Debate split from God is Indescribable

[nebula]

People who have done the research have concluded that there is more evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old than 6000 years old, that there is more evidence for evolution than special creation, that the Noachian flood is a myth etc.

Jukia -

It is clear to me that you just want to throw pot-shots. What you have said before and now have nothing to do with the video presentation and what was shown in them.

If you want to rationally and reasonably discuss the video, I will be more than happy to discuss it with you. But I have no interest in continuing with such childish behavior.

[DozyBen]

Lots of replies. I hope I can give each justice.

HIS girl - Any statement I make does not make me worthy of judging anyone. Once we have reached the point where we understand each other as best we can, we must simply accept the other's viewpoint, no matter how incorrect we think it is. I've read parts of the bible and most of Jesus' teachings. A pet project I haven't quite got stuck into yet is a summary of each of the comments in the bible which are direct quotes of his words. You could say I am a follower of Jesus to the extent of my natural actions, anything supernatural I haven't quite got a grip on.

HIS girl - I do believe the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. The same methodology that determined how to make airplanes safe to fly in (for instance) also determined that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. I have faith in that methodology because it has proven itself many many times and it is independent of any individual. What is your faith in exactly? In you, that you make the right assessment of God's existence, or in your parents, that they wouldn't lie to you as a kid, or in you (again) that your religious experiences are actually experiences of the divine? Can you be sure you're not misleading yourself?

nebula - I'm not sure that I fail to comprehend the complexity of life. No matter how complex it is, though, if it arising is a case of the right ingredients then millions of planets similar to ours increase the chance that those ingredients are present somewhere else and possibly also life. I have no starting premise merely the question "Why the universe?". With no evidence of a purpose for the universe, why would you want to assume there is and then act like there is and you know what it is? I don't think there is the fallacy you suggest in my line of thinking. I understand that there may be more to life than natural processes. With regards to the size of the universe, I only know that it's finite. When we build something to honor someone or something, we make it bigger than either the person or the thing. Anyway, I concede on this point. I clearly can't debate what size universe would honor someone who I don't think exists can I? I could attempt to argue that any size and no size honors God's existence because we can't know His mind to know what size would honor Him but I'd be on shaky ground there 'cos I don't know enough.

nebula - Fair enough, thank you for sharing. I do ok in counseling because I listen and don't judge and I do provide hope in the ideas for a way forward. It's ok though, the brand of counseling you would volunteer me for anyways would most likely include certain ideas I wouldn't push on anyone. No, stories from people who have technically died and then come back to life would be fascinating evidence of life after death. However, as noted earlier, the methodology I have faith in would need to find an explanation for me to be completely accepting of the idea. I gather though, that as these people came back to life, you wouldn't be able to evidence everlasting life after death like I asked for? I critically analyze my own beliefs pretty frequently as it happens. It's part of the reason why I'm taking the time to respond.

Boo - then you guys get into a pot-shot contest with each other. Such a waste of time. :-(

Ah well. Perhaps I made myself a bit clearer here.

Peace

[nebula]

nebula - I'm not sure that I fail to comprehend the complexity of life. No matter how complex it is, though, if it arising is a case of the right ingredients then millions of planets similar to ours increase the chance that those ingredients are present somewhere else and possibly also life.

Dozy, you said: "if it arising is a case of the right ingredients"

My question: why do you suppose that life arising is a case of the right ingredients? Why are you assuming that "ingredients" are all there is to life?

What if you "if" statement is incorrect? Can you prove or evidence that it is correct?

I have no starting premise merely the question "Why the universe?". With no evidence of a purpose for the universe, why would you want to assume there is and then act like there is and you know what it is? I don't think there is the fallacy you suggest in my line of thinking.

Here's what is funny about such lines of thinking: Why ask why in the first place?

Did some random mutation in human evolution put within our brains a desire for a meaning that does not exist?

