PDA

View Full Version : Scientists propose new hypothesis on the origin of life



The Night Owl
09-07-2009, 02:03 PM
Scientists propose new hypothesis on the origin of life
September 4th, 2009 by Anuradha K. Herath

The Miller-Urey experiment, conducted by chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in 1953, is the classic experiment on the origin of life. It established that the early Earth atmosphere, as they pictured it, was capable of producing amino acids, the building blocks of life, from inorganic substances.

Now, more than 55 years later, two scientists are proposing a hypothesis that could add a new dimension to the debate on how life on Earth developed.

Armen Mulkidjanian of the University of Osnabrueck, Germany and Michael Galperin of the U.S. National Institutes of Health present their hypothesis and evidence in two papers published and open for review in the web site Biology Direct.

...

http://www.physorg.com/news171263002.html

FlaGator
09-07-2009, 02:58 PM
The question has already ben answered.:D

megimoo
09-07-2009, 03:48 PM
The question has already ben answered.:D
For all of HIS creation !

The Night Owl
09-07-2009, 05:35 PM
The question has already ben answered.:D

I shudder to think about what might have happened had mankind satisfied itself with what ancient texts have to say about diseases and afflictions.

The Night Owl
09-07-2009, 05:35 PM
For all of HIS creation !

For great justice!

FlaGator
09-07-2009, 06:24 PM
I shudder to think about what might have happened had mankind satisfied itself with what ancient texts have to say about diseases and afflictions.

The question has been answered, the only debate is the mechanism used. God gave us intellect to determine how he created things and how find cures for diseases that afflict mankind. You see, this is your failure. You view this as either one or the other. The possibility that one can't compliment the other limits your approach to questions that by their very nature need to be addressed from several angles. I see science, philosophy and theology to be different ways to examine the same questions, each having their own strengths and weaknesses. Fortunately the weaknesses of one are often balanced by strengths of the others. God never intended for man to satisfy himself with "ancient texts" because these texts aren't meant to be medical books or physics texts. The Bible is God's way of revealing Himself to mankind and to announce His intentions and plan to restore us to the position we lost in the fall.

stsinner
09-07-2009, 07:02 PM
*yawn*

The Night Owl
09-07-2009, 07:40 PM
The question has been answered, the only debate is the mechanism used. God gave us intellect to determine how he created things and how find cures for diseases that afflict mankind. You see, this is your failure. You view this as either one or the other. The possibility that one can't compliment the other limits your approach to questions that by their very nature need to be addressed from several angles. I see science, philosophy and theology to be different ways to examine the same questions, each having their own strengths and weaknesses. Fortunately the weaknesses of one are often balanced by strengths of the others. God never intended for man to satisfy himself with "ancient texts" because these texts aren't meant to be medical books or physics texts. The Bible is God's way of revealing Himself to mankind and to announce His intentions and plan to restore us to the position we lost in the fall.

St. Augustine called reason the Devil's Bride. He didn't pull that idea out of his butt. He got it from the Bible.

gator
09-07-2009, 07:54 PM
St. Augustine called reason the Devil's Bride. He didn't pull that idea out of his butt. He got it from the Bible.

God did not not create a universe of chaos. There are rules of physics and nature. It makes things so much more orderly that way. God is good.

Man just has a hard time understanding those rules sometimes. When pondering on these things Man will sometimes get all fickled brained but that is to be expected.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-07-2009, 08:30 PM
St. Augustine called reason the Devil's Bride. He didn't pull that idea out of his butt. He got it from the Bible.

Perhaps you could point to the chapter and verse???? I have read the Bible cover to cover and have seen nothing that comes anywhere NEAR that.


St. Augustine was just a man. He isn't infallible. I am quite sure he had other prominent Priests who differed with him on this. It is funny how you take one person and make him the Ultimate authority, as long as their quote suites your purposes. Then suddenly (again, when it suites your purpose) the ultimate authority changes identities.

Shouldn't your ultimate authority always be the same person??? When you constantly switch the identity it gives the impression you are cherry picking.


