The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Monty Burnz · 14-10-2012 06:29PM

systemsready wrote: »

Then we go back to the original question...how did it all come into existence?
here we go again!

Science answer: we don't know yet, but we are working on it based on what facts we can discover. We may never know.

Religious answer: I don't need to check anything, because I KNOW IN MY HEART the universe was farted by a giant wolf/talked into existence by a bearded man/dreamed into existence by a turtle/whatever.

systemsready · 15-10-2012 06:15AM

Sin City wrote: »

We are still trying to figure it all out. We dont just say well God did it and leave it at that, no rational person would. We have yet to unlock the mysteries of the universe but we are , at least at a snails pace, starting to.

We have many theories ,as to how it all happened, big bang for instance and we have found through science that some particles can appear from nothing and these may have been the cause or part of the cause of the big bang.

When you say 'We', are you included in the research, or are you just waiting for news from the people doing the research?
LOL at particles seeming to appear as if from nothing...it just gets more like a circus everyday..a circus determined to show how existence can come into being without the need for 'a god'.
At your snails pace it will take about 4 million years to get where a believer is now.
Have you personally got that much time?
There are other ways of seeing things, its not always through a microscope or through a telescope.

systemsready · 15-10-2012 06:20AM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

No, that isn't my position at all. You are either missing the point in spectacular fashion, or being deliberately dishonest.

Your essential argument appears to be that the book of Genesis is literal, historical truth, which is why you adopt positions such as saying that the elephants stood on sponges in the ark as a space-saving measure. .

If you didn't see that as the humour it was intended to be.... You will never get it wiil you?.

(A few of the people here saw it as the joke it was, but you didnt, thats strange)

systemsready · 15-10-2012 06:25AM

Sin City wrote: »

you havent offered any proof at all, in fact all you have done is insult people who do not share your view point, so much so in fact that you are either a troll or just so wrapped up in your own ideologies that you cannot and will not accept anything that will conflict them.

You refuse to even accept that science is actually credible , the scientific method is testible and everything about God and religion are just stories handed down from culture to culture, from generation to generation and are in fact fables masquarding as fact. But to elevate these fables above science and emipricle evidence is absurd

So to end this you are either a troll or a fool

Well I must be a troll then because I cant be a fool. Because it says " The fool hath said in his heart that there is no God." Psalms 14:1

So now we know which one of us is the fool.
Makes sense now.

systemsready · 15-10-2012 06:37AM

Zombrex wrote: »

And thus has no purpose, and thus has no meaning. Anything done by something that has no meaning has no meaning. Thus God's creation of us has no meaning, thus we are meaningless.

You are simply ignoring this point by talking about beginnings. Unless God having no beginning gives him meaning then it is irrelevant.

I think you disagree with me but you don't know why and you don't know how to explain why so you are trying to introduce things that have no relevance in a vain attempt to make it look like there is a problem with my reasoning.

Sorry systemready, you seem a bit out of depth here.

So you cannot get past your own level of thinking. Let me ask you to understand the word 'Purpose'
pur·pose [pur-puhs] Show IPA noun, verb, pur·posed, pur·pos·ing.
noun
1.
the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
2.
an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.
3.
determination; resoluteness.
4.
the subject in hand; the point at issue.
5.
practical result, effect, or advantage: to act to good purpose.
Relevant Questions
What Is A Purpose?
What Is The Purpose Of T...
What Is The Purpose Of M...
What Is The Purpose Of T...
verb (used with object)
6.
to set as an aim, intention, or goal for oneself.
7.
to intend; design.
8.
to resolve (to do something): He purposed to change his way of life radically.

Look at the verb uses...'purpose' especially.
Now try to use your brain a little,just have a strong coffee or something (no alcohol)
Ready?
Imagine any object, any material thing, anything man made, look at it and ask your question..."For what purpose was this thing made?" Do you get that? It was made specifically for a purpose. Someone decided to bring it into existence. Now take any object again...and imagine that this object always existed...was never made (thats crucial now)..do you get it? (I hope that click was the sound of the penny dropping?)
Take your time now. When you think you have it..then open your window and look at the things outside your home, a tree for example, an ask yourself...for what pupose..etc etc.. Then go back and look in the mirror.

systemsready · 15-10-2012 06:45AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Few atheists have any argument for the existence or non existence of God, they just don't believe.
Those that do offer an argument are actually quite convincing, so what? I think they might be right as often as I am certain they are wrong.
I also think YEC and ID is total nonsense, the God I believe has enough sophistication to produce a book with some subtlety.
And if their is no God, my reading of the bible still has value, yours is just a lie.

