Guest Hal Posted July 10, 2011 Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 You have it backwards. Atheists are not making any extraordinary claims, the theists are. And as you are probably aware, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." While this might be a difference of opinion between you and me, and respectfully so, the majority of logical, reasonable people would disagree with you. Saying that there is no God is not an extraordinary claim, where on the contrary, saying that there is a God and that the Bible is factually accurate IS an extraordinary claim. This requires the burden of proof, which there is none. And just like you said : This goes for the theists, too. The big bang theory does not ever say that there was nothing, it says that there was a singularity. A single point at which all matter in the universe existed. A point of infinite density, heat, and energy. This extraordinary claim is backed up by mountains of extraordinary evidence, from galaxies redshifting away to lab tests done in the particle accelerators of CERN in Europe. I don't have it backward. Both sides make extraordinary claims. You just believe that your claim is less extraordinary. The people arguing for their side, believing that their theories are absolute are the ones who try to shift the burden of proof. If I claim there is absolutely a God, my claim is not extraordinary to me. If I claim there is absolutely no God, my claim in not extraordinary to me. Neither side can prove their extraordinary claim. I'm aware of what the big bang theory states. If you haven't seen the argument I quoted, you need to look around the internet a little more. Now, on to the extraordinary part of your claim, there was a single point which contained all the matter in the universe. We know nothing beyond this. What created matter? Well, we can't even come close to explaining that one. It's extraordinary because we create an explanation for the beginning of the universe while ignoring the beginning of that beginning. That being said, this thread isn't about what scientific theories hold water, it's about a philosophic and logical understand of religion. P.S. You making a claim about what the majority of "logical and reasonable" people believe is extraordinary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffro Posted July 10, 2011 Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 tl;dr? entire thread. what side is winning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted July 10, 2011 Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 tl;dr? entire thread. what side is winning Neither side is winning. A couple people got all mad and tried to win but they completely missed the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10_penn Posted July 10, 2011 Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 I don't have it backward. Both sides make extraordinary claims. You just believe that your claim is less extraordinary. The people arguing for their side, believing that their theories are absolute are the ones who try to shift the burden of proof. If I claim there is absolutely a God, my claim is not extraordinary to me. If I claim there is absolutely no God, my claim in not extraordinary to me. Neither side can prove their extraordinary claim. I'm aware of what the big bang theory states. If you haven't seen the argument I quoted, you need to look around the internet a little more. Now, on to the extraordinary part of your claim, there was a single point which contained all the matter in the universe. We know nothing beyond this. What created matter? Well, we can't even come close to explaining that one. It's extraordinary because we create an explanation for the beginning of the universe while ignoring the beginning of that beginning. That being said, this thread isn't about what scientific theories hold water, it's about a philosophic and logical understand of religion. I guess I am unclear of your position. How is an atheist's claim of no god more extraordinary than a theist's claim that there is a god? Just because an atheist is going against the common belief? How do you prove that there is not a god? The origin of the universe still falls within the realm of philosophy/religion, as we are talking about it here. If we were to talk about the matter, heat, light, etc... then yes, it is definitely science and not philosophy. But if we are talking about the origin, and what came before the singularity, then that is entirely philosophical, as there is no way to scientifically prove anything past a certain point. Everything beyond that is speculation. P.S. You making a claim about what the majority of "logical and reasonable" people believe is extraordinary. I guess you're right, because I didn't have any extraordinary evidence to back up my sources. For the record, I like having educational conversations like this. I do not get mad, in fact, I like trying to take different points of view. Enlightening conversations are hard to come by. It does not happen very often in my line of work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trouble Maker Posted July 10, 2011 Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 I know that. His argument goes deeper than that. Gaunilo used your point to criticize Anselm's argument. He used the example of a perfect island. We can imagine the perfect island, but