Florida Gator's explanation is spot on.

wilbur
09-07-2009, 08:39 PM
St. Augustine called reason the Devil's Bride. He didn't pull that idea out of his butt. He got it from the Bible.

I think you mean the unofficial father of the holocaust and the author of "On The Jews and Their Lies".... the notorious Martin Luther? He certainly had open contempt for reason, and referred to it as the "devil's harlot", I believe... "undoing all that God has wrought" (no kidding...). He certainly had a clarity of mind on that point that most theists today lack... but too bad he chose the wrong side.... and too bad for the Jews, who still suffer for his influence..

St Augustine was a fan of reason... flawed though his often was.

FlaGator
09-07-2009, 09:26 PM
St. Augustine called reason the Devil's Bride. He didn't pull that idea out of his butt. He got it from the Bible.

Would you care to point out where the Bible states that?

The Night Owl
09-07-2009, 09:28 PM
I think you mean the unofficial father of the holocaust and the author of "On The Jews and Their Lies".... the notorious Martin Luther? He certainly had open contempt for reason, and referred to it as the "devil's harlot", I believe... "undoing all that God has wrought" (no kidding...). He certainly had a clarity of mind on that point that most theists today lack... but too bad he chose the wrong side.... and too bad for the Jews, who still suffer for his influence.

That's right... I meant Martin Luther.

FlaGator
09-07-2009, 09:31 PM
I think you mean the unofficial father of the holocaust and the author of "On The Jews and Their Lies".... the notorious Martin Luther? He certainly had open contempt for reason, and referred to it as the "devil's harlot", I believe... "undoing all that God has wrought" (no kidding...). He certainly had a clarity of mind on that point that most theists today lack... but too bad he chose the wrong side.... and too bad for the Jews, who still suffer for his influence..

St Augustine was a fan of reason... flawed though his often was.

I'm pretty certain that the Holocaust can be laid squarely at the feet of Hilter but if you do want to dig around the periphery more fingers can be pointed at Nietzsche (the strong set the rules) and Darwin's survival of the fittest philosophy than at Luther and his Antisemitism. More moral bankruptcy from the atheist worldview.

FlaGator
09-07-2009, 09:32 PM
That's right... I meant Martin Luther.

No matter who said it, can you produce the passage in the Bible that states this?

The Night Owl
09-07-2009, 09:45 PM
No matter who said it, can you produce the passage in the Bible that states this?

I didn't claim that the Bible refers to reason as the Devils' Bride. What I said is that the idea that reason is the Devil's Bride comes from the Bible.

The Night Owl
09-07-2009, 09:48 PM
God did not not create a universe of chaos. There are rules of physics and nature. It makes things so much more orderly that way. God is good.

To say that the God of the Bible is good requires a redefinition of the word good.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-07-2009, 09:51 PM
I didn't claim that the Bible refers to reason as the Devils' Bride. What I said is that the idea that reason is the Devil's Bride comes from the Bible.



I would have to strenuously disagree. It came from men - period. There is nothing in the Bible that would lead one to believe such a thing.

I would suspect the author of this quote was frustrated and simply expressing this frustration.

FlaGator
09-07-2009, 10:08 PM
I didn't claim that the Bible refers to reason as the Devils' Bride. What I said is that the idea that reason is the Devil's Bride comes from the Bible.

Prove that the idea that reason is the Devil's Bride comes from the Bible. If you can't back up your statement you are merely parroting someone else without investigating the truth of their statement. First you get the author of the quote wrong and now you seem incapable of verifying the truth behind the words you quoted.

FlaGator
09-07-2009, 10:11 PM
I would have to strenuously disagree. It came from men - period. There is nothing in the Bible that would lead one to believe such a thing.

I would suspect the author of this quote was frustrated and simply expressing this frustration.

I would suspect that TNO is repeating something he read that sounded good and never bothered to look to see if there was truth behind the quote.

wilbur
09-07-2009, 10:45 PM
I'm pretty certain that the Holocaust can be laid squarely at the feet of Hilter but if you do want to dig around the periphery more fingers can be pointed at Nietzsche (the strong set the rules) and Darwin's survival of the fittest philosophy than at Luther and his Antisemitism. More moral bankruptcy from the atheist worldview.