So you have the best of both worlds...if there is a God you are a winner,an if there isn't a God you are a winner too.

Very clever.

(I guess I have to demonstrate that I'm being sarcastic here for a selected few of our readers)

pauldla · 15-10-2012 06:53AM

Now I am very confused. Which is the Christian sect or church that demands it adherents to belittle, condescend, distort, patronize, insult, and lie in their efforts to spread the word?

systemsready · 15-10-2012 06:57AM

pauldla wrote: »

Now I am very confused. Which is the Christian sect or church that demands it adherents to belittle, condescend, distort, patronize, insult, and lie in their efforts to spread the word?

You are indeed confused.

Monty Burnz · 15-10-2012 08:27AM

pauldla wrote: »

Now I am very confused. Which is the Christian sect or church that demands it adherents to belittle, condescend, distort, patronize, insult, and lie in their efforts to spread the word?

We aren't even sure if Systemsready is a Christian - he doesn't accept most of the New Testament. It sounds like he has started his own little religion.

systemsready · 15-10-2012 08:43AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

We aren't even sure if Systemsready is a Christian - he doesn't accept most of the New Testament. It sounds like he has started his own little religion.

All I'm saying is when I look at the clues..I find discrepancies. But not like you guys who 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'. No one can affect God Almighty, all the 'evidence' you could ever muster will never change Him.
But I look at detail and I see contradiction.
For example; In the old testament we are shown that pork is forbidden. Ok everyone agrees on that.
Then, according to many Christians, God speaks to them in many ways, with visions , dreams, voices etc. . And when you ask them, "How do you know its God speaking to you and not satan?" They say that if it was contradictory to Gods words then we know its satan.
So I ask them, why do they eat pork. They say Peter had a dream/vision and in the dream he was invited to eat forbidden meats. He refused at first but the voice told him its ok to eat it. (Contradiction to Gods original words)
So I say according to your criteria for recognising satan...this dream could not have been from God.
But they dont listen to what is said and turn away and purposefully order extra bacon on their sandwiches! As if to push home their arrogance.
So, this is evidence that they are off the path of righteousness.

So when you say I dont recognise ALL of the new testament...can you blame me?
To find out whatever Jesus actually said needs a lot of study to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Sin City · 15-10-2012 09:49AM

systemsready wrote: »

When you say 'We', are you included in the research, or are you just waiting for news from the people doing the research?
LOL at particles seeming to appear as if from nothing...it just gets more like a circus everyday..a circus determined to show how existence can come into being without the need for 'a god'.
At your snails pace it will take about 4 million years to get where a believer is now.
Have you personally got that much time?
There are other ways of seeing things, its not always through a microscope or through a telescope.

When I say "We" I mean us as a species.

Yes particles can appear out of nothing, I admit I dont fully understand it myself but if I really wanted to I could find out. There are maths, theoretical physics and quantum mechanics at play here and show us that yes that can happen (No such evidence can say that God is real though)

To get where a believer is now ?

You means shouting crackpot assumptions that God did it?
Now that would be the ultimate cop out and really undermine mankind development, and show tat God himself is highly flawed

Sin City · 15-10-2012 09:52AM

systemsready wrote: »

Well I must be a troll then because I cant be a fool. Because it says " The fool hath said in his heart that there is no God." Psalms 14:1

So now we know which one of us is the fool.
Makes sense now.

No a fool is the one who tries to tell the world that the bible says God exists so it must be true

systemsready · 15-10-2012 10:08AM

Sin City wrote: »

When I say "We" I mean us as a species.

Yes particles can appear out of nothing, I admit I dont fully understand it myself but if I really wanted to I could find out. There are maths, theoretical physics and quantum mechanics at play here and show us that yes that can happen (No such evidence can say that God is real though)

To get where a believer is now ?