it does not exist. My counter to that is that we cannot imagine the perfect island. There is always a step further to make it greater. To fall in line with the Ontological Argument, you have to first agree that we cannot think of anything greater than God. "Now we believe you are something than which nothing greater can be thought." That statement leads Anselm into his next point that God must exist because it would be greater for him to exist in reality rather than simply in our minds. Weird, but difficult to completely refute. I know that his argument tried to go deeper than that, but I didn't agree with his base premise so that's my main argument against his argument. I think we can imagine a perfect island the same as we can image a 'being than which noting greater can be thought.' We are imagining the perfect being in abstract, not specifics. We are not specifically defining every attribute of this being, just as we aren't defining every attribute of the perfect island. So lets posit for a moment that there is a being than which nothing greater can be thought. Why is that necessarily defined as god? Maybe it's just some great being, on another planet, somewhere in another solar system or even another universe, that is nothing like what we on Earth have every defined as god. Just a being beyond our comprehension, but maybe it's also just that, another being. Maybe we are alone in this universe so the greatest being that's ever existed, existed on this planet at some point. Probably some great dolphin, man certainly can't be god. Further, even if that is god, what does that even mean? As people we've tried to define what god is and isn't to match what we as a society want, need. If god does exist hes likely nothing like anything we've tried to paint god(s) as. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tripleskate Posted July 10, 2011 Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 Any animal has a seemingly boundless amount of lines of genetic code in its body, and with more pieces come a greater possibility for error. Here's an example: I'd venture to guess that most people on here have had cancer at one point in their life (if not right now), but the cancers were small enough that the immune system took care of them without any ill repercussions. Evolution happens through mutation. When a mutation gives an individual an advantage the others don't have, it is more likely to reproduce, thus giving it a better chance to pass its ("mutated") genes on to the next generation. Be careful with your words, Alex. Mutation =/= Evolution. Mutations are very rarely advantageous, and even those that are, are generally not considered evolutionary. Crack open a Biology 101 Book amigo. :dumb: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted July 10, 2011 Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 I know that his argument tried to go deeper than that, but I didn't agree with his base premise so that's my main argument against his argument. I think we can imagine a perfect island the same as we can image a 'being than which noting greater can be thought.' We are imagining the perfect being in abstract, not specifics. We are not specifically defining every attribute of this being, just as we aren't defining every attribute of the perfect island. So lets posit for a moment that there is a being than which nothing greater can be thought. Why is that necessarily defined as god? Maybe it's just some great being, on another planet, somewhere in another solar system or even another universe, that is nothing like what we on Earth have every defined as god. Just a being beyond our comprehension, but maybe it's also just that, another being. Maybe we are alone in this universe so the greatest being that's ever existed, existed on this planet at some point. Probably some great dolphin, man certainly can't be god. Further, even if that is god, what does that even mean? As people we've tried to define what god is and isn't to match what we as a society want, need. If god does exist hes likely nothing like anything we've tried to paint god(s) as. I have to disagree with you on the perfect island bit. I can never reach that infinity level or perfect for something which requires description. Anselm doesn't describe God in specifics in this writing because he didn't need to. Anselm was most certainly Christian and used the Christian definition of what God is. The second part of your argument wouldn't work with Anselm because you can't address the omnibenevolent attribute of God. It would fit closer with Deism suggesting that their is an all powerful being but that we are selfish for believing it does anything for us now. Overall, really good points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted July 10, 2011 Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 I guess I am unclear of your position. How is an atheist's claim of no god more extraordinary than a theist's claim that there is a god? Just because an atheist is going against the common belief? How do you prove that there is not a god? The origin of the universe still falls within the realm of philosophy/religion, as we are talking about it here. If we were to talk about the matter, heat, light, etc... then yes, it is definitely science and not philosophy. But if we are talking about the origin, and what came before the singularity, then