1st mistake: Darwin had no "survival of the fittest philosophy". He had a scientific theory... and theories are descriptive, not normative. Furthermore, Darwin's words can be best summarised as "survival of the most adaptable". Adaptable is, of course, what "fitness" means in the context of evolution. But "fittest" is an unfortunate word choice for a paraphrase... since know-nothings the world over can't seem to do interpret "fitness" it was meant to be interpreted... and instead align it with our superficial status seeking behaviours and flawed human ideals. One might be able to argue, in that sense, that some of the philosophy of the Nazi's was influenced by such misunderstandings of the theory of evolution... maybe... if one wants to be generous and throw the desperate third-rate, back alley apologists who usually make such claims a bone. But Hitler himself is on record in Mein Kampf, spouting views that are clearly Lamarkian, and antithetical to Darwin.

What one cannot run from is the fact that the Holocaust was an accurate realization of the words of Martin Luther... no misunderstandings of his words there.. just a terribly efficient and horribly true execution of them.


2nd mistake, for which you have been corrected numerous times: atheism is not a worldview. I've rebutted this misunderstanding sufficiently, and many times on this board at this point.

Sonnabend
09-08-2009, 03:21 AM
I shudder to think about what might have happened had mankind satisfied itself with what ancient texts have to say about diseases and afflictions.

I shudder to think what rock you crawled out from under

Sod off, swampy.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-08-2009, 06:12 AM
So who is it now that is the ultimate authority on Christianity??? I've seen it change from St. Augustine to Martin Luther in just a few posts!!!!!!!

No single man (except for Jesus himself) can be placed in this position. If you wish to quote anyone on the tenets of this religion, I suggest you stick with him.

djones520
09-08-2009, 06:15 AM
So who is it now that is the ultimate authority on Christianity??? I've seen it change from St. Augustine to Martin Luther in just a few posts!!!!!!!

No single man (except for Jesus himself) can be placed in this position. If you wish to quote anyone on the tenets of this religion, I suggest you stick with him.

Can anything written in the New Testament truly be trusted as his word though? None of it was directly written down by him. It was all 2nd hand at best, years, decades, and even centuries afterwards.

We all know what happens to a message when it's passed through 10 people around a room...

I'm not trying to disparage the message of the Bible, I'm just saying you can't honestly expect it to be word for word the teachings of Christ.

FlaGator
09-08-2009, 06:29 AM
1st mistake: Darwin had no "survival of the fittest philosophy". He had a scientific theory... and theories are descriptive, not normative. Furthermore, Darwin's words can be best summarised as "survival of the most adaptable". Adaptable is, of course, what "fitness" means in the context of evolution. But "fittest" is an unfortunate word choice for a paraphrase... since know-nothings the world over can't seem to do interpret "fitness" it was meant to be interpreted... and instead align it with our superficial status seeking behaviours and flawed human ideals. One might be able to argue, in that sense, that some of the philosophy of the Nazi's was influenced by such misunderstandings of the theory of evolution... maybe... if one wants to be generous and throw the desperate third-rate, back alley apologists who usually make such claims a bone. But Hitler himself is on record in Mein Kampf, spouting views that are clearly Lamarkian, and antithetical to Darwin.

What one cannot run from is the fact that the Holocaust was an accurate realization of the words of Martin Luther... no misunderstandings of his words there.. just a terribly efficient and horribly true execution of them.


2nd mistake, for which you have been corrected numerous times: atheism is not a worldview. I've rebutted this misunderstanding sufficiently, and many times on this board at this point.

Darwin's philosophy which is also a scientific theory (your dualism keeps you from seeing that something can be two things) was adapted by Hilter as a excuse for world domination. I would also suggest you look up the definition of a world view and then correct yourself. You seem to enjoy and revel in the error that you pass on as fact. There have been a lot of people guilty antisemitism in the world, you blame Luther because he was a Christian. The Holocaust was an accurate realization of Hilters own views.