If it a useless trait, why would it thrive and take over the species rather than diminished like so many other traits that have supposedly diminished for lack of need or reason?

I understand that there may be more to life than natural processes.

Such as . . . ?

I'd like to hear what you believe this "more" is.

With regards to the size of the universe, I only know that it's finite. When we build something to honor someone or something, we make it bigger than either the person or the thing. Anyway, I concede on this point. I clearly can't debate what size universe would honor someone who I don't think exists can I? I could attempt to argue that any size and no size honors God's existence because we can't know His mind to know what size would honor Him but I'd be on shaky ground there 'cos I don't know enough.

As I understand it, considering it was God Himself who made the universe, He only needed to make it "small" enough for us to understand.

And if we can't understand it completely (I mean, you figure out dark matter and the space time contiuum!) with how small it is compared to God . . . ?

nebula - Fair enough, thank you for sharing. I do ok in counseling because I listen and don't judge and I do provide hope in the ideas for a way forward. It's ok though, the brand of counseling you would volunteer me for anyways would most likely include certain ideas I wouldn't push on anyone.

But you see, if there is no meaning to life, why bother comforting sorrow? After all, what is happiness and what is sadness but wasted emotions. Why have emotions at all, if there is no reason to exist? Why even bother living?

I speak as one who has lvied most of her life under the darkness of depression and suicidal desires. I know what hopelessness is. And a belief in no meaning would have taken me over the edge, and I would be nothing more than a statistic of pre-teen suicide.

No, stories from people who have technically died and then come back to life would be fascinating evidence of life after death. However, as noted earlier, the methodology I have faith in would need to find an explanation for me to be completely accepting of the idea. I gather though, that as these people came back to life, you wouldn't be able to evidence everlasting life after death like I asked for?

But what would be evidence for you?

After all, by all accounts what we call the spiritual realm can be understood scientifically as another dimension, and science has yet to make sense of such things.

Boo - then you guys get into a pot-shot contest with each other. Such a waste of time. :-(

Sorry, but I have been ill with this virus-thing that has been going around, my brain has been fogged up quite a bit, and my level of patience is rather thin for someone wanting to argue responses to the thread who doesn't have the courtesy to regard the purpose of the thread. I'm tired of threads getting hijacked into re-hashes of the same endless debate circles.

So, with all respect, I would ask this thread be kept with the message of the video and associated subjects.

My appologies for being ill-tempered in my request before.

[nebula]

nebula

But you see, if there is no meaning to life, why bother comforting sorrow? After all, what is happiness and what is sadness but wasted emotions. Why have emotions at all, if there is no reason to exist? Why even bother living?

We atheists don't find the lack of inherent purpose in the universe and in our lives depressing because purpose is simply a means to and end. That end is happiness and fulfillment. When people ask what the meaning of life is, I don't think they are literally asking what is the purpose of life (though they probably think they are), they are actually asking what is required in life for happiness. This is a much simpler question and shouldn't be difficult for individuals to answer for themselves.

Why is happiness and fulfillment the end?

[nebula]

Why is happiness and fulfillment the end?

I would have thought that was self-evident. Happiness is what everyone desires, and this is mainly due to the fact that that's more or less how we define it. In other words, no matter what you find fun or satisfying, you define happiness as the feeling you get after that fun or satisfying event has occurred. So naturally happiness, by its very nature, is what everyone wants in the end.

Has that been scientifically proven?

[Guest HIS girl]

DBen, you ask for evidence for lifeafter death. Jesus is that evidence. You may reject that as evidence because you sound like an "if I can't see it, I don't believe it" kinda guy, yet you believe in evolution which is not provable. You believe in an Earth of millions of years old, yet there isn't solid evidence for that fact, you weren't there in the beginning to see proof and yet you believe that to be true. Do you not? Isn't that also called faith? Believing in something unseen?

It is actually about 4.5 billion years old. And there is a bit more evidence for that than even the existence of someone named Jesus in Israel a couple of thousand years ago.