You means shouting crackpot assumptions that God did it?
Now that would be the ultimate cop out and really undermine mankind development, and show tat God himself is highly flawed

So 'We' you mean us as a species. Thats like if Man U win the Champions League.. You say 'We' won it .. Even though you dont contribute anything.

You say that you dont understand it (about particles) but if you wanted to..you could find out...meaning you cant be arsed, you just accept what is said is true. (whats the difference between you and a blind follower?)

You prefer the comfortable armchair I see.

systemsready · 15-10-2012 10:10AM

Sin City wrote: »

No a fool is the one who tries to tell the world that the bible says God exists so it must be true

Am..No...you need to read the words again..sorry about that now.

Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

Why not repeat it about a 100 times like in primary school..it might sink in then.

Sin City · 15-10-2012 11:37AM

systemsready wrote: »

So 'We' you mean us as a species. Thats like if Man U win the Champions League.. You say 'We' won it .. Even though you dont contribute anything.

You say that you dont understand it (about particles) but if you wanted to..you could find out...meaning you cant be arsed, you just accept what is said is true. (whats the difference between you and a blind follower?)

You prefer the comfortable armchair I see.

I think youll find its quit different to we as a united supporter to we as a species.

I said I dont understand it fully, and yes I probably cant be arsed, but if I was the proof would be there and be able to be replicated

As for your last point, all I can do is laugh

Religion is all about blind following, there is no proof anywhere, no one can offer any and will never be able to offer any.If I was "arsed" I could find out all the information, test it and say yes that is pretty conclusive

Yet with religion and God I could be totally commited to beliving him yet I would never be able to prove or provide evidence of his existence

shizz · 15-10-2012 11:40AM

systemsready wrote: »

Sin City wrote: »

When I say "We" I mean us as a species.

Yes particles can appear out of nothing, I admit I dont fully understand it myself but if I really wanted to I could find out. There are maths, theoretical physics and quantum mechanics at play here and show us that yes that can happen (No such evidence can say that God is real though)

To get where a believer is now ?

You means shouting crackpot assumptions that God did it?
Now that would be the ultimate cop out and really undermine mankind development, and show tat God himself is highly flawed

So 'We' you mean us as a species. Thats like if Man U win the Champions League.. You say 'We' won it .. Even though you dont contribute anything.

You say that you dont understand it (about particles) but if you wanted to..you could find out...meaning you cant be arsed, you just accept what is said is true. (whats the difference between you and a blind follower?)

You prefer the comfortable armchair I see.

What you dont seem to understand is that there are boards in place to make sure that claims are sound and verifiable. This means we dont have to spend years ourselves individually trying to replicate results so that we can all understand and believe claims.

So no, it isnt blind following.

Sin City · 15-10-2012 11:40AM

systemsready wrote: »

Am..No...you need to read the words again..sorry about that now.

Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

Why not repeat it about a 100 times like in primary school..it might sink in then.

Again, reading Gods book and using it to prove God is pretty pathetic

Which part of this do you not understand

Bet errr the bible says he exists

The bible says your a fool if you dont believe in God

The bible my dear systemsready is hardly going to say God doesnt exist, I cant beleive you feel for it now is it

pauldla · 15-10-2012 11:56AM

systemsready wrote: »

You are indeed confused.

A Creationist, calling me confused..? Oh dear...

Have you ever heard of a chap called Aristotle? Quite a clever fellow. He reckoned that, in order to sway an audience, one needed to use three modes of appeal: ethos, pathos, and logos.

Ethos can mean your credibility with your audience, your ability to make yourself seem worth listening to. Pathos means your ability to connect emotionally with an audience. Logos means your ability to use reasoning in your argument.

Ideally, one should be able to persuade an audience with pure logos, but Aristotle was smart enough to realise that logos on its own is not enough, and that a good speaker or writer needs to be able to employ all three modes to get his message across.

It seems to me that your arguments lack all three.

systemsready · 15-10-2012 12:15PM

Sin City wrote: »

I think youll find its quit different to we as a united supporter to we as a species.