Luther was an antisemite. To say otherwise would be to hide from the truth, but blame for the Holocaust still lies solely with Hitler and Nazism. To divert blame is... well very Freudian of you. I guess we should blame Hitler's dad too and give him more responsibility than Luther.

Hitler is on "record" as saying a lot of lies in order to adopt a philosophy and claim it was German in origin. Thus he rewrote science books to rid them of Jewish Physics and replaced the theories with the watered down versions of the same theories that he claimed where German in origin.

As for Darwin's words, they are his own and he doesn't need you to summerize them. I agree that adaptable is a good synonym for some of the implications of survival of the fittest but that doesn't change that he also meant it to be the strongest (your proclivity for dualism in action again). You are being selective in order to validate a point while ignoring the broader view and implications because they don't fit the point you are making and prove the view that Hitler derived his might makes right views straight from Darwin and Nietzsche.

FlaGator
09-08-2009, 06:38 AM
Can anything written in the New Testament truly be trusted as his word though? None of it was directly written down by him. It was all 2nd hand at best, years, decades, and even centuries afterwards.

We all know what happens to a message when it's passed through 10 people around a room...

I'm not trying to disparage the message of the Bible, I'm just saying you can't honestly expect it to be word for word the teachings of Christ.

It is believed by Christians that the writers were inspired and directed by the Holy Spirit in order to get the message defined accurately. I understand that you don't believe in the Holy Spirit but that is what all Christians live by. The writers and scribes are fallible but when directed by the Spirit of God the errors where kept to a minimum. It's comes along with faith. It's not really a large leap for a Christian to say that Christ died for the sins of the world and resurrected to defeat death for us to accepting the belief that God keep the written word faithful to the intent. If he couldn't do that then he wouldn't be God would he :D

The Night Owl
09-08-2009, 07:08 AM
Prove that the idea that reason is the Devil's Bride comes from the Bible. If you can't back up your statement you are merely parroting someone else without investigating the truth of their statement. First you get the author of the quote wrong and now you seem incapable of verifying the truth behind the words you quoted.

The idea that reason is something to be distrusted and resisted can be found in a number of Biblical passages such as 1 Corinthians 3:18-20.

FlaGator
09-08-2009, 09:14 AM
The idea that reason is something to be distrusted and resisted can be found in a number of Biblical passages such as 1 Corinthians 3:18-20.

That passage has nothing to do with reason. It is about humility. It is about thinking you know more than you do. It references back to 1 Corinthians 1:18-25. I suggest that before you quote a passage get yourself a inexpensive book on Biblical commentary and find out what the passage really means. I should thank you, however, because 1 Corinthians 3:18-20 actually supports my opinion that leaving God out of the equation leads to incomplete knowledge that passes itself off as complete.

Got any more examples for me?

megimoo
09-08-2009, 01:54 PM
Can anything written in the New Testament truly be trusted as his word though? None of it was directly written down by him. It was all 2nd hand at best, years, decades, and even centuries afterwards.

We all know what happens to a message when it's passed through 10 people around a room...

I'm not trying to disparage the message of the Bible, I'm just saying you can't honestly expect it to be word for word the teachings of Christ.

We know more about Jesus Christ, the true son of GOD than we know about Abraham Lincoln or other American historical figures .At least three men and their acolytes who were with him constantly have borne witness to him ,his words and his works.

We have their independent words through their acolytes telling the same story through completely different points of view.His Testament has been translated into just about every language on earth and his followers abound all over the earth.

The New Testament has been Translated many times and some of the earliest written copies have been and often are compared to current versions for accuracy.

Occasionally some one will attempt to slip some corrupting verses into the New Testament but they are quickly exposed .The Vatican has St.Paul's letters to the churches and the Gospels of St.Mark from before the fall of the great temple and some of the original scrolls from about the last part of the first and the first of the second century.

We have other historical documents testifying to him and his life written by non Christians .Early Church Conciles an Nicera codified the early testament and accepted and rejected what was and was not judged to be legitimately the word of GOD .

megimoo
09-08-2009, 01:56 PM
St. Paul's Epistles: Pauline Letters
These letters, which comprise approximately one-fourth of the New Testament, are primary and monumental sources of the development of Christian theology. Several of them may not have had Paul as their actual author, but evidence of the Pauline tradition behind them is strong.

The letters to the Colossians, Philippians, Ephesians and Philemon have been called the ''Captivity Letters'' because of a tradition that they were written while Paul was under house arrest or another form of detention.

Thessalonians 1 and 2: Written probably in 51 AD
Galatians: Written probably between 54 and 55 AD
Romans: Written about 57, AD
Corinthians 1,2: Written near the beginning of 57 AD
Philippians: Written between 56 and 57 or 61 and 63 AD
Philemon: A private letter written between 61 and 63 AD
Colossians: Written while under house arrest in Rome from 61 to 63, AD

Ephesians: Written probably between 61 and 63 AD
Timothy 1 and 2, Titus: Written between 65 and 67 AD
Hebrews: Dating from sometime between 70 and 96 AD.
..........................
The apostles were all alive at that time .
#1 - Simon Peter /Nero died in AD 67 and tradition says Peter died in Nero's persecution. [It was] written just before his death (see 2Peter 1:14) c.a. AD 67-68."
.............................
#2 - James/He was put to death by Herod Agrippa I shortly before the day of the Passover, in the year 44 or about 11 years after the death of Christ. From Acts 12: 1-2.
...............................
#3 - John /banishment to a Patmos salt mine in the reign of the Emperor Domitian (81-96)
No death date given by early writers. Death date is by conjecture only and is variously assigned as being between 89 AD to 120 AD at Ephesus he died about A.D. 100 at a great age.
.............................
#4 - Andrew/was martyred at Patras about 70 AD
.......................
#5 - Philip/Again, the Bible does not say when he died nor do we have accurate information. According to tradition he preached in Phrygia, and died at Hierapolis.
.......................
#6 - Thomas/The earlier traditions, as believed in the fourth century, say he preached in Parthia or Persia, and was finally buried at Edessa. The later traditions carry him farther east. His martyrdom whether in Persia or India, is said to have been by a lance, and is commemorated by the Latin Church on December 21 the Greek Church on October 6, and by the Indians on July 1.
.....................
#7 - Bartholomew/ There is no information concerning his death, not even by tradition
.......................
#8 - Matthew/He must have lived many years as an apostle, since he was the author of the Gospel of Matthew which was written at least twenty years after the death of Christ. There is reason to believe that he stayed for fifteen years at Jerusalem, after which he went as missionary to the Persians, Parthians and Medes. There is a legend that he died a martyr in Ethiopia
...........................
#9 - James Alpheus / We know he lived at least five years after the death of Christ because of mentions in the Bible. According to tradition, James son of Alpheus was thrown down from the temple by the scribes and Pharisees; he was then stoned, and his brains dashed out with a fuller’s club.
.........................
#10 - Simon Zelotes/the Canaanite – No information either in the Bible or by tradition.
............................
#11 - Judas Jude (Thaddeus) /according to tradition Jude taught in Armenia, Syria and Persia where he was martyred. Tradition tells us he was buried in Kara Kalisa in what is now Iran.
...............................
#12 - Judas Iscariot/Shortly after the death of Christ Judas killed himself. According to the Bible he hanged himself, (Matthew 27:5) at Aceldama, on the southern slope of the valley of Hinnom, near Jerusalem, and in the act he fell down a precipice and was dashed into pieces.

gator
09-08-2009, 02:18 PM
It is believed by Christians that the writers were inspired and directed by the Holy Spirit in order to get the message defined accurately. I understand that you don't believe in the Holy Spirit but that is what all Christians live by. The writers and scribes are fallible but when directed by the Spirit of God the errors where kept to a minimum. It's comes along with faith. It's not really a large leap for a Christian to say that Christ died for the sins of the world and resurrected to defeat death for us to accepting the belief that God keep the written word faithful to the intent. If he couldn't do that then he wouldn't be God would he :D

Explaining faith to someone that doesn't have it is always a losing proposition.

It is like explaining to someone that the earth is round but yet the person can only see a mile down the road.

Faith and acceptance of the Grace of God is a personal belief. You either have it or you don't. If you have it then you have the Peace of the Lord. If you don't have it then all you have is a nothingness which isn't too cool. In fact, knowing that you are facing nothingness has been described as Hell.

Having Faith means that you know the Lord has prepared a place for you.

Accepting the Grace of God means that you know that God accepts responsibility for all of those really shitty things you have done in your life. Removing that burden is what Jesus did with His blood and that was really great. God understands that giving us free will has caused us to be really shitty people. He forgives us. Without that forgiveness we are pretty well screwed because deep down inside we all know how terrible we are. That is a hellva burden to bear.

FlaGator
09-08-2009, 03:18 PM
Explaining faith to someone that doesn't have it is always a losing proposition.

It is like explaining to someone that the earth is round but yet the person can only see a mile down the road.

Faith and acceptance of the Grace of God is a personal belief. You either have it or you don't. If you have it then you have the Peace of the Lord. If you don't have it then all you have is a nothingness which isn't too cool. In fact, knowing that you are facing nothingness has been described as Hell.

Having Faith means that you know the Lord has prepared a place for you.

Accepting the Grace of God means that you know that God accepts responsibility for all of those really shitty things you have done in your life. Removing that burden is what Jesus did with His blood and that was really great. God understands that giving us free will has caused us to be really shitty people. He forgives us. Without that forgiveness we are pretty well screwed because deep down inside we all know how terrible we are. That is a hellva burden to bear.

I know, but planting seeds is what God asks us to do. Its up to Him what kind of ground they land on.

wilbur
09-08-2009, 03:43 PM
Explaining faith to someone that doesn't have it is always a losing proposition.

It is like explaining to someone that the earth is round but yet the person can only see a mile down the road.

Faith and acceptance of the Grace of God is a personal belief. You either have it or you don't. If you have it then you have the Peace of the Lord. If you don't have it then all you have is a nothingness which isn't too cool. In fact, knowing that you are facing nothingness has been described as Hell.


And here it really is... faith is a personal belief... most of the premier Christian philosophers of the day recognize the fact that you cannot get to belief through natural theology (design arguments etc), reason, or historical arguments - none are conclusive, either on their own or combined (they are actually quite damning... this world is much more inexplicable under Christianity, than it is under naturalism).

Quite similarly to all the psychics, tarot card readers, mediums, crystal healers and other purveyors of superstition, they argue that in order to know the truth of their belief system you have to first accept it. Once you have taken that step, God or whatever will give you a self-validating personal experience that reveals the truth of it, just as plainly as it is true that you are reading this on your computer screen.

Of course, what all this really amounts to is the intentional suspension of one's objective analytical faculties, to induce self-deception - followed by blanket assertion that this self-deception is some revealed truth. Naturalistic explanations are quite fatal to the confidence one can reasonably place in such experiences.

Faith is the act of claiming to know truth, when you have no adequate justification for doing so.

FlaGator
09-08-2009, 03:56 PM
And here it really is... faith is a personal belief... most of the premier Christian philosophers of the day recognize the fact that you cannot get to belief through natural theology (design arguments etc), reason, or historical arguments - none are conclusive, either on their own or combined (they are actually quite damning... this world is much more inexplicable under Christianity, than it is under naturalism).

Quite similarly to all the psychics, tarot card readers, mediums, crystal healers and other purveyors of superstition, they argue that in order to know the truth of their belief system you have to first accept it. Once you have taken that step, God or whatever will give you a self-validating personal experience that reveals the truth of it, just as plainly as it is true that you are reading this on your computer screen.

Of course, what all this really amounts to is the intentional suspension of one's objective analytical faculties, to induce self-deception - followed by blanket assertion that this self-deception is some revealed truth. Naturalistic explanations are quite fatal to the confidence one can reasonably place in such experiences.

Faith is the act of claiming to know truth, when you have no adequate justification for doing so.

Same could be and is said of atheism. As to your assertion that one must suspend one objective analytical believe, what proof do you have of this? Since you are of the belief that only solid emprical facts constitute proof them please provide them. Can you demonstrate to those of us who believe that your are not the one guilty of self-deception. You have admitted in the past that when God is the logical conclusion of an argument you will side with the illogical simply because you cannot accept a creator.

wilbur
09-08-2009, 04:10 PM
Darwin's philosophy which is also a scientific theory (your dualism keeps you from seeing that something can be two things) was adapted by Hilter as a excuse for world domination.


I don't understand how you are using the term "dualism". It certainly seems like a gross misuse. Christain's are generally dualist when it comes to the person or the mind and brain- they are considered both material and soul. Whether you realize it or not, dualism is your turf, not mine.



I would also suggest you look up the definition of a world view and then correct yourself. You seem to enjoy and revel in the error that you pass on as fact.


Sorry, you are just absolutely wrong. Theism isn't even a worldview. Both theism and atheist are certainly small components in a worldview, but they are not one. Here's a definition for you:

"A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing natural philosophy, fundamental existential and normative postulates or themes, values, emotions, and ethics"



There have been a lot of people guilty antisemitism in the world, you blame Luther because he was a Christian. The Holocaust was an accurate realization of Hilters own views.

Luther was an antisemite. To say otherwise would be to hide from the truth, but blame for the Holocaust still lies solely with Hitler and Nazism. To divert blame is... well very Freudian of you. I guess we should blame Hitler's dad too and give him more responsibility than Luther.


Martin Luther was extremely influential.. he is largely responsible for the widespread antisemitism that existed in Europe since his time... including the antisemitism that made the Holocaust possible. To borrow your terminology, his work "planted the seeds", far more than anything that the theory of evolution can be argued to have done.




As for Darwin's words, they are his own and he doesn't need you to summerize them.


One must, when they are abused the way you are abusing them. A dead man can't correct you... but I can.



I agree that adaptable is a good synonym for some of the implications of survival of the fittest but that doesn't change that he also meant it to be the strongest (your proclivity for dualism in action again).

You commit your abuse once again.



You are being selective in order to validate a point while ignoring the broader view and implications because they don't fit the point you are making and prove the view that Hitler derived his might makes right views straight from Darwin and Nietzsche.

You are making shit up to make your fallacy look legit. Sorry, won't fly.

gator
09-08-2009, 04:11 PM
And here it really is... faith is a personal belief... most of the premier Christian philosophers of the day recognize the fact that you cannot get to belief through natural theology (design arguments etc), reason, or historical arguments - none are conclusive, either on their own or combined (they are actually quite damning... this world is much more inexplicable under Christianity, than it is under naturalism).

Quite similarly to all the psychics, tarot card readers, mediums, crystal healers and other purveyors of superstition, they argue that in order to know the truth of their belief system you have to first accept it. Once you have taken that step, God or whatever will give you a self-validating personal experience that reveals the truth of it, just as plainly as it is true that you are reading this on your computer screen.

Of course, what all this really amounts to is the intentional suspension of one's objective analytical faculties, to induce self-deception - followed by blanket assertion that this self-deception is some revealed truth. Naturalistic explanations are quite fatal to the confidence one can reasonably place in such experiences.

Faith is the act of claiming to know truth, when you have no adequate justification for doing so.


What you are doing at the end of the day when you reject the Lord is talking yourself into a darkness that is beyond compression and acceptance.

If you want to apply pure logic then look at it this way:

If God does exit and you donít believe or accept the Grace then you are pretty well screwed, arenít you?

If God does not exist and you have Faith and accept the Grace then you will die in Peace, wonít you?

If you donít have the Peace of the Lord, even if God exist or not then all you have to face is a dark nothingness that is hell, isnít it?

Your rejection of the Lord gains you nothing but looking at a terrifying end, doesnít it?

To me the Lord is real and I have a Peace and that means I can accept my fate. That is a very comfortable feeling to have. I pity those that donít have it.

