Observer of dreams Posted June 21, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 39 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 314 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/08/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 21, 2006 The heaviness depends on the light in order to exist, for if there were no light there can be no heavy. Without evil there is only good, but good by itself is not good it is only being. There must be evil to have good, Likewise there must be failure to have success. If there is no good or evil than there is morality, if there is no immoral there is no moral. If we have no posessions than there can be no theives as there is nothing to steal. If there were no God there would be no atheist as we would all hold this understanding and be alike. In order to have atheist there must be God or atheism becomes common knowledge and would not be labeled as disbelief. Christ is the unfolded appearing as an elegant poem awaiting to be read by all. God is the folded and incomprehensible, Jesus unfolds and tells what he can, but our understanding is limited to our nature, and our nature is imperfect. Yet if all of man is imperfect then we are perfect in our imperfection and fallable to the unfolding story of the universe. A mans' question is the source of his wisdom. A mans' answer is the source of his stupidity. My answers are stupid as the words do not match the wisdom. What I say is "leaf" when I mean "tree." The leaf is trampled on easily, though the tree stands firm A loaded question is the fools answer to the unquestionable A loaded answer is the fools question to the unanswerable Who told you that Zero comes first? "The Babylonians invented it, the Greeks banned it, the Hindus worshipped it, and the Christian Church used it to fend off heretics. Today it's a timebomb ticking in the heart of astrophysics." from Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted June 21, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted June 21, 2006 The Bible doesn't rely on circular reasoning (duh). However when you say "God exists because the Bible says so" and "the Bible is true because God wrote it" then you're using circular reasoning. This debate going on here, actually, is a manifestation of trying to put a square peg into a round hole (or vice versa). Yes, I attest to the Bible being the "divine, inspired word of God," yet even still it is a series of documents that come out of the ancient Hebrew culture and mindset. We've had this discussion elsewhere on the Board before, but the Bible was written from the Hebraic mindset (although it can be argued that Paul and Luke spoke from the Hellenistic mindset as well, the majority is Hebraic). The Hebraic mindset of which the Bible is written begins with the belief that God is. It was not written with the intent of proving His existance, for His existance was understood. There are no indications that atheists existed in these earlier times. So there was no need to address them, was there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted June 21, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted June 21, 2006 LK - since you asked for my point behind the discussion we got into, I determined it best to go back to where we started and work with that. I still don't understand the atheistic mindset on this. The concept of a Supreme Being planning, organizing, and creating the universe seems much simpler than the confluence of photons and whatnot just coming together perfectly for it all to form to all that is. I'm going off-topic only this once. It isn't simpler or more complex. It implies the existence of a superior entity that is omnimax and outside of reality/nature/whatever who created the universe, created all lifeforms... etc etc so it's not complex in the sense that it's difficult to understand, it's less parsimonious than any other theory we have about most things. That's what Ockham's razor deals with, parsimony - it's called principle of parsimony, too. To explain the existence of the universe with "God did it" is much less parsimoniuos then actually studying all we can study about the universe and try to see where the evidence leads. Even if the laws of physics are much more complex than "God did it" they are more parsimonious because they don't require belief in something for which we have no evidence whatsoever. First of all, what is "omnimax"? All I can find on the web for this term are IMAX theaters. Second, we are in disagreement, I see, about who or what God is. Your idea of "supreme being" is "outside of reality/nature/whatever." This idea of God is more reflective of the Deistic mindset than the Christian Theistic one. And again, I'm not a believer in "God did it, so let's forget it." The American Scientific Affiliation is all about scientific pursuits and discoveries, but they also "share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science." So, as I see it, one perspective is to look at the Origins of the universe from the perspective that a Mastermind, if you will, was behind it all. The other perspective is that chance and fate was behind it all. Belief in a Creator does not negate following the evidence to wherever it leads and studying all we can about the universe. Can you understand this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted June 21, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted June 21, 2006 From there I talked about cause, and used the amoeba feeding and avoiding predation as an example. Isn't it fascinating that a single-celled organism can accomplish these things? Something that is nothing more than a complex string of amino acids and other elements and chemicals "knows" how to survive! Do you find that a wonder? Wouldn't you like to know how it can be possible? The fact that scientists can't actually determine the separation between living and non-living with the discovery of viruses tells as that we really don't understand what life is, nor how it comes to be. Wouldn't you want to pursue this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted June 21, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted June 21, 2006 OK, here is an example of what I mean: For Collins [the scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome], unravelling the human genome did not create a conflict in his mind. Instead, it allowed him to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CellShade