Have you ever seen Jesus? I suspect not. All you have seen is a book cobbled together several hundred years after it was written. There are no extant copies of a first draft. At least parts of it were written for nomadic goat herders.

The Bible is more credible than the theory of evolution period.

Lives that are changed and continue to change in the name of Jesus Christ is tangible evidence - more than Darwins theory ever put out.

[Guest HIS girl]

The writings of the New Testament started in the lifetime of witnesses of Jesus and His Disciples. The New Testament writings were LESS than 100 years after Jesus' death. Still in His generation. The writings about Alexander the Great were hundreds of years after his death, yet non believers generally believe those writings without an argument...funny that.

[mikeinsarasota]

DBen, you ask for evidence for lifeafter death. Jesus is that evidence. You may reject that as evidence because you sound like an "if I can't see it, I don't believe it" kinda guy, yet you believe in evolution which is not provable. You believe in an Earth of millions of years old, yet there isn't solid evidence for that fact, you weren't there in the beginning to see proof and yet you believe that to be true. Do you not? Isn't that also called faith? Believing in something unseen?

It is actually about 4.5 billion years old. And there is a bit more evidence for that than even the existence of someone named Jesus in Israel a couple of thousand years ago.

Have you ever seen Jesus? I suspect not. All you have seen is a book cobbled together several hundred years after it was written. There are no extant copies of a first draft. At least parts of it were written for nomadic goat herders.

The Bible is more credible than the theory of evolution period.

Lives that are changed and continue to change in the name of Jesus Christ is tangible evidence - more than Darwins theory ever put out.

If by 'changed' you mean killed in the name of then, yes, you are correct.

[Guest HIS girl]

You measure truth by how influential it is to people?

Are you to be taken seriously?

But you unknowingly pointed out something quite interesting because the most influential person in history is Jesus Christ. Not many non believers would argue against that - unless they have been living under a rock - (and willingly doing so.).

[DozyBen]

Nebula - you are far better than me at posting on this forum. My posts must look like a mess.

I believe that the right ingredients (be they specific goo or time or whatever) are all that's required for life because I believe life has a natural explanation. The mere detail that we don't know what those ingredients are exactly does not mean that we need a supernatural explanation. That is a logical failing. The reason why I believe this is because natural explanations have proved so much more reliable than supernatural explanations and I have faith in that methodology. We don't know whether my 'if' statement is correct or not but that is a reason to keep researching, not a reason to stop looking. If at first you don't succeed, etc.

I don't know why humans get so much pleasure from asking why and then figuring out the answer. Perhaps it is a hard-wired evolved feature of our brains but that's just a guess. You'd need a psychologist or a neuro-scientist to answer that. The pleasure we get from working things out is useful though. It motivates us to learn.

I don't know what more there is to life than natural processes which is why I currently believe there isn't anything. I acknowledge I could be wrong which is why I say the may be more to life than natural processes. I'm looking though but I don't have reason to suggest what there might be at this point. I'll let you know if anything comes up.

I can't really answer on God needing to create the universe small enough so that we could understand it.

I comfort sorrow because it helps the sorrowful person! Happiness is a great emotion! It's a logical mistake to say that because life has no ultimate meaning, happiness and sadness are wasted emotions. I've added the word ultimate there to distinguish meaning in terms of why does the universe exist from meaning in terms of the effects of our actions on others.

Evidence for me of everlasting life after death would be general definitions of everlasting, life and death and then evidence of someone exhibiting behaviors which fulfill those definitions. You could do that with evidence of someone who has died, come back to life and then cannot be killed again. This works exactly the same way as evidence of something emitting green light is evidence of something emitting photons with a wavelength of about 555nm. Green light is defined as a photon with a wavelength of 555nm.

You have nothing to apologize for with regard to the odd pot-shot at someone. If you're on these boards frequently then it must be pretty frustrating to go round in circles.