christianity vs. Aethism

[Zhavric]

Quote by: WW God can exist.

No. He can't.

You're completely ignoring the claims that you're implying.

Imagine if I said, "Superman can exist".

By accepting the common definition of superman, I'm implying that the laws of physics don't apply in a variety of situations. I'm implying that things proportioned like humans can be as dense as metal without having extra mass. I'm implying that same human shaped thing can lift ridiculous amounts of weight, generate lasers from its retina, emit and then receive back X-rays with the SAME set of retinas, and do a host of other things which we know to be impossible.

Not possible. Not unknown.

Impossible.

If you imply Superman can exist, then you either aren't aware of the laws of physics or are just content to ignore them.

The god hypothesis (a (terrible) scientific hypothesis) has similar problems.

God needs to be able to contradict many proven laws including conservation of energy. We know through science that complex intelligence things don't just "happen" or "always exist". They require an explanation in the form of a gradual process (evolution in the case of living things) or a designer (in the case of fabricated objects). Or the like.

So, when you say "god exists" what you're really saying is, "conservation of energy is false, complex things always exist or pop into existence, and everything that's proven in science is effectively wrong. And 1+1=3". Because we know that all to be false, the god hypothesis is also false. This is why you need to check your math. You cannot claim that you're paying attention to evidence and believe in god. He either exists or he doesn't. One or the other. He doesn't exist for you and not exist for me. That makes his existence a scientific question.

Now, are you going to do the honest thing and concede or are you going to fall back on faith / intellectual dishonesty as I predict you will?

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Morality games The only reason we treat the energy burst as though it happened is because there is evidence to prop up the idea. To be consistent in character and for the sake of logical cleanliness, it is fair to give every idea the same treatment. No idea deserves to be holy until it is proven to be holy.

Sure, but that's not proof God doesn't exist.

However, you are arguing for a deistic God, not the Christian God. Accounts of the Christian God's accomplishments contradict scientific evidence more directly.

That's what the next argument is. Lets just finish this one first.

The Bible also insists in other places the reverse mode of interpretation, a literal one, is the correct choice -- it is just differences in opinion amongst different writers living in different time periods. And no one who wrote those things ever once considered the matter in the same style as you, so why are you appealing to their words for authority? That is taking their statements out of context, which is senseless.

I don't think so. I mean, you can show the context of the use and prove me wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm right.

For Mark 2, Jesus was responding to pharisees. They were questioning why he was with sinners, why he was not fasting, and why he did not observe the Sabbath properly like the Bible said.

Mark 2:22 and Mark 2:27 were his responses. I don't think that was out of context.

The book of Hebrews was entirely a letter to the strict Jews. It also included the phrase "For if that first covenant had been faultless, no place would have been sought for a second one.
But he finds fault with them and says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will conclude a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah."

Hebrews 8:7-8

If you still think these phrases are out of context, please tell me how.

Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Wiccans, and others can make the same claim using the same double-standard logic, but it never accomplishes anything productive. It just obscures the issue, making it more insensible than it should be by including information irrevelant to the investigation.

This isn't really an argument, so it's hard to respond.

But I don't think we use a double-standard. We just add one extra fact that we just know is true. God exists. The logical foundation is built on that.

I know from experience it never firmly asserts the view that the Bible as a whole ought to be interpreted allegorically.

Please provide textual support for this statement.

Fables and parables are included in the text, and these are subject to such interpretations. But the Jews invested much effort into making Old Testament an authentic history, and nothing they wrote on that note was ever meant to be taken as anything other than the hard, accountable facts of the matter.

So you think the Jews were stoned when they wrote the genealogy? Do you really think they were sure that Adam lived 900+ years?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Zhavric God needs to be able to contradict many proven laws including conservation of energy.

Can you provide some additional data with concern to the energy ? in order to clarify your expression ?

[Winter wind]

Quote by: zhavric By accepting the common definition of superman, I'm implying that the laws of physics don't apply in a variety of situations. I'm implying that things proportioned like humans can be as dense as metal without having extra mass. I'm implying that same human shaped thing can lift ridiculous amounts of weight, generate lasers from its retina, emit and then receive back X-rays with the SAME set of retinas, and do a host of other things which we know to be impossible.

The magic tricks isn't part of the current argument.

What is part of the argument is the basic reason God exists. The beginning of the universe. Tell me, do you know for sure where all matter and energy came from (actually they're the same thing)?

Until you know or even have an idea, this hypothesis is as good as the next.