that is entirely philosophical, as there is no way to scientifically prove anything past a certain point. Everything beyond that is speculation. I guess you're right, because I didn't have any extraordinary evidence to back up my sources. For the record, I like having educational conversations like this. I do not get mad, in fact, I like trying to take different points of view. Enlightening conversations are hard to come by. It does not happen very often in my line of work. The Atheist's claim is not more extraordinary, just equally extraordinary. Sorry if I was unclear in that. That's not because they make a claim against common belief, but because they make a claim that cannot be proven. Good question, how do you prove it? For the science part, I'm talking about the big bang theory being out of the realm of philosophy. What happened before that is the philosophic portion, you're right. There is little doubt that the universe we know of wasn't created by the big bang. How do we answer the suggestion that a divine being created the base of our universe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10_penn Posted July 10, 2011 Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 The Atheist's claim is not more extraordinary, just equally extraordinary. Sorry if I was unclear in that. That's not because they make a claim against common belief, but because they make a claim that cannot be proven. Good question, how do you prove it? For the science part, I'm talking about the big bang theory being out of the realm of philosophy. What happened before that is the philosophic portion, you're right. There is little doubt that the universe we know of wasn't created by the big bang. How do we answer the suggestion that a divine being created the base of our universe? I guess we will have to just agree to disagree on the extraordinary claim. I don't believe that the claim of nothing being there is more or equally as extraordinary than believing an all-powerful, all-knowing god is there. To prove the existence of a higher being, short of a physical appearance or miracles-on-demand, requires an argument of logic. But this is an area where people must be careful. Take Ray Comfort, who argued that the banana and the human hand appear to be perfectly made for each other. He claims that God, in his infinite wisdom, made the banana with 3 ridges on top, 2 on the bottom, which fits within the grooves of the hand. He goes on to say that the banana's non-slip surface made it easier to grip, the tab on the top placed there for ease of peeling to eat, and the slight curvature of the banana perfect for eating. All this is evidence of a supernatural, metaphysical being who designed the banana specifically for human consumption. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGMuIyBK5P4 Unfortunately, many people listened to this man's absurdity. He was not just wrong, he was very wrong. The yellow banana we know of today has only been around since 1836, and was developed using genetics to gather the best attributes of other types of bananas and plantains. It quickly gained popularity and was widely distributed. Many people listened to this man because he was a friend of Kirk Cameron's, and they produced a "documentary" together. Many Christians believed every word he said, and (no pun intended) ate up the banana story. Even after it's been disproven several times since, they still cite the banana story as fact, evidence, proof of a god. I'm all about having logical arguments with people on this topic, but those who are educated enough to have those arguments come few and far between. For the big bang theory... just because we don't know something yet or cannot explain something yet doesn't mean that there is not, or will not be an explanation of it someday. I refer back to the ancient cultures, where they could not explain how the Moon orbited the Earth. This was beyond their explanation, and obviously higher power than them, so they made up a god to govern the movements of the moon. That god all but disappeared when science and astronomy were able to explain the movements of the moon, gravity, etc.. They could not explain it, they did not have the capacity or the knowledge to at the time. But this does not mean that an explanation was not possible. Centuries later it was. Maybe (just maybe) there is an explanation for the origin of the singularity, or whatever came before the big bang. We just (again) do not have the knowledge, technology, or capacity to explain it away yet. So, as of today, there is still a god. ^Not necessarily what I believe, but I try to keep an open mind.^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 I guess we will have to just agree to disagree on the extraordinary claim. I don't believe that the claim of nothing being there is more or equally as extraordinary than believing an all-powerful, all-knowing god is there. To prove the existence of a higher being, short of a physical appearance or miracles-on-demand, requires an argument of logic. But this is an area where people must be careful. Take Ray Comfort, who argued that the banana and the human hand appear to be perfectly made for each other. He claims that God, in his infinite wisdom, made the banana with 3 ridges on top, 2 on the bottom, which fits within the grooves of the hand. He goes on to say that the banana's non-slip surface made it easier to grip, the tab on the top placed there for ease of peeling to eat, and the slight curvature of the banana perfect for eating. All this is evidence of a supernatural, metaphysical being who designed the banana specifically for human consumption. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGMuIyBK5P4 Unfortunately, many people listened to this man's absurdity. He was not just wrong, he was very wrong. The yellow banana we know of today has only been around since 1836, and was developed using genetics to gather the best attributes of other types of bananas and plantains. It quickly gained popularity and was widely distributed. Many people listened to this man because he was a friend of Kirk Cameron's, and they produced a "documentary" together. Many Christians believed every word he said, and (no pun intended) ate up the banana story. Even after it's been disproven several times since, they still cite the banana story as fact, evidence, proof of a god. I'm all about having logical arguments with people on this topic, but those who are educated enough to have those arguments come few and far between. For the big bang theory... just because we don't know something yet or cannot explain something yet doesn't mean that there is not, or will not be an explanation of it someday. I refer back to the ancient cultures, where they could not explain how the Moon orbited the Earth. This was beyond their explanation, and obviously higher power than them, so they made up a god to govern the movements of the moon. That god all but disappeared when science and astronomy were able to explain the movements of the moon, gravity, etc.. They could not explain it, they did not have the capacity or the knowledge to at the time. But this does not mean that an explanation was not possible. Centuries later it was. Maybe (just maybe) there is an explanation for the origin of the singularity, or whatever came before the big bang. We just (again) do not have the knowledge, technology, or capacity to explain it away yet. So, as of today, there is still a god. ^Not necessarily what I believe, but I try to keep an open mind.^ You're exactly right about there being no proof except for logic without an appearance. The most interesting thing about logical arguments, to me, is that there are a million different ways to argue this single point. That's also the biggest problem, like you stated. I prefer broader arguments that don't focus on something silly like banana. Ah, but in your note about history you have made an argument about extraordinary claims. The complete lack of an explanation (at least a scientifically testable one) is what makes pretty much every claim (God or gods included) about origination, extraordinary. I would be interested in your take on Paley's design argument and Hume's criticisms. Sorry but I only have these in .pdf form for download. Paley download link: http://www.2shared.com/document/SqAMSF16/Paley_-_Design.html Hume download link: http://www.2shared.com/document/G80Fx2JL/Hume_-_Design.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10_penn Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 I will definitely take a look at these pdf's, but I worked a double shift today, and am working tonight. I will get to them tomorrow, and get back to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinHawk1647545499 Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Be careful with your words, Alex. Mutation =/= Evolution. Mutations are very rarely advantageous, and even those that are, are generally not considered evolutionary. Crack open a Biology 101 Book amigo. :dumb: lol that was a hilarious misunderstanding of eviloution.... evolution happens through breeding with the combination of genes from parents to the offspring. Evolution is so misunderstood. there still is no proof of interspecies evolution though:dumb: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10_penn Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) After reading the two pdf's, I actually remember reading Paley's a while ago. Hume is another philosopher that I have studied, but I don't remember reading this specific piece before. Paley's argument can basically be summarized as this - If there is a watch, there must be a watch-maker. If there is a universe, there must be a universe-maker. The complexity of a watch obviously points to a designer, as it is a work of art, not a natural phenomena. Obviously, you have read this, so there is not much more that I need to summarize regarding this. I will say, however, that other than the list of unresolved problems in science, (Wikipedia - List of Unsolved Problems in Physics), including the pre-Big Bang and the start of evolution, the majority of occurrences that we can observe in the universe can be scientifically explained. (Again, those problems are unsolved, but just because there is not an explanation for them yet, does not mean that such an explanation does not exist, if only beyond our current understanding) If you flipped a coin and wanted to predict heads or tails when it landed, you theoretically could. That is, if you had all the information needed to predict this, such as : pressure, temperature, density of the air mass, temperature, size, shape, thickness, density of the coin height of the coin before it's journey rate of acceleration upwards highest point distance to ground rate of rotation of the coin gravity (if not on earth's average of 9.79 meters per second per second) etc....... I believe his argument can be interpreted as the fact that there is life perhaps means that life itself is art, and since it is art, cannot possibly exist naturally. That's what I got out of it anyway. Paley's argument was also about half a century before Darwin's famous On the Origin of the Species. At the time he wrote this, there was no (or little) belief that all life may have originated from common ancestors. So finding an explanation for origin was probably not understood or accepted as it might be today. Richard Dawkins tackles this same watchmaker analogy in his book The Blind Watchmaker. He offers explanations based on his observations and experiences as an evolutionist. Towards the end of the book, he critiques the circular reasoning that theists often ignore, that if there were a god to create and design the intricacies and complexities of life, say specifically humans, then that god would have to have had a creator or designer as well (if not, where would he have come from?) which begs the question of where god's designer came from, then where god's designer's designer came from, and the endless cycle would continue. It could be argued that each pre-designer would logically be more and more complex than those that he designed. Hume's was a little harder to read, considering I've had little sleep the last few days. I might have to come back at a later time for a response to this one. I would also like to get your take on Plato's Allegory of the Cave... http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html Edited July 12, 2011 by 10_penn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 After reading the two pdf's, I actually remember reading Paley's a while ago. Hume is another philosopher that I have studied, but I don't remember reading this specific piece before. Paley's argument can basically be summarized as this - If there is a watch, there must be a watch-maker. If there is a universe, there must be a universe-maker. The complexity of a watch obviously points to a designer, as it is a work of art, not a natural phenomena. Obviously, you have read this, so there is not much more that I need to summarize regarding this. I will say, however, that other than the list of unresolved problems in science, (Wikipedia - List of Unsolved Problems in Physics), including the pre-Big Bang and the start of evolution, the majority of occurrences that we can observe in the universe can be scientifically explained. (Again, those problems are unsolved, but just because there is not an explanation for them yet, does not mean that such an explanation does not exist, if only beyond our current understanding) If you flipped a coin and wanted to predict heads or tails when it landed, you theoretically could. That is, if you had all the information needed to predict this, such as : pressure, temperature, density of the air mass, temperature, size, shape, thickness, density of the coin height of the coin before it's journey rate of acceleration upwards highest point distance to ground rate of rotation of the coin gravity (if not on earth's average of 9.79 meters per second per second) etc....... I believe his argument can be interpreted as the fact that there is life perhaps means that life itself is art, and since it is art, cannot possibly exist naturally. That's what I got out of it anyway. Paley's argument was also about half a century before Darwin's famous On the Origin of the Species. At the time he wrote this, there was no (or little) belief that all life may have originated from common ancestors. So finding an explanation for origin was probably not understood or accepted as it might be today. Richard Dawkins tackles this same watchmaker analogy in his book The Blind Watchmaker. He offers explanations based on his observations and experiences as an evolutionist. Towards the end of the book, he critiques the circular reasoning that theists often ignore, that if there were a god to create and design the intricacies and complexities of life, say specifically humans, then that god would have to have had a creator or designer as well (if not, where would he have come from?) which begs the question of where god's designer came from, then where god's designer's designer came from, and the endless cycle would continue. It could be argued that each pre-designer would logically be more and more complex than those that he designed. Hume's was a little harder to read, considering I've had little sleep the last few days. I might have to come back at a later time for a response to this one. I would also like to get your take on Plato's Allegory of the Cave... http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html I think Paley's argument was excellent for its time. There was so much we could not explain yet Paley seemed to latch onto the bigger picture arguments for his work. Really I think Paley's piece gave an incredibly strong argument in favor of deism (I doubt he meant to do that). Hume really attacks things on a level I don't agree with. Essentially, he gets stuck explaining why the universe is not like a watch. He goes in to more depth, but that seems to be the base of his argument. Unfortunately, he didn't take a more difficult path of attempting to refute the idea of a creator rather than taking on Paley's analogy. I haven't read anything by Dawkins so I can't speak to that. I'll take a look at Plato's work in the next day or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10_penn Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 I think Paley's argument was excellent for its time. There was so much we could not explain yet Paley seemed to latch onto the bigger picture arguments for his work. Really I think Paley's piece gave an incredibly strong argument in favor of deism (I doubt he meant to do that). Hume really attacks things on a level I don't agree with. Essentially, he gets stuck explaining why the universe is not like a watch. He goes in to more depth, but that seems to be the base of his argument. Unfortunately, he didn't take a more difficult path of attempting to refute the idea of a creator rather than taking on Paley's analogy. I haven't read anything by Dawkins so I can't speak to that. I'll take a look at Plato's work in the next day or so. You're right, Paley's argument was great for its time. He was a Christian apologist and philosopher, so he was almost biased from the beginning. So, I think that's what his intentions were from the get-go. Dawkins is a really good read, he's written several other books. He is a professor at Oxford and has served as an evolutionary biologist for several years. He is actually a well-known critic of religion (in general) and is probably on the forefront of atheism. This allegory of Plato's was something I came across in my Philosophy classes. It's best to read and imagine, maybe even draw a picture or something while reading it to best understand the allusion he is making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diagnosis Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Ok, I'd like to keep this out of The Kitchen. If you can't debate without insulting another person or their beliefs, just stay out of this thread. Try to keep things civilized and respectful. It could be intellectually stimulating (especially with Dr. Rick's absence) to have some philosophic discussions. Here are some topics to get us started: 1: Does God exist? If yes, why do you think so? If no, why do you think not? 1(a): Can the existence of God be proven or disproven scientifically or logically? 2: How do you think the universe was created? (i.e., Not just the big bang, but what cause it) 2(a): Is there a sound basis for the theory of intelligent design? 3: If God exists as an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being why does evil exist? 1: Nope, If god exist I want to know the man who created him and the person who created that guy and where they came from. Seriously, did he just appear out of thin air and claim himself to be god? 1a: The existence of god or jesus can never be proven or disproven. 2: Well, what caused the big bang was dust clumping together in 0 gravity, just like grains of salt in the same conditions. Once it gains so much mass something has to happen... the pressure could turn it into a star/sun (we all know they dont live forever) creating a blackhole or explosion. We may never figure it out. 2a: There is none, you are a product of your environment. 3: The whole religion thing has brought more deaths and war then anything else you can think of (Holy Crusades?). Sure, it has its good points, as for me I believe you live your life as a good person and you will get to the next "level". I think my first response pretty much sums up how I feel about all this. By the way, I feed trolls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 1a: The existence of god or jesus can never be proven or disproven. 2: Well, what caused the big bang was dust clumping together in 0 gravity, just like grains of salt in the same conditions. Once it gains so much mass something has to happen... the pressure could turn it into a star/sun (we all know they dont live forever) creating a blackhole or explosion. We may never figure it out. 2a: There is none, you are a product of your environment. 3: The whole religion thing has brought more deaths and war then anything else you can think of (Holy Crusades?). Sure, it has its good points, as for me I believe you live your life as a good person and you will get to the next "level". I think my first response pretty much sums up how I feel about all this. By the way, I feed trolls. 1. Be more specific when you make statements like that. We do know that Jesus existed as a man. The claims of his divinity cannot be proven or disproven. 2. If there was matter, there was gravity. What created all the matter in the universe? 2a. How do you come up with that? 3. No, no it hasn't. Although there is a lot of evil and death that can be traced back to religion, it is usually not the real cause of war. Historically speaking, wars based solely on religion pale in comparison to wars based on almost anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10_penn Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 1. Be more specific when you make statements like that. We do know that Jesus existed as a man. The claims of his divinity cannot be proven or disproven. This claim has also been contested... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diagnosis Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 1. Be more specific when you make statements like that. We do know that Jesus existed as a man. The claims of his divinity cannot be proven or disproven. 