The Bible's Greatest Contradiction

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Socrastein, Feb 7, 2006.

  1. tekkengod

    tekkengod the MAP MP

    I don't understand why this is a debate? no proof, its based on man made assumptions and ideas, and most importantly and in simplest terms:

    It is very simple, you believe in something of which there is no existing evidence and is an intangible notion, your belief is irrational
     
  2. thepunisher

    thepunisher Banned Banned

    I think Homer is referring to the existence of god not the existence of molecules medi.

    Christian
     
  3. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    This is kind of how I see it too.
    I like what is. How it got to be like these seems almost irrelevant in this perspective. Apart from the possibility of eternal damnation at the end of it... that's a kind of scary thought... I don't think it's possible from a loving God but I'd hate to reach the afterlife and find out I'd gotten it wrong! :D

    I think I believe in God but it's not exactly a strong faith. Almost agnostic.
    I also know that I'd live my life the same way whether or not he does exist.
    If he doesn't exist then I've talked to myself a bit, but I talk to myself anyway. ;) If he does exist then he knows what I believe and why I do so. If he wanted me to believe then he knows what would've convinced me.

    It seems he's happy to leave me guessing so guessing is what I'll keep doing. :)
     
  4. Judderman

    Judderman 'Ello darlin'

    1. Why? 2.Which guys?

    I doubt the apex bit, but other than that I agree.


    Medi clarified on those. I must stand corrected.


    Assumption or observation, its still a stereotype. Arguments for "god" are logical, not all of them could be described as rational.


    Agreed

    In exactly the same way you would demonstrate electricity.

    As a scientific approach you are right, but the answers can be the same. Don't get so caught up in this word "god". To someone who does not understand "natural phenomena" they could still follow a experimental method and still arrive at a conclusion of something called "god". If a few years doen the line they discover certain aspects of "natural phenomena" then the name of the result could change to "nature". The end result is the same, regardless of what you call it.

    You assume everyone has the same idea and concept about what this label "god" is and what it means to them. To me you sound similar to those you would dipose. "Look of course this is real! I can prove it!!"

    Btw, at what point did I say I believed in a supernatural being? ;)
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2006
  5. Topher

    Topher allo!

    Even if there were a creator, I certainly don’t accept the beliefs of heaven, hell, judgment day, creationism etc, nor that this supposed creator intervenes with life.

    My view on any possible creator is similar to a deist creator – one that started the universe, and that’s it. I don’t believe the view that there must be a cause/reason for life as grounds for God. This view simply raises more problems, namely, who created God. At least you don’t get this with a deist god.
     
  6. Topher

    Topher allo!

    Sorry I don’t get this? What do you mean?

    Human are the dominant species. End of.

    Please evidence that claim, otherwise, you have nothing.

    So you accept evolution then as what you agreed to was evolution.

    Please elaborate how this would evidence God.

    They might arrive at “God,” but they do so without real, if any evidence. Also, how can they arrive at God following an experimental method? Do you have an example of this method?

    The end result might not be the same. Technically the occurrence itself might be the same, but by proclaiming God as the cause of it answers nothing. Allow science to explain it gives useful answers that ultimately help mankind.

    I’ve never tried to disprove God because I can’t. I, along with others just show that it is irrational/illogical to infer God. There is no need to use God as an explanation.

    I do however refer to science to explain/prove things as science uses verifiable evidence, logical consistency, parsimony in its arguments etc. Things can be proved, but the best way is using the scientific method.

    When did I infer that you did?

    Anyway, what do you believe in then?
     
  7. Judderman

    Judderman 'Ello darlin'

    Depends how you would define dominant. I'd vote the viruses and bacillum.

    Yes I think evolution is a perfectly plausible theory. It doesn't answer the questions of the origins of life, but is a good explination for the diversity of it. Indications of how climatic change can force evolutionary change are quite strong. Still doesn't explain where life originated from. The last theory I heard was that the essential amino acids were delivered on meteors. The gap between this and the simple life you refered to earlier has not been answered as far as I'm aware. Still leaves us with a big "I dunno" answer as far as I can tell, in which case "Goddidit" is just as valid an answer.

    Taking the idea of evolution with my comments above, after asking "why?" we end up at, where did the simple life that the rest of life come from? the answer is "i don't know". Our abilities end here (for the time being) so "God" is an answer, this does not, as you have suggested, rule out all other answers. Its abit like "what killed the dinosaurs". some say dramitic climate change over a period of time, where as some say it way a huge meteor. I believe the debate is still raging. In simple terms the answer is "we don't know, but we think it might be "theory" because...". IMO this is no different to inserting "god" as a theory. How many people would subscibe to the theory is a different matter.