Posted June 21, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 397 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/22/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted June 21, 2006 So, it seems CellShade was not joking so I'll answer seriously. No, I am not using The Bible to proof The Bible, I am using Historic events that have been registered, do internet searches and you will find a lot of the Bible events happening, and this told and acknowledged by non christians. Also your Circular Reasoning theory is incorrect, since that applies to science aswell doesn' it, after all, science looks for proof of it's theory in it's own science. ... While science is Pure circular reasoning since it lies in scientific methods, which means it lies in it's own science. ... <a post later> What I mean why start saying the Bible relies on Circular Reasoning, since it does rely on thigns on itself, it mostly relies on God which is a outside source , and it also relies on History and even some Science! To me Science relies more in circular and close minded reasoning more then the Bible does in Circular Reasoning, just stating this, you started it, just the fact that you have admit science just relies on science while the Bible has relied and been prooved throughout history and science aswell to be true . Like it not . Don't point fingers at someone or something when you have to point at yourself first . The Bible doesn't rely on circular reasoning (duh). However when you say "God exists because the Bible says so" and "the Bible is true because God wrote it" then you're using circular reasoning. What you need is somethign external to the Bible that confirm the parts of the Bible that have something to do with divine intervention. Since those parts are not supported by any kind of evidence the Bible can't be used as evidence for God's existence. Science relies on the scientific method as a tool to understand reality. The scientific method consists in gathering evidence and trying to figure out where that evidence points, so every theory we have is firmly sustained by solid ground. Exceptions exist in those fileds that are still wide open like abiogenesis and the beginning of the universe; in those fields we have several theories but too littel evidence to decide which is the best with any certainty. Anyway, I don't see how you can say science relies on circular reasoning; scientific theories rely on evidence. But if I said that we also know The Bible is true as we also can feel God, which would be by our let's call it, spiritual method, you would say that is circular reasoning because I can feel the spirit of God because of what I read in The Bible, while you don't admit Science has more circular reasoning, cause it relies on it's own method aka it's own thoughts of how things work, but no for you that isn't circular reasoning, that's ok if you don't want to acknowledge that it is circular reasoning, I'll just know that you do . History has documented many events as I have being saying all thread long, even to think that Jesus didn't exist maybe be unrealistic since history has documenjted it happened. One thing though, when you get married or if you are allready married remember to have 1,000 witnesses, apparently the more then 500 witnesses that witnessed Jesus rise from the death weren't enought for you, so I guess you could say a marriage with less then 500 witnesses ain't a real marriage since not many witnesses . Also this has being documented in history records, dig up, use the good old google, or go to the library, you will find lots of the vents registered . God Bless You All Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CellShade Posted June 21, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 397 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/22/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted June 21, 2006 To clarify Einstein's stance on God; I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. Ditto , remind everyone not to punish their children that they love so much just because he hitted someone on his class with a bat. Or pherphaps tell the police officer who's kid maybe a murderer not to take his son to jail . Also the key word you said is, His creation, His, not ours, He has the right to do anything because I believe He is a fair and honest God who will punish me if I do something wrong. Also note that God isn't the one causing the troubles of the world, that happens when the world is away from His creator. Example; a father cannot control his children if they ran away from him and they aren't close enought so that he can help them out. Simple. God Bless You All Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted June 21, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted June 21, 2006 To clarify Einstein's stance on God; I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. I never claimed that Einstein's understanding of God was the same as my understanding of God. Are we debating the nature of God or the existance of God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer of dreams Posted June 22, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 39 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 314 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/08/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 22, 2006 Proverbs 9 7 "Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult; whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse. 8 Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you. 9 Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still; teach a righteous man and he will add to his learning. nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted June 22, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted June 22, 2006 You obviously missed the irony in my statement. Read again in the context of the discussion at the time I posted, slooooowly... I didn't miss the sarcasm in your post. What you said is still incorrect. Really? How? Intellectual discourse and philosphical thought has primarilly been centered around faith, or a lack of faith, in God, for the past 6,000 years of human history. This is a simple fact. Eaven atheism is dependent upon an active faith in God to exist. So how is atheism not the primary counteractive force to human intellectualism and philospohical thought considering these facts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts