Evolution and a supreme being.

mylastparadigm wrote: »

id be very interested in your theorem for that one.

so you are not against a god in general, just the one that people like?

I outright do not believe in a peronal and/or immanent god. That is, a god who is engaged, or has been engaged, in either human or indeed universal physical and natural affairs after it is assumed to have created the universe.

I believe evolution can disprove that such a god engaged in human affairs, or effected, somehow, man's evolution or even that god placed life on this Earth.

I believe that after it supposedly created the universe, the universe was left to its own purely physical devices. This would be the case for a wholly transcendent or deistic god.

I reject even the existence of this god but I know I can't fully prove or disprove such a deistic god, therefore I am agnostic to it's existence as it is impossible for me to prove or disprove it.

I regard a deistic god as purely the byproduct of man's thought, not observation. I believe that the suggestion of a deistic god results form the tacit acceptance of the infinite regression paradox, which I believe to display a logical flaw in man's thinking.

Yet, I assert that a universe that did not have a Prime Mover is logically flawed because, according to our minds, something cannot come from nothing.

However, both cases above, i.e., the infinitely regressing Prime Mover and the universe that came from nothing, are based purely on the assumption that time is linear.

The ambiguity here lies with man's understanding of time; is time linear, cyclic or something our minds haven't comprehended yet or are incapable of comprehending.

philologos wrote: »

As much as you mightn't like to hear this. But there's no comparison between believing in a Creator God, the necessity which brought all things into existence, and Santa.

To begin with I was citing the Bible, not God; I have not discussed the existence of God with you whatsoever. Secondly, if the Bible does constitute a false account, then it is in effect a mythology as valid as the mythology that has grown around Santa for children.

Which is probably why lumping all religions into one generic concept isn't a great idea.

Because it's too complicated? No, 'lumping' all religions together is a very good idea as it demonstrates commonalities between them.

Despite what you think, Christianity is not special; it's source shares similarities with the sources of all other revealed 'holy' texts. I even questioned you as to why you might believe in one (the Bible) and not another (the Quaran), given neither is more objectively compelling than the other.

The reason I brought up Nazareth was because people claimed that Nazareth never existed and was ahistorical right up to the point when it was demonstrated that Nazareth existed.

No, you introduced a straw man argument; responding to a point I never made.

There is a whole lot of areas where archaeology can show the Bible to be accurate concerning history. It seems like you're being highly selective in this case.

I'm not. Just because the Bible is accurate historically in some areas does not wipe away that it is not in others; Nazareth existing does not negate the fact that the Jews were never in Egypt as described in the story of Moses.

You don't get to pull that line of argument in this case, and I'll explain why. If you make claims about the Gospel which aren't even Biblical, I have the right to challenge them and will. The reason I do, is simply so that people won't be deceived in respect to it.

Of course the claims I make are not Biblical. The whole point of this argument is wheither the Bible, or any other 'holy' text is true or a mythology, so naturally I will seek arguments from without to confirm or reject this rather than concentrate on a text that may or may not be valid.

It makes little sense to base a discussion that questions the validity of the Bible on the Bible. It would be like trying to prove that Lord of the Rings was a true text by simply citing from it and ignoring everything else.

It's surely off to say that it is circular to argue against your claim. Where did you get that Jesus tells His followers that He's the Son of God from if not from the Bible?

Indeed. I gave a synopsis of the New Testament. Without resorting to huge slabs of scripture, do you deny the content of that synopsis? Is it not claimed that he said this by only his disciples? Was their ministry not essentially how they all made a living? When he was killed, was evidence the resurrection essentially witnessed by no one by but his disciples and a few events that are recounted only by his disciples? Did this 'new' religion not essentially reconstitute how his disciples could make a living after he was killed?

You may accuse me of presenting a cynical interpretation of the story, but factually, the above is all correct.

In this case, it's fair game for me to point to Mark's Gospel and say that you're mistaken. It is very clearly explained as to why Jesus told people not to claim that He was the Son of God prior to the Resurrection. It is because Jesus wanted to ensure that people understood the full Gospel before explaining it to others.

It is very clearly claimed. If I had made the whole thing up and wanted to introduce information after the fact like that, I would probably need to come up with a reason as to why I had previously withheld it too.

Have you read the whole of Galatians? If so it would tell you primarily why it was unbiblical. Christianity was both for Jews and for Gentiles. That was clear right from the beginning. In fact it was clear from Abraham that all nations would be blessed through Him (Genesis 12). This was fulfilled through Jesus (Galatians 3). Jesus made explicitly clear that the Gospel was for all, Jews and Gentiles, the Apostles made explicitly clear that the Gospel was for all, Jews and Gentiles. The Old Testament makes clear that the Gospel was for all, Jews and Gentiles.

I never said that both Jews and non-Jews were not welcome (or targeted) by Christianity. I said that the early Church was split in how much it should conform to Jewish traditions and practices, that those Jews and non-Jews would have to adhere to if they converted.

You mean, that there were Christians who preached the Gospels, and false teachers as Jesus told us there would be?

QED on how I predicted you'd respond.

It's nothing about "victors". We have Jesus' words in the New Testament, and indeed they are likely to be His word, and they match up with the history that we have, and the manuscripts we have are more textually reliable than any other ancient historical text.

That's very questionable. The gospels were written decades after his death, allegedly by individuals who, for the most part, never even met him. And that's just the tip of the iceberg on that particular topic, which is frankly a mammoth debate in itself.

Indeed, good that you mentioned Paul and Galatians, because the dating of that book, and the account of Paul's life that we find in it, serve as strong reason as to why the Gospel is not likely to be a forgery or fiction.

Why does it give a strong reason as to why the Gospel is not likely to be a fiction? Forgery, sure, it could well be an original (or pretty original) text. But even original texts can be full of fiction.

This is why this discussion is really pointless. You presume that the text is true as your starting point and thus see it perfectly rational to use it as a source of proof in your arguments.

I instead see the text as largely fictional; set in a real historical context, but embellished with magical tales that cannot be verified. Possibly the most glaring of these is Herod's massacre of the innocents, because despite the scale of the event, it is not recorded anywhere; by local government records, contemporary or even later historians.

Are you sure about that?

Pretty sure, yes. The whole area of St Paul's influence on Christianity, his relationship with St James and the question of Jewish law and tradition is a particular hot topic in both archaeological and theological debates.

There does exist significant evidence that points to St Paul having actively distorted the course and beliefs of early Christianity to a form more attractive to non-Jews.

Paul was an evangelist who gave His entire life to serving Jesus selflessly. He literally had nothing to gain from his ministry other than death.

Indeed. When has a religious leader ever had anything to gain from his ministry?

This issue comes down very simply to Creation.

I can expect miracles if there is a God who has created all things, and is involved in it.

Bit of a presumption there. A Primum Movens does not have to do anything other than get the ball rolling. to presume he does, and that he would bother with the likes of us in the process, is really little more than vanity.

But even that is not relevant to what we're discussing, because you are now citing the existence of God in relation to your belief in the Bible. Why not a belief in the Quaran?

I don't hold back in respect to atheism - because firstly, it is fundamentally dangerous in respect to peoples salvation, and secondly because it undermines what is true.

I would note, with some amusement, that an Atheist would likely say something similar of religion. And I say religion because Christianity really is no more special than any other revealed religion.

This isn't true either. I'm an example of how God rescued an agnostic. I rejected Jesus Christ for most of my life, I never knew Him. Thankfully, He rescued me, and I now believe in His word, and I now long that people will be saved.

And those agnostics who convert to Buddhism or Islam? Are they examples of how Buddha or Allah saved them?

I care little about whether the world regards me for being an idiot for that, because this world is perishing, and judgement is coming. I just want to warn of that, and I just want to explain the reasons why I can believe and trust in the Gospel truth of Jesus, and indeed why all mankind can too.

And as I said, I wish you well and whatever floats your boat.

I'd love to see the basis of that opinion, because I don't think I or many other people would share that assumption. The New Testament, is the most authentic ancient text we have, and it points very clearly to historical realities in a number of ways in which the Qur'an doesn't.

Actually, being more recent, the Quaran has far more third party historical sources that verify its historical background - there's independent historical evidence of Mohamed even existing, for example, which does not exist for Jesus.

You do realise that Christians believe in the entire Jewish Biblical text?

Not true. The Bible omits quite a bit of the Jewish Biblical text.

As for the Epic of Gilgamesh, you'll have to explain your point a bit more in respect to that.

A Sumerian religious text. It's where the story of the great flood originates, later to be borrowed and amended by Judaism. Just another mythology.

Faith is simply the trust that I have in the Gospel. - My faith is not blind, it's based on quite a number of reasons, which I have posted extensively on boards.ie over the last 5 years since I have accepted the Gospel of Jesus. It's simply false to say that I've not presented any, and it is simply false to suggest that there isn't any solid reason as to why Christians believe in Jesus. I'm more than happy to go through my reasons for believing in Jesus again.

If you can cite any reasons that do not presume the validity of the New Testament as a starting point, then fire ahead.

You see, when I say 'preach to the converted' I mean stop presuming that the New Testament is true when arguing, because your argument will be automatically rejected on the basis that I do not share that presumption.

It would be like a Muslim arguing that Islam is the true religion and then only backing up their arguments with vast slabs of text from the Quaran. You'd hardly accept that as evidence, would you? After all you do not share that Muslim's presumption that the Quaran is a truthful source.

As I said earlier, I'm not terribly interested in converting you to my view and am certainly disinterested in being converted and all that we're doing now is going around in those circles I predicted. Would you like to leave it at that?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Imagine a historian 5000 years from now, for example, unearthing a copy of the Bourne books.

You'd be surprised how many people are convinced that Robin Hood existed today.

LordSmeg wrote: »

I might not be wording it right but I'm not confusing the two. Spinozism seems to me (I havent looked it through in detail) to be another attempt to change the definition of god rather than to base a view that a god exists on anything solid. Its trying to merge the idea of god with what we know even though the idea of god came about because we didnt know anything.

Why does 'God' have to be something 'solid'? Are you not allowing yourself to get trapped into the orthodox view of divinity - in effect creating God in our own image?

I think it would be better stated that science did not contradict the belief in the existance of god rather than saying science supported it.

No, actually it required the existence of God - Newton's laws of thermodynamics - so it absolutely supported it.

Science at the times I'm assuming your talking about would still have been heavily influenced by religious institutions. I still dont accept the view of a "creator" as anything other than a spin off from religion in the modern age.

Certainly there would have been a general wish to reconcile science and relgion, however I would not overestimate the influence of religion either on the minds of such thinkers. Atheism, for example, did not appear in the last hundred years.

To have a concept of whats divine though surely you would need a belief system which although maybe not religion in name is little different for the fact that it wasnt organised. Those beliefs were born out of curiosity and ignorance and accepted as fact with no evidence and since perpetuated.

That they developed into religion, I'm not denying. What I am rejecting is that to even ask in the existence of God requires religion - this was, after all, your assertion.

The Corinthian wrote: »

That they developed into religion, I'm not denying. What I am rejecting is that to even ask in the existence of God requires religion - this was, after all, your assertion.

Why though ? Curiosity is all well and good but there is a lot of curious things that led people to believe in the existence of god when lacking anything else. Those things have largely been explained by science to be laws inherent in the universe we live in and not something which can be bypassed at will by anything that operates under those laws (which as far as we know is everything).

To ask if there exists some being that can interact with our universe, control or ignore the laws that govern this universe at will in this day and age to me makes no sense if its not based on the many many tales and teachings that people are now aware of through religion. So science and the theory of evolution have dispelled a lot of falsehoods perpetuated by religion, in doing so have dispelled some of the myths religions were based on going back to curious pre historic man.

Curiosity now can be satisfied with facts and scientific data which is used to formulate a logical conclusion. And the existence of supreme beings isnt a logical conclusion.