I said I dont understand it fully, and yes I probably cant be arsed, but if I was the proof would be there and be able to be replicated

As for your last point, all I can do is laugh

Religion is all about blind following, there is no proof anywhere, no one can offer any and will never be able to offer any.If I was "arsed" I could find out all the information, test it and say yes that is pretty conclusive

Yet with religion and God I could be totally commited to beliving him yet I would never be able to prove or provide evidence of his existence

But as a normal human being you have intuition...that's the major part of your reasoning and assessment of what is or what isn't. Why is it that you constantly look outward to others to offer you the bulk of the 'evidence' for what is your own personal existence, not theirs.

You said:
"Yet with religion and God I could be totally commited to beliving him yet I would never be able to prove or provide evidence of his existence"

How can you be committed to believe in God if you have not a shred of evidence for what you believe. That's a nonsensical statement.
The problem you have is comparable to the following.
You and a friend are watching a sunset. Your friend is astounded by the beauty of the sunset and makes all the noises displaying this. But you on the other hand don't understand why your friend is all excited, you don't see it as they see it. So when your friend turns to you and says.."Its wonderful isn't it?"
You are going to have to nod and smile in agreement even though for you its nothing special.
But if you decide to be challenging you could say.."What evidence do you have to prove this sunset is beautiful?"
In which case I think your friend would decide to end the friendship..saying that you are missing something crucial in life and life is too short to waste time trying to get you to see.
So after that you will be left standing alone looking at the sunset and asking..."I don't see it, what is it that they see?"

systemsready · 15-10-2012 12:17PM

pauldla wrote: »

A Creationist, calling me confused..? Oh dear...

Have you ever heard of a chap called Aristotle? Quite a clever fellow. He reckoned that, in order to sway an audience, one needed to use three modes of appeal: ethos, pathos, and logos.

Ethos can mean your credibility with your audience, your ability to make yourself seem worth listening to. Pathos means your ability to connect emotionally with an audience. Logos means your ability to use reasoning in your argument.

Ideally, one should be able to persuade an audience with pure logos, but Aristotle was smart enough to realise that logos on its own is not enough, and that a good speaker or writer needs to be able to employ all three modes to get his message across.

It seems to me that your arguments lack all three.

You and Ari are far too clever for me. I only know the simple things in life

systemsready · 15-10-2012 12:21PM

Sin City wrote: »

Again, reading Gods book and using it to prove God is pretty pathetic

Which part of this do you not understand

Bet errr the bible says he exists

The bible says your a fool if you dont believe in God

The bible my dear systemsready is hardly going to say God doesnt exist, I cant beleive you feel for it now is it

have you heard the adage " The Wisdom of Solomon?" A well know phrase.
But you seem to have advanced further and disregarded this. So for you Solomon was not wise, meaning you are wiser than he?

) That has to be the one of your best.

Sin City · 15-10-2012 12:23PM

systemsready wrote: »

But as a normal human being you have intuition...that's the major part of your reasoning and assessment of what is or what isn't. Why is it that you constantly look outward to others to offer you the bulk of the 'evidence' for what is your own personal existence, not theirs.

No, a gut feeling is what you have when you have no evidence and nothing to go on, kind of a 50/50 thing in your mind.A gut feeling isnt 100% now is it. Usually no where close to being

systemsready wrote: »

You said:
"Yet with religion and God I could be totally commited to beliving him yet I would never be able to prove or provide evidence of his existence"

How can you be committed to believe in God if you have not a shred of evidence for what you believe. That's a nonsensical statement.

Im glad we agree on something, believing in God without any evidence is a nonsensical statement, and action.

systemsready wrote: »

The problem you have is comparable to the following.
You and a friend are watching a sunset. Your friend is astounded by the beauty of the sunset and makes all the noises displaying this. But you on the other hand don't understand why your friend is all excited, you don't see it as they see it. So when your friend turns to you and says.."Its wonderful isn't it?"
You are going to have to nod and smile in agreement even though for you its nothing special.
But if you decide to be challenging you could say.."What evidence do you have to prove this sunset is beautiful?"
In which case I think your friend would decide to end the friendship..saying that you are missing something crucial in life and life is too short to waste time trying to get you to see.
So after that you will be left standing alone looking at the sunset and asking..."I don't see it, what is it that they see?"