    Again irrational does not necassarily mean illogical.
    so what do you answer when you don't have an answer?

    I would agree this is a good way to explain things, but it does have its limitations. Personally whenever I quote scientific theory, I tend to say "apparently...." because unless I've done all the experiments myself I will not believe nor disbelieve, just accept.

    with:
    I believe in science and believe in a number of its principles. There are many others which I just don't understand. I am also of a spiritual mind. It has been said that magic is what science can't explain (yet). I do believe that there is something other than this material body, but what that is I really don't know.

    Perhaps I can't accept that everything I am or do is the result of electrochemical exchanges.
     
  8. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    I think you mean predator. Viruses prey on us but they sure aren't dominant (except maybe HIV). Take these mumps I'm suffering, :cry: they'll make my cheeks swell, cause pain when I eat things and I've read that a few days after these symptoms disappear there's a 1 in 3 chance that my balls will flame up and dish me pain like I could never imagine!! :eek:

    But come next month, I'll be standing and the mumps will be permanently unable to take on my immune system again. Then again, I've supposedly had two innoculations to prevent them so God knows how they managed to get the better of me! :eek:
     
  9. wrydolphin

    wrydolphin Pirates... yaarrrr Supporter

    Viruses aren't predators, they aren't even paracites because they aren't alive.

    The dominant form of life on earth is in fact, bacteria. Without we would not survive.

    The dominant mammalian would probably be rodents. There are way more rodents then humans.
     
  10. Topher

    Topher allo!

    Humans are currently the apex of life from my view at least. Consciousness, knowledge, technology, dominence etc make us so.

    Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

    I don’t see “Goddidit” has as just a valid answer as it not testable, and there is no evidence for it. Science on the other hand keeps discovering new information about the universe all the time. (Google “dark energy” and “dark matter”)

    But if the answer you’re looking for is “why,” I doubt well ever get that, because I don’t think there was a reason.

    That said, I’m not completely against the idea of a ‘creator’ starting the universe, but for now, there is no evidence for it and more importantly, no reason to believe in it.

    Again, evolution is NOT about the origin of life. And as I said, I don’t believe there was a reason for life.

    The problem with God is it is a presumption, one that people are prepared to strongly believe in, despite the lack of evidence. If you don’t know something, don’t conclude it.

    I disagree. God does explain life, but there is no evidence to believe in this explanation. A good explanation needs supporting evidence. And lack of evidence in one explanation (science) doesn’t mean more evidence for the opposing claims (God). Which again goes back to the argument: “Science cannot explain it, therefore it was God.” In addition you have the fact that God has been rendered useless in most areas (such as creation of life, morality etc). The only area where God might be of any use is the creation of the universe (although the fact of God being nullified elsewhere doesn’t encourage the God case) but as there is no evidence for this, and some evidence for the scientific explanations to the universe, I prefer the scientific explanation. Also see Occam’s Razor, which states the simpler of two arguments is be preferred.

    Oh, and God isn’t a theory, it’s a hypothesis.

    Yes, but for the God explanations to be good explanations, they must be logically sound. Yes, something can be rational, while at the same time illogical, but it doesn’t make a good argument because it isn’t logically consistent.

    But anyway, you said explanations for God are “…logical, not all of them could be described as rational.” So then, give me a logical and/or rational argument for God.

    You don’t answer, and that’s the point. Saying "i dont know" would be better.

    However, there are good answers - from science. Science can and has provided very good logical, parsimonious, evidenced and tested arguments, which is why they are preferred. But when science doesn’t have an answer to the level which it requires - although it may speculate - it doesn’t conclude. No explanations for God have ever reached the same level of scientific explanations.

    There are pseudo-scientists out there (ironically, usually with religious bias), so your right to be sceptical. But scientific peer review usually roots out the weeds. And the reputation/credibility of the scientist and/or source can make you pretty confident in the information. (In other words, going to "Answer in Genesis" or "DrDino" for scientific information is a big no no)

    Such as? Likewise, there is tons I don’t understand properly, but I wouldn’t use my ignorance of it to discredit it. Some people (no accusing you), usually the extremists, discredit something, just because they don’t understand it.


    “Likewise, how does believing in a supernatural being affect your daily life?” <<< this was more a general question than a suggestion. I was asking that if we did (somehow) discover a creator, why would it affect someone’s life. Although, I guess when debating someone who appears to reject/questioning well tested and accepted theories over the supernatural, it usually implies religious convictions in said person (especially recently).
     
  11. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    I don't think using dark matter and dark energy is a good counter example to saying God did it. Since they are both working hypothesis and so far dark matter has never been observed or detected (it has been inferred from observations) and no-one is quite sure what the 'matter' it is made up from is and dark energy is in a similiar state. These hypothesis may prove to be correct but still I don't think dark matter/dark energy are the best example to counter someone's belief in God.
     
  12. Thelistmaker

    Thelistmaker bats!

    NO!

    The terms ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ are completely arbitrary.

    They could just as well be called A and B.

    I used to know a very venerable 90 something electrical engineer who would to go on rants about even supposed engineers who fell into the trap of assigning certain properties to positive and negative terminals merely because of the name. :bang: He used to say calling the terms positive and negative the biggest mistake of the electrical engineering orthodoxy.

    (He was by the way an ardent creationist, although I believe his objection to evolution was that it implied life had no meaning and was completely random. From the very spiritual type of man he was I belief that if he knew the details of evolutionary theory and cleared up his misconceptions he would find little contradiction between his faith and evolution) :Angel:
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2006
  13. Thelistmaker

    Thelistmaker bats!

    So, in other words, don’t take ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ literally :Angel:
     
  14. Aegis

    Aegis River Guardian Admin Supporter

    Take it however you like, it's all relative anyway. As long as you remain consistent, the calculations work.

    Electrons flow from negative to positive because in our method of assigning charges, electrons (the sub-atomic particles free to move) are negatively charged, and like charges tend to repel each other. How we define electricity as flowing from positive to negative is actually incorrect if you want to talk about particle movement, but in terms of charge movement, it's correct.
     
  15. Mabinogi

    Mabinogi New Member

    Here's a thought I had about God's rookie business strategy that just piled on top of the plethora of other nonsense in what should be called "The greatest novel ever."

    You sin, even unborn babies are apparently on a par with axe wielding crackheads, and you say you're sorry and all that and you wont do it again and God just flings his gates open and says "Heeeeeeey come in come in, I hope you brought your own beer...only kidding this is heaven!"...and so on. BUT!!! :eek: If you dont repent, you go to hell...to join the ever growing ranks of the armies of Hell to battle against Heaven at Armageddon.

    So basically God is acting as a recruitment agent against himself. THOUGHT THAT ONE THROUGH DIDN'T YOU BIG GUY!!! :Angel: (Just incase...I'm sorry :D)
     
  16. wrydolphin

    wrydolphin Pirates... yaarrrr Supporter

    Actually, the Bible is not clear on Original Sin. That concept seems to have been added later by Aquinas if I remember correctly, and I may not. There are also passages which state that sin is not heritable. Also, most Celtic Christian churches do not buy into Original Sin, preferring to interpret it as death rather then sin. Thus Baptism is the redemption of sins which we commit within our own lives.
     
  17. Thelistmaker

    Thelistmaker bats!

    yes, but we could have called the repelling charges east and west or chalk and cheese and the usual crackpots of the past wouldn't have tried to link positive energy in the flower power sense with positive charge.
     
  18. Knight_Errant

    Knight_Errant Banned Banned

    Reading these threads would actually be a good way for argumentative people to learn about science.
     
  19. Topher

    Topher allo!

    You would be correct if that was my intention. ;)

    My point was that science is constantly progressing and is not static like most God arguments and dark matter/dark energy are examples of [recent] progression. It was to illustrate that just because we don’t know something, doesn’t mean we never will.
     
  20. jujitsuka07

    jujitsuka07 Body by Pizza Hut!

    I've not read this thread hardly at all, so I dunno what's been said, but here's my 2¢.

    Evidence of an intelligent creator:

    -The Earth is just the right distance from the Sun.
    -The skin of our palms is just the right hardness so that we can pick things up...any softer and things like a pencil would just squish from our hands...any harder and our hands wouldn't contour (sp?) enough to hold it.
    -When we get injuries, our bodies attempt to heal them.
    -As Genesis says, plants, people, and animals reproduce after their own kind.
    -We have an ozone layer to protect us.
    -The Earth's gravity attracts oxygen so that all our oxygen doesn't just go floating away into outer space.
    -We have enough water on this planet to last us a long time.
    -We have the ability to think, to communicate, to reason.
    -We have a sense of humor.
    -We have common sense.
    -We have conviction.
    -Most of us have the awareness of a superior being or force, something that probably wouldn't be if there were no superior being/force.

    And these are just a few. I'm studying science right now and it's so amazing to learn about the order of the universe...how things have their place in this universe, from atoms orbiting around a nucleus to planetary motion. All of this has to be held in it's order by something, or the universe as we know it would discintigrate (sp?) in total chaos. Some might say that the force that holds everything together, and keeps everything constant is just gravity, but what maintains the gravity? What keeps the gravity from going ballistic?
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2006

Share This Page