If you imply Superman can exist, then you either aren't aware of the laws of physics or are just content to ignore them.

Superman isn't a good analogy. Superman didn't create physics, there is no reason given on why he should be able to defy physics. God created the universe, good enough justification on why he can defy physics.

God needs to be able to contradict many proven laws including conservation of energy. We know through science that complex intelligence things don't just "happen" or "always exist". They require an explanation in the form of a gradual process (evolution in the case of living things) or a designer (in the case of fabricated objects). Or the like.

Maybe God isn't complex. We can't know anything like that.

Plus, your explanation is that energy and matter always existed, how is that not a similar explanation?

"conservation of energy is false, complex things always exist or pop into existence, and everything that's proven in science is effectively wrong. And 1+1=3"

Aye, where did energy come from in the first place? conservation of energy means that energy just always was. That probably isn't true, even if it was, it's just as logical as saying something everlasting created the first blast of energy. That's because you can't be sure.

[Morality Games]

Sure, but that's not proof God doesn't exist.

No, but it is proof he is a functional non-entity in world affairs. Even if a remote creator God is somehow involved, his involvement is imperceptible, and therefore meaningless.

I don't think so. I mean, you can show the context of the use and prove me wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. For Mark 2, Jesus was responding to pharisees. They were questioning why he was with sinners, why he was not fasting, and why he did not observe the Sabbath properly like the Bible said. Mark 2:22 and Mark 2:27 were his responses. I don't think that was out of context. The book of Hebrews was entirely a letter to the strict Jews. It also included the phrase "For if that first covenant had been faultless, no place would have been sought for a second one. But he finds fault with them and says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will conclude a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah." Hebrews 8:7-8 If you still think these phrases are out of context, please tell me how.

I don't have my Bible with me right now, but I sort of remember the dialogue you are referencing, and you are taking it out of context. Jesus' reformist theology was rule-based, not science or history based. He argued against the strictness of the rules of Jewish theological interpretations of the Bible. He never demonstrated doubt for the history or science of the Bible.

This isn't really an argument, so it's hard to respond.

No, it is a huge argument. Since you all operate under the same (low) logical standard of truth, you should all accept each other's ideas as true and valid. Picking and choosing on no basis other than because you feel like it is unacceptable.

But I don't think we use a double-standard. We just add one extra fact that we just know is true. God exists. The logical foundation is built on that.

You can use scientific vocabulary (like the term 'fact') and insist you 'know' God exists, but words have no meaning unless they have the objectives to back them up. You don't have the objectives to back up your "fact", so use of the term fact is only nominal (in name, not in form).

Please provide textual support for this statement.

I don't have my Bible with me.

So you think the Jews were stoned when they wrote the genealogy? Do you really think they were sure that Adam lived 900+ years?

What? Of course they thought that was true. Are you kidding? That the lives of humans became increasingly shorter as centuries passed was an important part of their theology, and they dedicated much thought to the problem, pondering the many "why's" of its truth.

I already explained the Jews considered themselves chroniclers of history, that their God was tangible and directly involved in their affairs, and that he would not suffer them to write anything false in their account of the facts.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Morality Games I don't have my Bible with me right now, but I sort of remember the dialogue you are referencing, and you are taking it out of context. Jesus' reformist theology was rule-based, not science or history based. He argued against the strictness of the rules of Jewish theological interpretations of the Bible. He never demonstrated doubt for the history or science of the Bible.

Ya, but the two (laws and history of the Bible) are connected since they both come from the same place, right? It's not much of a stretch.

Quote by: Morality Games You can use scientific vocabulary (like the term 'fact') and insist you 'know' God exists, but words have no meaning unless they have the objectives to back them up. You don't have the objectives to back up your "fact", so use of the term fact is only nominal (in name, not in form).

Which is why I don't try and present it as fact to you. I can't support it with anything other then my own eyewitness account, which isn't enough. However, I'm sure of God's existence, so it's a fact to me, but I can't prove it to you. So I'm not blaming you for not believing me, I would do the same. Only ask for your patience (not that I expect it. I probably wouldn't give it either).

I don't have my Bible with me.

fair enough, I don't want to rush a response from you.

What? Of course they thought that was true. Are you kidding? That the lives of humans became increasingly shorter as centuries passed was an important part of their theology, and they dedicated much thought to the problem, pondering the many "why's" of its truth.

really? where?
(Not rhetorical. This is new to me.)

[Morality Games]

Ya, but the two (laws and history of the Bible) are connected since they both come from the same place, right? It's not much of a stretch.

No. Common origin does not implicate that two entities should be given the same treatment. Matter and energy enjoy the same origin, but due to differences in their nature, they are given different assessments. Jesus specificaly refuted the strictness of rules, not the authenticity of the history or science, meaning he felt as though the history and science suggested there needed to be less strictness, not that it was false. Due to a lack of qualifiers, it is safe to say he was a Jew who believed in the science and history of the Bible, but felt as though the rules Jews derived from their interpretations were too tough on the "little guy" -- the man attending his flock needed to go find his lost lamb on Sunday, for example.

It is a huge leap of faith to say he meant that the history and science of the Bible was all allegorical. Moreover, if allegorical, what do we make of New Testament, which is equally fantastic and unlikely?

Which is why I don't try and present it as fact to you. I can't support it with anything other then my own eyewitness account, which isn't enough. However, I'm sure of God's existence, so it's a fact to me, but I can't prove it to you. So I'm not blaming you for not believing me, I would do the same. Only ask for your patience (not that I expect it. I probably wouldn't give it either).

I don't feel like arguing semantics. My patience is easily acquired, since I don't really care enough to feel a need to rush.

really? where? (Not rhetorical. This is new to me.)

It was years ago and haven't studied theology seriously for years, so I can't remember what book I read it in. Possibly the introduction to my version of the Dead Sea Scrolls, maybe somewhere on the Internet.

Nonetheless, conclusions usually went that humans suffered increasingly shorter lifespans in accordance with the collective lapses in virtue of the species.

[Winter wind]

I only just realized I never responded to this. My sincerest apologies.

Quote by: morality games No. Common origin does not implicate that two entities should be given the same treatment. Matter and energy enjoy the same origin, but due to differences in their nature, they are given different assessments. Jesus specificaly refuted the strictness of rules, not the authenticity of the history or science, meaning he felt as though the history and science suggested there needed to be less strictness, not that it was false.

Though he never backed up that the history read exactly as it was in the Bible.

He never said that, so this is a bit of assumption. In the mean time, let me bible quote again.

"Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered"
Luke 11:52
A translation (i don't put words in mouth, just clean up the old english): You idiot, lawyers! You have the key to knowledge. You're smart. I know, because God gave you that key. And yet you don't use your head! You don't use the key. You just stick to stopping others from using the key (brains).

This is like the ninth amendment in the Constitution. Jesus gave us a bit of power to make those decisions on our own. I mean He gave us a brain, why shouldn't we follow it?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Morality Games No, but it is proof he is a functional non-entity in world affairs. Even if a remote creator God is somehow involved, his involvement is imperceptible, and therefore meaningless. I don't have my Bible with me.

#1
I do not think that God (read : intellectual-intelligent Entity) interferes and/or interacts within the Universe (we live-in) the way that overwhelming majority of guys on planet Earth may think.
That is yet another crucial error many guys make, following such approach.

#2
:-)))

[Morality Games]

He never said that, so this is a bit of assumption.

No, I am making an inference, not an assumption. A complete lack of qualifiers indicating we need to interpret the history depicted in Old Testament as allegorical and an assertion that Christianity is a progression in the same spiritual path walked by Judaism pretty much necessitates we take the Old Testament literally, as a demonstration of events which really happened in space-time, as was the prevalent and unchallenged (both by humans and by divine authorities) view of Jews (and later Christians) for thousands years before and after Jesus' time. The only Jewish tenet Jesus reversed was the literal strictness of rule observance.

By and large, it was only after it became obvious religious accounts of physics and history were wrong Christians went, "Whoa! We'd better get allegorical before people start abandoning the faith!" And to be honest, most of them don't even know what they mean by allegorical . . . that is, to what extent is the life of Jesus as depicted in New Testament allegorical? It is, after all, as peculiar and supernatural as many depictions of history and physics in Old Testament.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Morality Games No, I am making an inference, not an assumption.

I stopped reading here.

An inference all I wanted. I'm making the inference that God made the world and the facts behind the world. He would want us to believe the facts over an obvious allegory in the Bible.

That's the inference I'm making, but hell, it's only an inference.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Winter wind I'm making the inference that God made the world and the facts behind the world. He would want us to believe the facts over an obvious allegory in the Bible.

That is a quite simmilar approach to my point of view, where :
- God (as described within the Bible) is Not necessarily and/or exactly the Entity what religious sources (have been teaching people for centuries to) take for.