I will change the original analogy due to points made from our discussion. Here you go. New additions in bold.

To be honest, I was nodding to myself and thinking "yes, that sounds like a good idea".

And then I read your new analogies.

One day, a man named Paul rows up on a boat and greets you. He tells you a bit about the history of your island and how it was created. He tells you that if you leave the island, he will row you out to a magnificent huge cruise ship. On that ship there is an unlimited food supply of sumptuous appetizers, delectable entrées, and a tempting array of desserts, prepared by top chefs and available around the clock. He tells you there is a captain. You will most likely want to worship the captain because he has done all of this for you and it will benefit you emotionally. There are beautiful clothes to don, fabulous social activities with many wonderful and exciting people. On the ship, you don't have to lift a finger if you don't want to. Gone are the days of hard toil. You can simply relax or you can engage in some of the ship's many fun activities. He also sends you a warning that very soon, the island you are on will be completely destroyed by a hurricane - The cause of the hurrican is unknown. But Paul says it will happen.Paul then allows you time to think about his offer and rows back out to sea and out of sight. He tells you that his motivation for all of this - his visit, his message etc is that he loves you and doesn't want to see harm come to you.

"You will most likely want to worship the captain"? "The cause of the hurricane is unknown"??

artsylady, it seems that in your attempts to sugarcoat the truth and conceal the indefensibility of the Christian ideology, you have actually resorted to putting forward analogies that undermine core Christian principles. What does "you will most likely want to worship the captain" mean? That worship is likely to happen but not strictly required? Are you saying that we can be saved from Hell if we do not worship Jesus and proclaim him as Lord? Are you saying that a supposedly all-knowing God, in fact, doesn't have a clue why we get cast into Hell?

Now you are very confused and unsure of what to do, undoubtedly. You have two completely different people telling you completely opposite stories that will affect your life. You start asking scientists who are on the island who were all educated their entire lives in a belief that would favour Fred's rendition. However, even though they were all educated formally this way, there are some who see that Paul's explanation fits the evidence better. Their numbers are much smaller by comparison but they are adamant Paul's story is more conclusive. Neither can prove or disprove the story of the cruise ship because they have no way to leave the island to find out, and it seems the ocean out there is a very big place.

The problem with your analogy is that you assume that Paul's explanation actually does fit the evidence better, as opposed to ignoring all evidence that doesn't fit the pre-determined conclusion, and asking that others do the same as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...