Again seriously? Beauty? Thats what your saying. Beauty is subjective. Some people find beauty in things that others do not. So me not finding the same beauty in a sunset that my "friend" does isnt strange and perfectly natural. We are all different etc.

Now you cant provide evidence for what you think is beautiful as again someone else can find what you thing is beautiful to be repulsive.

Sin City · 15-10-2012 12:25PM

systemsready wrote: »

have you heard the adage " The Wisdom of Solomon?" A well know phrase.
But you seem to have advanced further and disregarded this. So for you Solomon was not wise, meaning you are wiser than he?

) That has to be the one of your best.

Solomon wanted to cut a baby in half, you think that was wise?

Again quoting the bible to make God more real is an epic fail

Zombrex · 15-10-2012 12:36PM

systemsready wrote: »

Imagine any object, any material thing, anything man made, look at it and ask your question..."For what purpose was this thing made?" Do you get that? It was made specifically for a purpose. Someone decided to bring it into existence. Now take any object again...and imagine that this object always existed...was never made (thats crucial now)..do you get it? (I hope that click was the sound of the penny dropping?)

You are still ignoring the point (I suspect because you actually understand it but don't like the consequences)

God's existence has no purpose since he has always existed and thus could not have been given purpose by something else. Thus his existence is meaningless by definition since by definition there cannot be assigned meaning for his existence.

As a being with no meaning to his existence everything he does is meaningless (your logic remember?)

Are you now saying you were wrong? That beings with no meaning for their existence can still do meaningful things?

Fanny Cradock · 15-10-2012 01:18PM

Zombrex wrote: »

God's existence has no purpose since he has always existed and thus could not have been given purpose by something else. Thus his existence is meaningless by definition since by definition there cannot be assigned meaning for his existence.

That is laughable sophistry.

tommy2bad · 15-10-2012 01:50PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That is laughable sophistry.

In a way but the point is that any meaning that is assigned to God is done so by something else.

Zombrex · 15-10-2012 02:22PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

In a way but the point is that any meaning that is assigned to God is done so by something else.

No the point is that just because something has no assigned meaning doesn't mean everything it does is meaningless.

systemsready is (unsuccessfully) arguing that if we do not have an assigned meaning to our lives then everything we do, no matter how meaningful it is to us or to the others around us, is meaningless. Life is meaningless, it can only have meaning if God exists to give it meaning and thus what we do can only have meaning if God exists.

If his argument is true then life is just as meaningless with God, since by systemsready definition everything God does is equally meaningless since God exists without assigned meaning.

This is similar to the people who say we need God to exist for objective morality to exist, without realizing that if God exists morality is still subjective since it is God's opinion on morality not the objective reality of morality.

tommy2bad · 15-10-2012 03:00PM

Yeah I'v never bought into the objective morality thing. Always seemed to be an appeal to authority, sort of 'because I said so' or 'thats the way it is'. I used to get annoyed that as a small kid never mind as a grown adult.

Whats the big deal with meaning anyway? Cant we just be? I imagine God just is and thats enough for Him, it should be enough for us.

systemsready · 15-10-2012 03:01PM

Zombrex wrote: »

If his argument is true then life is just as meaningless with God, since by systemsready definition everything God does is equally meaningless since God exists without assigned meaning.

Talk about trying to put words in my mouth!

This attitude of Zombrex is based on a self centred delusion. Zombrex thinks that if God does exist, then God's only there for to cater to mankind.
This is the same (and I believe Freud touched on this) as a baby who sees his mother flit in and out of his life giving food and cleaning and then disappearing for periods between. If the baby could form thoughts relevant to its experiences..it would think that the mother has no other function other than to attend to the baby. So if we analyse that further, we would say that the baby could think " If I didnt exist, then there would be no meaning for mother to exist, Mother is only there because I am here" This is part of the childish self delusion that atheists live in. Their estimation of themselves is grossly exaggerated.
Yet atheists will sometimes say " We are but specks of dust in a void.blah blah blah"
Contradictions again.

systemsready · 15-10-2012 03:03PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Whats the big deal with meaning anyway? Cant we just be? I imagine God just is and thats enough for Him, it should be enough for us.

It should be enough but some people want to go a bit too far and say there is no God at all.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments