Thread: God

Cyde my applogize for not answering your questions about jesus resuraction. I have started it, and will post it as soon as I'm done. Until then enjoy my post to other comments.

STOP CALLING HIM CYDE! ... sorry... I mentioned this before. Its screwing me up.

Clyde so I fogot the l big deal.

>>The earth is flat is not an opinon, the bible does not state the earth is flat.

Except that things that are round dont have corners.

>>stating that the earth is flat are figures of speach

Gotcha. I heard that Genesis is one big figure of speach too. Actually so's John and Paul and the rest of 'em. Whos going to contradict me?

Lightatdawn you know what a figure of speach is, and you decide what is a figure of speach in the bible the same way you would decide a figure of speach any where else.

The foundations of the earth were rocked when Clyde started to preach the Gospal

"The foundions of the earth were rocked"- is a figure of speach, it was not ment to be taken as it stands word for word.

Not what he was implying at all (or myself for that matter). You are correct; Nothing is controlling the mind. We're "free" to make decisions. Its simply that the decision reached is not random in nature, merely one that is a direct result of the current enviroment and the exact state of the brain at the point in question.

Going by that idea you can either never send anyone to jail because they were not free to chose to do the crime, or you could devise a test that would be able to tell if someone will comit a crime and thus put him or her in jail premtivly.

Ok Sensaku, i am not deliberately ignoring you, (though i notive you failed to answer any of the points addressed to you in my previous post to you) its just i'm debating with grown-ups now, and it seems it takes a fair portion of time to dole out the posts that i have been so, however i will direct what remains of my sanity towards your post.

First off don't consider me a kid, and I appoligize for not addressing your points before, the thread was closed after you made those points so I could not address them at the time.

There is no such thing as proof, presumeably you mean what constitutes evidence for God? Well a big booming voice that anounced the solution to quantum gravity, and broke a few laws of physics would be a start.......

Well if this happend and someone wrote it down. Would people belive that it actuly happend?

Sensaku, tell me something, if there is animal standing infront of you, its got 4 legs, its smaller than a horse, its bigger than a pony, in fact it looks just like a donkey, it smells like a donkey, if you lick it, it tastes like a donkey, and the noise it makes sounds just like a donkeys bray (unless you in the bible, in which case it will be talking to you....) What animal is it Sensaku?

If and one would hope when we find life, and we see that it can be made using chemicals that just so happened to be around during prebiotic Earth, and we draw out a reaction path-way that shows exactly how it formed from said chemicals.

What was the cause of life? Was it chemistry or was it God. Is it a donkey or is it a man in a donkey suit cunningly disguised?

It could be any of those, the fact is unless we develop a way of time traveling we will never know.

I am, am I? An opinion can be more or less correct depending on what it is applied to, with regards to taste there is no right or wrong answer for the food because the taste is not a property of the food its a property of the person who is eating it. Ie. whether or not you find snails delicious is a property of your brain, not the snail.

To put it another way taste is subjective, it is meaningless to say definitively "snails are delicious" the only meaningfull statement is "I find snails delicious". All opinions therefore are equally true because they are actually describing different things: you find snails delicious, I find snails foul, no contradiction, subjective property. However you can have opinions on subjects that are NOT subjective like for example the geometry of the Earth, in that instances the the geometry IS a property of the Earth, so then asking absolutely what is the geometry of the Earth IS a valid question (unlike asking "are snails delicious?" which is not), and therefore whilst there can be many opinions on the subject some can be much closer to the truth than others. In my opinion the Earth is a disc, is a lot further off than in my opinion the Earth is a sphere.

from dictonary.com option

1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
3. A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.
4. The prevailing view: public opinion.
5. Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.

According to definion one your opion that the earth is a sphere is not an opinion, it's a fact. The statment the earth is a disk is false.

.... Sensaku i know it might amaze you to hear but the bible is not infact the sole source of human knowledge *gasp*. The bible does not state that the liver is where bile is produced, that does not make it false.

So are you saying the earth is flat now. I probly worded that wrong, and should of said: The earth is flat is not an opion, and no where does the bible support that belief.

Sensaku it just occured to me that my previous explanation of geometry vs. delicious will probably be for nought......... I don't really care whether or not the bible says God is controlling everything, if you read what I said, i was explaining why science has been pushing back religion. Now like it or not the church has always used unexplained phenomenon to counter arguments of doubt, those arguments have been knocked down by science, because of this the need for a God keeps on getting diminished, prior to Darwin, God was still "needed" to explain the origin of life, well not so anymore, science makes God more and more redundant, and that is why it pushes religion back.

I agree the the Church has always unexplained phenomenoun to conter arguments of dought. You must also keep in mind that before science could explain shooting stars people would go to the church and ask, the pastor having no clue would thus naturly claim it was God. Now this over time is the excepted fact, until a scientist comes along and says what it is actuly causes it. The church not wanting to loose power despite the fact it should have none brands the scientist as a herotic, as was the case with Galilo. Other times conservites not wanting to accept change go aginst the scientist as they belive the God does everything because well the Church said so.

As I stated before religion does not hold back science, Conservites along with people hungrey with power in religion do.

What do you think free-will is? Tell me if this desciption fits free will:

A photon passes through my lense and is diffracted onto a spot called the fovea on the back of my retina, it breaks down a molecule called rhedopsin which splits into to other molecules, this results in a nervious impulse being sent down the optic nerve, this impulse together with a million others are passed on from the optic nerve in the visual cortex of the brain, a giant neural net performs various 'calculations' on this 'input' and as a result several million 'output' signals are sent from the brain down the nerves untill they hit a specific muscle synapse where they trigger the release of a neuro-transmitter called acetyl-choline, this diffuses across the synapse and binds to a receptors in the muscle fibre causing via various other steps i won't go in-to a muscle contraction.

Does that sound like free-will to you? Because i just described (a stupidly simplified version of) what occurs when you respond to a visual stimuli, for example when someone waves to you and you wave back.

I could also chose not to wave back, a beter example would be someone touchs a hot burner and then imidetly removes his hand from it. Our free will is limited in the fact that we have automatic reactions manily to keep us safe. Clyde with out free will people could not choose to become athisist.

There is no soul, the mind is just a huge chemical computer, thats it, yes a stupidly complicated computer, and yes we are concious and we haven't got any real understanding of how yet. BUT all we are is a giant chemistry set. Now if you wish to consider that as "free will", go for it, it means computers, bacteria, anything in-fact has "free-will". Furthermore it doesn't work as an argument against problems like the problem of evil, it just shows God to be alame designer.

What good is being good if you have no choice in the mater, if you are forced to love someone does your love have any meaning?

Going by that idea you can either never send anyone to jail because they were not free to chose to do the crime, or you could devise a test that would be able to tell if someone will comit a crime and thus put him or her in jail premtivly.

You're not getting it. Are you not reading my posts? Several pages back I discussed the social reasons for punishment, guilt, concience, etc. The reasons are highly relevant, so if you really want the answer: Go back and read them.

>>Clyde so I fogot the l big deal.

Sorry. Not a big deal. It just kept jumping out at me the last few pages. I dont know; Maybe I'm strange.

>>you decide what is a figure of speach in the bible the same way you would decide a figure of speach any where else.

I sure do. And I decided that the whole bible is a figure of speach. i.e. Its not meant to be taken literally. So where does it say whats the figure and whats not? How do we know?

>>It could be any of those, the fact is unless we develop a way of time traveling we will never know.

Thats the point that has been trying to be made for the last 4 million words. We will never know in a sense that it is 100% and infinitly accurate. Only the most probable explanation. Read Clydes donkey example again. We will only be able to chose the most plausible possibility. Does this _really_ need to be explained again?

>>I could also chose not to wave back

Thats not what Clyde was refering to. He was merely explaining the process involved in seeing something. Theres a neurological process involved in making any decision, and it all boils down the molecular placement/movement/etc.

Sentaku senshi>>I agree the the Church has always unexplained phenomenoun to conter arguments of dought. You must also keep in mind that before science could explain shooting stars people would go to the church and ask, the pastor having no clue would thus naturly claim it was God.<<

And this is OK? You say the priest would make up the answer that fit his ideas the best (ie it was god). In other words he would LIE to enhance gods reputation and power.

How then can you trust ANY religious text as it may just be the 'the pastor having no clue would thus naturly claim it was God'

Sentaku senshi>>Now this over time is the excepted fact, until a scientist comes along and says what it is actuly causes it. The church not wanting to loose power despite the fact it should have none brands the scientist as a herotic, as was the case with Galilo. Other times conservites not wanting to accept change go aginst the scientist as they belive the God does everything because well the Church said so.

As I stated before religion does not hold back science, Conservites along with people hungrey with power in religion do.<<

So you are saying religion deliberately obscures the truth to protect its power. How then can you claim that the bible is the ultimate truth? Can you be 100% sure that it is also not a product of ' Conservites along with people hungrey with power' within the church?

I sure do. And I decided that the whole bible is a figure of speach. i.e. Its not meant to be taken literally. So where does it say whats the figure and whats not? How do we know?

No offense lightatdawn but your acting stupid. Where does anything say what is ment to be a figure of speach, your acting like the bible is the only thing that uses them.

And this is OK? You say the priest would make up the answer that fit his ideas the best (ie it was god). In other words he would LIE to enhance gods reputation and power.

I'm not saying it is ok in fact it is downright wrong. A lot of this lying took place during the middle ages when the Catholic church became no longer a church, but in reality a government and a business.

So you are saying religion deliberately obscures the truth to protect its power. How then can you claim that the bible is the ultimate truth? Can you be 100% sure that it is also not a product of ' Conservites along with people hungrey with power' within the church?

For starters Priest and Levites don't receive a lot for being a priest or levities. Second power hungry people make a big show out of giving to charity so that they don't appear to be so power hungry yet the bible says that you should not make a spectacle of your self, and if fact you should humble your self. Also the Laws given to the Jewish race are vastly different then what actually is does happen around them such as having one wife, your support to be clear of dept every 7 years, and release all of your slaves unless they wanted to stay your slave. The bible after the first 5 books no longer (as far as I know) contains laws, but instead poetry, history, and advice for living your life.

Now on the New Testament:

When Jesus out his disciples he tells them not to carry a moneybag. Also when Jesus heals someone he never asked for money though some people obviously gave him some. For witch they used to buy necessities. Now in acts every time a new person joins they would sell all of their belongings and the money would be distributed among the followers. Paul in no way seems to be making money at all, and before that he was a Pharisee and was one of the major people who prosecuted Christians witch of course probably got him some more money.

>>No offense lightatdawn

None taken.

>>your acting like the bible is the only thing that uses them.

You're missing the point again. It is reasonable to assume that if x is a figure of speach then y may also be. This means that if it is "legal" theisticially, to say that certain parts of the bible can be intrepeted in a non literal fashion, than any part could be intrepted so. Also, a figure of speach is an evolved linguistic characteristic. Meaning, nobody simply says, lets make 'four corners of the earth' mean 'all areas of the earth'. It is an evolution from a statement into a meaning. 'Figures of speach' tend to have evolved from a specific meaning, usually in reference to a something particular in its point of origin. Understand?

>>However, I do question (this is not meant as an attack, just a question), why the catholic church refuses to let women be priests, I'm totally uneducated in the arguement of this, but I question it.<<

When they finally hold Vatican III (which is long overdue) I think you'll see some changes. At the moment PJP2 is still hanging in there, but for how much longer is anyone's guess. I don't understand why the Catholic church won't allow female priests. I have talked to a few Catholic priests about this and they say they have now problem with the idea and feel that one day it will be allowed. I hope we will!

>>I think there is a big diffrence between "Thou shall not kill" and "Thou shall not murder." Especially where things like self defense, and capital punishment come into play. Those of you that have read enough of my rants no that I do not believe in capital punishment at all, which I'm actually glad to see the pope has spoken out against. However, before I'm utterly jumped, I do believe in defensive warfare and/or self- defense. In the case of nations this does not just mean an attack directly on a country, but when nessicary an attack to defend their intrest. With minimal civilian casualties being a primary goal.<<

I think everyone has the right to defend themselves against a physical attack. If you come up and hit me, you can expect me to fight back! But if you kill someone in self-defence that is still manslaughter under Australian law (I'm not sure what you might call it but basically the term means "unintentional murder"). But to murder someone is to kill them in my book. There is no difference in my eyes.

>>I respect your views very much mithrandir thank you for sharing them.<<

Anytime kermi3 . Thank you for listening to me rambling on

>>God - I am open to the conncept, but no I do not believe in God in the traditional since of a all powerful being up on a thrown somewhwere, or any bing for that matter.<<

To me God is everywhere. The idea of a kingdom - as a child you might think God sits perched on a cloud with a snowy white beard. But the kingdom is a spiritual one in my eyes.

You're missing the point again. It is reasonable to assume that if x is a figure of speach then y may also be. This means that if it is "legal" theisticially, to say that certain parts of the bible can be intrepeted in a non literal fashion, than any part could be intrepted so. Also, a figure of speach is an evolved linguistic characteristic. Meaning, nobody simply says, lets make 'four corners of the earth' mean 'all areas of the earth'. It is an evolution from a statement into a meaning. 'Figures of speach' tend to have evolved from a specific meaning, usually in reference to a something particular in its point of origin. Understand?

AMAZINGLY BAD ANALOGY: Since x is a figure of speach y is a figure of speach.

JUDGING THE WHOLE BY ONE OF ITS CHARACTERISTICS: Since x part of the bile is a figure of speach the entire thing is.

Common sence, and the relazion that the Bible was writen so that common people could understand it's meaning are needed to decide what is a

I think everyone has the right to defend themselves against a physical attack. If you come up and hit me, you can expect me to fight back! But if you kill someone in self-defence that is still manslaughter under Australian law (I'm not sure what you might call it but basically the term means "unintentional murder"). But to murder someone is to kill them in my book. There is no difference in my eyes.

It really depends on the circumstances, war for example requires you to kill though you should avoid killing as much as posible. Also if a hugh guy atacks a small one and the small guy shoots the big one that is a resonable response.

"Lightatdawn you know what a figure of speach is, and you decide what is a figure of speach in the bible the same way you would decide a figure of speach any where else."

Ok, we decide whether something written in the past should be taken as a figure of speech by deciding whether it is more sensible to take it that way or to take it literally.

Now how can we apply this to the bible?

If you want to take ALL the bits of the bible that are nonsensical as figures of speech thats cool: When they talk about "God having a son", thats a figure of speech, when Moses roamed the desert for 40 days and 40 nights.... figure of speech, creation in its entirety...... figures of speech.

In fact God is a figure of speech too. (more to come - see below)

"Going by that idea you can either never send anyone to jail because they were not free to chose to do the crime, or you could devise a test that would be able to tell if someone will comit a crime and thus put him or her in jail premtivly"

As lightatdawn has pointed out, we have already covered this.

"Well if this happend and someone wrote it down. Would people belive that it actuly happend?"

If on the front of every newspaper tommorow morning there was a picture of giant hand emerging from the sky, with the grand unified theory equations written in flame in the sky, while for 2 hours the Earth stopped rotating about the sun then that would be a little more convincing than a text from 2000 years ago that has no more basis that any other myth.

"It could be any of those, the fact is unless we develop a way of time traveling we will never know."

........ read it again.....

"According to definion one your opion that the earth is a sphere is not an opinion, it's a fact. The statment the earth is a disk is false"

There is no such thing as a 'fact', there are only opinions that have evidence supporting them. Now before you charge off having missed the point once again, tell me if you can prove with 100% certainty that the Earth is not a disc.

"So are you saying the earth is flat now"

No i'm saying your reasoning is bogus.

"I agree the the Church has always unexplained phenomenoun to conter arguments of dought. You must also keep in mind that before science could explain shooting stars people would go to the church and ask, the pastor having no clue would thus naturly claim it was God"

Heh, naturally, and now that science is revealing the true nature of the universe we see God is redundant.

"As I stated before religion does not hold back science"

Didn't you just say this?: "The church not wanting to loose power despite the fact it should have none brands the scientist as a herotic"

Oh i seeeeeee, its not "religion", its the "church" silly me, oh hang on a minute, the "church" wouldn't exist without religion now would it? No it wouldn't so without religion, science wouldn't be held back........ so........ religion holds back science.

"I could also chose not to wave back, a beter example would be someone touchs a hot burner and then imidetly removes his hand from it. Our free will is limited in the fact that we have automatic reactions manily to keep us safe. Clyde with out free will people could not choose to become athisist."

*Sigh* "you" couldn't "choose" anything, depending on the nature of the chemical program in your brain running at that point in time, "you" would either wave back or not, depending on the brains output. "You" would think that "you" made the decision because "you" are created by the processes of that chemical computer.

I suppose i can forgive you for not grasping this one, its quite a difficult concept to get across because of language limitations.

"What good is being good if you have no choice in the mater, if you are forced to love someone does your love have any meaning?"

This is not an argument for it not being true, its another "i don't like this, therefore it must be false" line of reasoning. Anyhow, love doesn't need "meaning", all that matters is how it feels.

"Where does anything say what is ment to be a figure of speach, your acting like the bible is the only thing that uses them."

The point is that its pretty hard to determine whats a figure of speech in the bible because literal meanings are equally plausible given knowledge at the time, furthermore even if for some bizzare reason you assume that everything that is unreasonable in the bible given modern day knowledge must therefore be a figure of speech you are left concluding that EVERYTHING in the bible is infact a figure of speech.

"AMAZINGLY BAD ANALOGY: Since x is a figure of speach y is a figure of speach"

I think we just found the best example of the "pot calling the kettle black" that there will EVER be in the entire duration of humanity.

You are still not getting it, hopefully i have made it clear enough now.

"JUDGING THE WHOLE BY ONE OF ITS CHARACTERISTICS: Since x part of the bile is a figure of speach the entire thing is."

You are completely misapplying these quotes.

I think everyone has the right to defend themselves against a physical attack. If you come up and hit me, you can expect me to fight back! But if you kill someone in self-defence that is still manslaughter under Australian law (I'm not sure what you might call it but basically the term means "unintentional murder"). But to murder someone is to kill them in my book. There is no difference in my eyes.

I agree that everyone has the right to defend themselves. Absolutely. And here in the US it is also called manslaughter. However in certain cases there are exceptions. If you are aiming a gun at me, and I have every reason, to believe, and do believe that you have the intent to kill me, then it is permissible for me to kill you first if I have the means. This does not mean I can incapacitate you and then kill you, this means I have the right to fight back until you can no longer warn/kill me physically. I believe this also extendsm under certain circumstances to others around you, particuarlly your young children (if they are in harms way)...If I see you pull a gun on my child, I won't nessicarily be charged if I draw on you. I don't know the details of this, I'm no lawyer so....

Now Clyde, about coexisistance...well I'm tired on this right now and my brain is worn, but I'll say more later.

Originally posted by kermi3
If you are aiming a gun at me, and I have every reason, to believe, and do believe that you have the intent to kill me, then it is permissible for me to kill you first if I have the means.

but isn't that still murder, you will still be tried for murder if you kill someone in defense, won't you?

>>but isn't that still murder, you will still be tried for murder if you kill someone in defense, won't you?<<

At the end of the day, with the situations described above, it is impossible to say outright whether you would be found guilty of murder, manslaughter or anything. It is completely situation dependent. You would have to answer your case in front of a jury.

Now a person who shoots someone dead because they genuinely believe that that someone is about to cause harm to their children is unlikely I would say to be convicted of anything. And I think that would be true of any western society. I would certainly hope so!!

Now to use the same example, if the person were to shoot the attacker in the leg before walking up and giving them a 'double tap' through the head, that would not be justifiable behaviour. The initial shot in the leg would have removed the threat and the 'double tap' would have amounted to them taking the law into their own hands.

It can get a bit more complicated if some slimy lawyer claims you had the opportunity to shoot them in the leg but instead you went for the head. However, unless you are an ex-SAS sniper, I don't think that any jury would expect you to be in the state of mind necessary to shoot the attacker in such a way as not to kill them.

What you are effectively proving to the jury is that you acted in a justifiable manner. Protecting your children is justifiable, causing harm or death to someone who at that precise moment is not a threat isn't justifiable.

"I do unfortunately have to say one more thing. Clyde, if you were to know a religious person who's beliefs are his own (ie believes because he wants to believe, did the research and feels this religion is best for him, and wasn't indoctrined or forced to believe), doesn't in any way force his view upon others because he realizes they are just his views, and teaches others, including his children, that they have a right to figure out whatever it is that they want to believe (like your parents did), then what problem do you have with him other than that he holds an irrational belief? What is so wrong with holding an irrational belief that it must be stamped out of him?"

If people weren't indocrinated and were well educated in science, then no one would believe in religion.

But lets say, you're right, say someone does choose to believe in x-religion, or that the Earth is flat or any other irrational belief, whats wrong with that?

Whats wrong with some people believing the Earth is on the back of four giant turtles?

In a democratic government the views of the people MATTER, it matters because if lots of people believe the Earth is on the back of giant turtles they might veto the space program on grounds that the fumes will upset the turtles. Christians who believe human embryos only 7 days old have souls, greatly supress stem cell research that has great medical implications.

Beliefs matter, because they have an effect on our lives, on our society:

J. Witnesses believe that the soul exists in the blood, whats the wrong with that? Well nothing except they forbid the doctors from adminstering life saving blood transfusions.

See thats it, irrational beliefs are inherently dangerous because whether or not they result in social catastrophy is up in the air.

I have no problem with irrational beliefs that have no power, make no difference, but there is no way of guaranteeing they will stay that way. By all accounts Bin Laden's family are fairly reasonable, they aren't fanatics, yet he is, soley because of an irrational belief. Its chance.

Allowing irrational beliefs social acceptibility, is like playing Russian roulette every time someone is born, eventually you're going to get shot.

Ok, we decide whether something written in the past should be taken as a figure of speech by deciding whether it is more sensible to take it that way or to take it literally.

Now how can we apply this to the bible?

If you want to take ALL the bits of the bible that are nonsensical as figures of speech thats cool: When they talk about "God having a son", thats a figure of speech, when Moses roamed the desert for 40 days and 40 nights.... figure of speech, creation in its entirety...... figures of speech.

In fact God is a figure of speech too. (more to come - see below)

As you and lightatdawn can not comprehend what the figures of speech are in the bible and thus concluding the entire must be:

http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/otidioms.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...7568?vi=glance

There the first one is a collection of them and the other is a book with over 200 of them with there meanings. Now you guys won't think that everything in the Bible is a figure of speach.

If on the front of every newspaper tommorow morning there was a picture of giant hand emerging from the sky, with the grand unified theory equations written in flame in the sky, while for 2 hours the Earth stopped rotating about the sun then that would be a little more convincing than a text from 2000 years ago that has no more basis that any other myth.

Ok, in 2000 years who will still belive it? and Hillebille said it best

If I was a supreme deity, I wouldn't let my existence be known to everyone. I mean, I wouldn't give a rat's ass if there were people that refused my existence. I'm God, remember - I'm not just another petty human that gives a about what people think.

Many people, for some reason, think that because they are human they _deserve_ proof of God. And if they don't get proof they automatically assume he isn't real then give the "if he was real he'd let it be known" spill. That argument isn't really any better than the extreme creationist's "there's no disproof so he must be real" notion.

Now, please understand that by this I'm not trying to prove his existence; I'm just merely saying "if" he exists then it's logical that he wouldn't let his existence be known to everyone.

Oh i seeeeeee, its not "religion", its the "church" silly me, oh hang on a minute, the "church" wouldn't exist without religion now would it? No it wouldn't so without religion, science wouldn't be held back........ so........ religion holds back science.

Remove religion, and science will still be held back. Hummans are not know for there abilty to say well I don't know in explaining things. Second science it self is constently held back by it's own belifs from places that dont' exist and up doing so, to animals that are belived to be extinced that are not.

*Sigh* "you" couldn't "choose" anything, depending on the nature of the chemical program in your brain running at that point in time, "you" would either wave back or not, depending on the brains output. "You" would think that "you" made the decision because "you" are created by the processes of that chemical computer.

I suppose i can forgive you for not grasping this one, its quite a difficult concept to get across because of language limitations.

Compare it to a computer, were programers not brain surgeons. (well I'm not). From your reasoning a hummon AI does not seem to complicate, for the most part it would have to be able to simply mimic what someone else does, and not be able to hit anything, both of these have been done. The problem with AI is making a choice witch science seems to be able to show how a choose is made

http://www.thymos.com/science/freewill.html