Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

1…6263656768…141

Comments

  • #1922
    Cen taurus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭Cen taurus


    silverharp wrote: »
    im not so concerned where they started out as such although it doesnt help the case if the start of mankind was central Africa and not the middle east,

    The oldest fossil remains found to date, of Homo sapiens sapiens, were found in Ethiopia, and date to around 195,000. This does not mean that there were no early humans north of this region in this time period.
    silverharp wrote: »
    moreso that God let humans roam the earth for a hundred and ninety thousand plus years while staying hidden.

    Where are you getting this figure from ? The scientific age of the earth and the first humans only conflicts with scripture if you insist on a literal reading of what is figurative language as do some protestant fundamentalist churches. This is not the understanding of Judaism or the Catholic church, the largest christian denomination.
    silverharp wrote: »
    Hence the basis of Judaism and Christianity is wrong and doesnt correspond to observed history of man and or pre man.

    How did you leap into this claim from your premises ?, it's a non sequitur, what premise are you basing it on ?


  • #1923
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Cen taurus wrote: »


    Where are you getting this figure from ? The scientific age of the earth and the first humans only conflicts with scripture if you insist on a literal reading of what is figurative language as do some protestant fundamentalist churches. This is not the understanding of Judaism or the Catholic church, the largest christian denomination.



    How did you leap into this claim from your premises ?, it's a non sequitur, what premise are you basing it on ?

    But the christian story isnt God saw a species he likes and approached them with a proposition. The story is that god created something perfect and man messed it up. I dont see that the 2 accounts can be compatible ? God didnt interact with humans for most of its history as there is no cave art etc or other history backing up the idea that cavemen or any other prehistory people knew about Yahweh , secondly humans didnt fall from grace.
    So I reject the non sequitur accusation , if the christain/jewish story doesnt account for the history of mankind then the obvious "occum's razor" conclusion is that Yahweh was a local invention around 3000 odd years ago give or take.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #1924
    Cen taurus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭Cen taurus


    silverharp wrote: »
    But the christian story isnt God saw a species he likes and approached them with a proposition. The story is that god created something perfect and man messed it up. I dont see that the 2 accounts can be compatible ? God didnt interact with humans for most of its history as there is no cave art etc or other history backing up the idea that cavemen or any other prehistory people knew about Yahweh , secondly humans didnt fall from grace.

    So I reject the non sequitur accusation , if the christain/jewish story doesnt account for the history of mankind then the obvious "occum's razor" conclusion is that Yahweh was a local invention around 3000 odd years ago give or take.

    Hardly, seeing as William of Ockham, who devised Occam's razor, was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian.

    You haven't provided any evidence to prove the premises and claims of your argument.


  • #1925
    Cen taurus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭Cen taurus


    silverharp wrote: »
    But the christian story isnt God saw a species he likes and approached them with a proposition. The story is that god created something perfect and man messed it up. I dont see that the 2 accounts can be compatible ? God didnt interact with humans for most of its history as there is no cave art etc or other history backing up the idea that cavemen or any other prehistory people knew about Yahweh , secondly humans didnt fall from grace.

    So I reject the non sequitur accusation , if the christain/jewish story doesnt account for the history of mankind then the obvious "occum's razor" conclusion is that Yahweh was a local invention around 3000 odd years ago give or take.

    Again the conclusion doesn't follow. William of Ockham, who devised Occam's razor, was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian.

    And there is no evidence for the premises and claims of your argument.


  • #1926
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Cen taurus wrote: »

    You haven't provided any evidence to prove the premises and claims of your argument.

    well you reconcile the natural evolution of humans and the fact that there isnt any evidence that the original humans knew of Yahweh, with the bible and Jewish account?

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • #1927
    Cen taurus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭Cen taurus


    silverharp wrote: »
    well you reconcile the natural evolution of humans and the fact that there isnt any evidence that the original humans knew of Yahweh, with the bible and Jewish account?

    Other than accounts passed from generation to generation, and later written down when they became literate, what would be evidence that they did, and why would it be evidence exactly ? The earliest cave paintings that have been found, are from 40,000 years ago, in entirely different regions of the world. And what cave painting would prove the forefathers of the Israelites knew God ?


  • #1928
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    Again the conclusion doesn't follow. William of Ockham, who devised Occam's razor, was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian.

    And there is no evidence for the premises and claims of your argument.

    I disagree. I think that Silverharp's premises and conclusion make perfect sense.

    You will need to explain your position and claims more clearly. Otherwise I think it's safe for everyone to assume that you are simply incorrect here.

    Your statement "William of Ockham, who devised Occam's razor, was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian" has no relevance to the point being made.


  • #1929
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    Hardly, seeing as William of Ockham, who devised Occam's razor, was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian.

    You haven't provided any evidence to prove the premises and claims of your argument.


    Hardly ,seeing as Joe Montana was the greatest quarterback American Football has ever witnessed.

    You haven't provided any evidence to prove the premises and claims of your argument.

    Anything to contribute yet ? Any independent thought ,any point of your own ?

    Any answers ....ever ?

    Got anything


  • #1930
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    Other than accounts passed from generation to generation, and later written down when they became literate, what would be evidence that they did, and why would it be evidence exactly ? The earliest cave paintings that have been found, are from 40,000 years ago, in entirely different regions of the world. And what cave painting would prove the forefathers of the Israelites knew God ?


    ok so we will run with the idea that the original humans knew God , firstly why didnt God help them? there were delays beyond biological limitations as to language and writing which held back human development by tens of thousands of years.
    If humans were worshiping God from the start why isnt there more of a monotheistic tradition throughout the world where a Yahweh like character is know in Chinese , Indian , native American culture. As for specific evidence archaeological evidence that older cultures worshiped a monotheistic god. Any of the earliest religious type evidence found in graves for instance indicates that they had animalistic religious beliefs.
    I dont know how much of the OT you take seriously but one of the clear foundational beliefs is that God created something perfect and Humans disobeyed God thus messing things up. I dont see how this can be reconciled with evolution, humanity has always had to struggle against nature. Did God create flawed humans and then blame them for being flawed :pac:

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #1931
    Cen taurus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭Cen taurus


    orubiru wrote: »

    Your statement "William of Ockham, who devised Occam's razor, was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian" has no relevance to the point being made.

    It is perfectly relevent when its claimed that Ockhams razor disproves theism, or Christianity


  • Advertisement
  • #1932
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    It is perfectly relevent when it's claim that Ockhams razor disproves theism, or Christianity

    I disagree. Again, you are incorrect and have made false assumptions.

    Silverharp is not saying that Ockhams razor disproves Theism or Christianity. You are mistaken.

    The point is that there are pretty big gaps between what we know about Human history and what the mythology of Christianity states.

    As a believer (who lacks belief in all gods except for one) how do you reconcile these differences? Do you just explain it away or do you just ignore it?


  • #1933
    Cen taurus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭Cen taurus


    marienbad wrote: »
    Hardly ,seeing as Joe Montana was the greatest quarterback American Football has ever witnessed.

    You haven't provided any evidence to prove the premises and claims of your argument.

    Anything to contribute yet ? Any independent thought ,any point of your own ?

    Any answers ....ever ?

    Got anything

    It's not my argument it's his. Yet again, I've yet to see a single argument advanced against Christianity on this forum or elsewhere, that is not based on false premises, fallacies, straw men, misrepresentation etc. Including this post. If you've got anything, that isn't post it up. Surely you must be capable of presenting something that isn't after almost 6,000 posts ?


  • #1934
    Cen taurus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭Cen taurus


    orubiru wrote: »
    I disagree. Again, you are incorrect and have made false assumptions.

    Silverharp is not saying that Ockhams razor disproves Theism or Christianity. You are mistaken.

    The point is that there are pretty big gaps between what we know about Human history and what the mythology of Christianity states.

    As a believer (who lacks belief in all gods except for one) how do you reconcile these differences? Do you just explain it away or do you just ignore it?

    What differences? Or are you taking the figurative language in Genesis literally again like Christian fundamentalists and creationists?


  • #1935
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    What differences? Or are you taking the figurative language in Genesis literally again like Christian fundamentalists and creationists?

    I'll refer you back to Silverharp's post, # 1930.


  • #1936
    Cen taurus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭Cen taurus


    silverharp wrote: »
    ok so we will run with the idea that the original humans knew God , firstly why didnt God help them? there were delays beyond biological limitations as to language and writing which held back human development by tens of thousands of years.
    If humans were worshiping God from the start why isnt there more of a monotheistic tradition throughout the world where a Yahweh like character is know in Chinese , Indian , native American culture.

    Scripture explains God's revaltion is progressive, firstly through one man Abraham, then though his family, then a race, then a nation, then through a new covenant to the world.
    silverharp wrote: »
    As for specific evidence archaeological evidence that older cultures worshiped a monotheistic god. Any of the earliest religious type evidence found in graves for instance indicates that they had animalistic religious beliefs.

    Is this the Israelites you're talking about, or Pagan's elsewhere, or who is it ?
    silverharp wrote: »
    I dont know how much of the OT you take seriously but one of the clear foundational beliefs is that God created something perfect and Humans disobeyed God thus messing things up. I dont see how this can be reconciled with evolution, humanity has always had to struggle against nature. Did God create flawed humans and then blame them for being flawed :pac:

    You don't see how when evil is introduced, at man's choice, it can be destructive ?


  • #1937
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    It's not my argument it's his. Yet again, I've yet to see a single argument advanced against Christianity on this forum or elsewhere, that is not based on false premises, fallacies, straw men, misrepresentation etc. Including this post. If you've got anything, that isn't post it up. Surely you must be capable of presenting something that isn't after almost 6,000 posts ?

    I haven't seen too many arguments against Christianity here.

    I've seen many questions. I've seen many criticisms. I've seen many people give reasons why they lack belief.

    Nobody can prove that God doesn't exist.

    You can't prove that Jesus Christ was making valid claims. You can't prove that Joseph Smith wasn't making valid claims. Neither can I. That's OK though.

    What should not be OK in any kind of discussion is someone shouting down points by just repeating "false premises", "strawman", "fallacies", "ad hominem" etc over and over. The questions remain unanswered.

    This is a challenge for Religion in the 21st century. To answer the difficult questions and to deal with the fact that, due to the existence of social media and the internet, people can ask more difficult questions and can be more well informed than ever before.

    You are a shining example of how religious people are failing to live up to that challenge. In quite spectacular fashion, I might add.

    Please correct me if I am wrong but the goal of your posting here seems to be to shut down debate and force posters into repeating themselves over and over by telling them that valid points are invalid because of "ad hominem" or "non sequitur" or whatever.


  • #1938
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    Scripture explains God's revaltion is progressive, firstly through one man Abraham, then though his family, then a race, then a nation, then through a new covenant to the world.

    But it doesnt make sense to leave "his" species rudderless for 200000 years. This implies a cruel and uncaring God.
    Cen taurus wrote: »

    Is this the Israelites you're talking about, or Pagan's elsewhere, or who is it ?

    global , but we can drop this point per your comment above.

    Cen taurus wrote: »
    You don't see how when evil is introduced, at man's choice, it can be destructive ?

    evil was not introduced. Explain at which point from monkey to man could evil have been "introduced"? There was not a point in human history where humans fell off some sort of pedestal

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #1939
    Cen taurus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭Cen taurus


    silverharp wrote: »
    But it doesnt make sense to leave "his" species rudderless for 200000 years. This implies a cruel and uncaring God.

    But according to scripture, he didn't, mankind rejected God, and sided with evil.
    silverharp wrote: »
    evil was not introduced. Explain at which point from monkey to man could evil have been "introduced"? There was not a point in human history where humans fell off some sort of pedestal

    Man introduces evil by his actions and his choices. According to scripture, one of the very first acts after the fall was the introduction of murder.


  • #1940
    indioblack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭indioblack


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    But according to scripture, he didn't, mankind rejected God, and sided with evil.



    Man introduces evil by his actions and his choices. According to scripture, one of the very first acts after the fall was the introduction of murder.


    God allowed these events to happen.


  • #1941
    Cen taurus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭Cen taurus


    indioblack wrote: »
    God allowed these events to happen.

    Man is given the free will to choose. Choices have consequences, or is a person not responsible for their own actions and choices and the consequences they bring ?


  • Advertisement
  • #1942
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    But he didn't, mankind rejected God, and sided with evil.

    most of Manknd pre Abraham 2ish thousand BCE going back 200K years would not have heard of Yahweh so it makes no sense to say that mankind rejected God. Are you honestly trying to suggest that humans 200K year ago rejected Yahweh? and did so generation to generation from Africa to Australia?
    it makes no sense , either god is very uncaring and unjust or it never happened which is easier to believe

    Cen taurus wrote: »
    Man introduces evil by his actions and his choices. One of the very first acts after the fall was the introduction of murder.

    primates would have killed all along the evolution trek into human kind. There was no fall, at no point was man not in a death struggle with nature from the bacterial level up. your proposition doesnt make sense against evolutionary biology or human history.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #1943
    Roonbox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 499 ✭✭Roonbox


    orubiru wrote: »
    I haven't seen too many arguments against Christianity here.

    I've seen many questions. I've seen many criticisms. I've seen many people give reasons why they lack belief.

    Nobody can prove that God doesn't exist.

    .

    The burden of proof lies with you.


  • #1944
    Roonbox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 499 ✭✭Roonbox


    indioblack wrote: »
    God allowed these events to happen.

    Which of the 800 Gods that has been written about throughout history are you referring to?


  • #1945
    indioblack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭indioblack


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    Man is given the free will to choose. Choices have consequences, or is a person not responsible for their own actions and choices and the consequences they bring ?



    Yes - except you have an agency that witnesses murder. One capable of intervention.


  • #1946
    indioblack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭indioblack


    Roonbox wrote: »
    Which of the 800 Gods that has been written about throughout history are you referring to?


    It's reasonable to assume I'm referring to the Christian one.


  • #1947
    Cen taurus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭Cen taurus


    silverharp wrote: »
    most of Manknd pre Abraham 2ish thousand BCE going back 200K years would not have heard of Yahweh so it makes no sense to say that mankind rejected God. Are you honestly trying to suggest that humans 200K year ago rejected Yahweh? and did so generation to generation from Africa to Australia?
    it makes no sense , either god is very uncaring and unjust or it never happened which is easier to believe

    Scripture details that the first thing mankind did as soon as it became morally culpable for its own actions and choices was to reject God in preference for evil, yet God is always willing to try and salvage mankind, this culminated in Christ and spreading the his commandments and teachings to the world.
    silverharp wrote: »
    primates would have killed all along the evolution trek into human kind. There was no fall, at no point was man not in a death struggle with nature from the bacterial level up. your proposition doesnt make sense against evolutionary biology or human history.

    There's a difference between killing and murder.


  • #1948
    Cen taurus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭Cen taurus


    indioblack wrote: »
    Yes - except you have an agency that witnesses murder. One capable of intervention.

    So people are not responsible for their actions, because God should always intervene ?
    I'm not sure that defence is going to stack up.


  • #1949
    indioblack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭indioblack


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    So people are not responsible for their actions, because God should always intervene ?
    I'm not sure that defence is going to stack up.


    I made no defence.


  • #1950
    Roonbox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 499 ✭✭Roonbox


    indioblack wrote: »
    It's reasonable to assume I'm referring to the Christian one.

    So if that is the God that you believe in do you think that everybody who believes in all the other Gods are incorrect?


  • Advertisement
  • #1951
    indioblack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭indioblack


    Roonbox wrote: »
    So if that is the God that you believe in do you think that everybody who believes in all the other Gods are incorrect?
    No, because I'm not sure the God I was raised to believe in exists.


Advertisement