2. If there was matter, there was gravity. What created all the matter in the universe? 2a. How do you come up with that? 3. No, no it hasn't. Although there is a lot of evil and death that can be traced back to religion, it is usually not the real cause of war. Historically speaking, wars based solely on religion pale in comparison to wars based on almost anything else. 1:Jesus was the first "superstar" of his time, sure people would like to think he was "godlike". It happens with celebrities to this day... People worship them for no reason other than being gifted at whatever it is they do. If you could turn water into Jack Daniels I might think you're the next Jesus or one hell of a magician. 2: Another question that even the smartest people on earth can't figure out. I just gave my crackpot theory that is like alot of others but to say where matter came from... impossible! Some questions in life will never be answered. 2a: You are limited to what you are exposed to. It does'nt matter what design was given. 3: Wars have changed, its not so much about religion as it is about $$$ or our "best interest". There are so many wars we will never know about that was caused by "false gods" before anyone started caring about what happened in the past. Enough has been documented to give you a good idea what past history was like... ww2 claimed enough innocent lives to make up for many wars/battles/fights/arguments. Even if my opinion sucks I like this topic, I love to "Theorycraft". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appn88 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 This claim has also been contested... anything can be contested the evidence leans towards he did exist tho, of course i believe he was divine and i also believe if you search you can find clues to even that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trouble Maker Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 This claim has also been contested... Jesus is real http://www.tedknell.co.uk/attachments/Image/jesus%20my%20spanish%20friend.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 1:Jesus was the first "superstar" of his time, sure people would like to think he was "godlike". It happens with celebrities to this day... People worship them for no reason other than being gifted at whatever it is they do. If you could turn water into Jack Daniels I might think you're the next Jesus or one hell of a magician. 2: Another question that even the smartest people on earth can't figure out. I just gave my crackpot theory that is like alot of others but to say where matter came from... impossible! Some questions in life will never be answered. 2a: You are limited to what you are exposed to. It does'nt matter what design was given. 3: Wars have changed, its not so much about religion as it is about $$$ or our "best interest". There are so many wars we will never know about that was caused by "false gods" before anyone started caring about what happened in the past. Enough has been documented to give you a good idea what past history was like... ww2 claimed enough innocent lives to make up for many wars/battles/fights/arguments. Even if my opinion sucks I like this topic, I love to "Theorycraft". 2. I thought you were giving me something other than a theory. I got where you're coming from now. 2a. That's not really the design argument though. It doesn't address who you are as a person, but rather that everything was designed to be. I think you're addressing that with your answer to "2" though. 3. I can't speak for prehistoric wars, but I can speak for the history of warfare. Religious wars just aren't as common as we think they are. This claim has also been contested... Contested, but I haven't seen anything that gives enough evidence to suggest that the man we know as Jesus did not exist around the time we say he did. Everything will be contested, but this one is pretty close to certainty. Again, it's his divine nature that is really contested (and well contested too). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 anything can be contested the evidence leans towards he did exist tho, of course i believe he was divine and i also believe if you search you can find clues to even that Regardless of what I believe personally, historically I will disagree with the last part of your comment. The miracles and divine acts of Jesus cannot really be seen through historical sources. The problem is that so many actions were dramatized in historical sources from that time period. History as we know it (dry facts) didn't really exist. Even the biggest historians of that time tended to tell stories and involve gods (i.e., Asclepius's healing miracles that rival Jesus'). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillJoy Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Why does the most commonly used Bible (by those who speak English) include VERSION in the Title? KillJoy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Why does the most commonly used Bible (by those who speak English) include VERSION in the Title? KillJoy Because it can be translated into English differently. That's why there are different versions/translations of almost any historical text that was originally in Greek or Latin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.