To me, as an engineer and man of science it is totally incomprehensible that I live in a happenstance Universe. This is a fantastic Universe that I live in and I praise God almost ever day of my life for providing it to me and my fellow humans. God is truly great.

wilbur
09-08-2009, 04:39 PM
Same could be and is said of atheism. As to your assertion that one must suspend one objective analytical believe, what proof do you have of this? Since you are of the belief that only solid emprical facts constitute proof them please provide them. Can you demonstrate to those of us who believe that your are not the one guilty of self-deception.

Here are a few reasons, though there are more:

First and foremost, there's the fact that religious experiences cannot be reliable distinguished from hallucination, or other number of false experiences (read Phantoms of the Brain, for a scary glimpse at just how little we can trust our own experience).

Secondly, the fact character and content of such experiences are almost always based on the culture in which one lives, should be a clue that no objective truth is being discovered in the throes of a "religious experience", and is more likely than not, a false experience. There are even "godless numinous experiences".

Thirdly, research has shown that the human has an innate bias to see agency or intentionality, where there is none at all. Our brains are literally wired this way. This is a bias that most of us must overcome in order to objectively view the world.

In the end, its simply undue bias for one's own fantastical experience that lets one disregard other personal experience as false, while maintaining that one's own is true.


You have admitted in the past that when God is the logical conclusion of an argument you will side with the illogical simply because you cannot accept a creator.

You really do have some poor reading comprehension, if you think I have ever said this.

wilbur
09-08-2009, 05:41 PM
What you are doing at the end of the day when you reject the Lord is talking yourself into a darkness that is beyond compression and acceptance.

If you want to apply pure logic then look at it this way:

If God does exit and you donít believe or accept the Grace then you are pretty well screwed, arenít you?

If God does not exist and you have Faith and accept the Grace then you will die in Peace, wonít you?


Ol' Pascal's wager engages in special pleading for the Christian God. There is an equal probability that some god(s) exists that cherishes some other set of beliefs, and detests the rest - including Christianity.



If you donít have the Peace of the Lord, even if God exist or not then all you have to face is a dark nothingness that is hell, isnít it?

Your rejection of the Lord gains you nothing but looking at a terrifying end, doesnít it?

To me the Lord is real and I have a Peace and that means I can accept my fate. That is a very comfortable feeling to have. I pity those that donít have it.


Sometimes lies and wishful thoughts are comforting... but I have no undue worry for my end - I actually find it comforting that there is no good reason to think I or anyone else in the world will endure eternal torture... and there is a little bit of curiosity about the unknown.



To me, as an engineer and man of science it is totally incomprehensible that I live in a happenstance Universe. This is a fantastic Universe that I live in and I praise God almost ever day of my life for providing it to me and my fellow humans. God is truly great.

The theists universe is just as inexplicable as the atheists, since God himself defies any explanation. Forget asking why a universe should exist at all.... ask why a God who has both the power and the desire to create universes should exist at all.... that is far more inexplicable.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-08-2009, 09:15 PM
Wilbur,

I believe you have ignored Florida Gator's challenge.


Prove God does not exist.

FlaGator
09-08-2009, 09:25 PM
Here are a few reasons, though there are more:

First and foremost, there's the fact that religious experiences cannot be reliable distinguished from hallucination, or other number of false experiences (read Phantoms of the Brain, for a scary glimpse at just how little we can trust our own experience).

Secondly, the fact character and content of such experiences are almost always based on the culture in which one lives, should be a clue that no objective truth is being discovered in the throes of a "religious experience", and is more likely than not, a false experience. There are even "godless numinous experiences".

Thirdly, research has shown that the human has an innate bias to see agency or intentionality, where there is none at all. Our brains are literally wired this way. This is a bias that most of us must overcome in order to objectively view the world.

In the end, its simply undue bias for one's own fantastical experience that lets one disregard other personal experience as false, while maintaining that one's own is true.



You really do have some poor reading comprehension, if you think I have ever said this.

First of all, I do owe you an apology. You were right about Darwin's meaning behind survival of the fittest. I did some more reading after I signed off and confirmed you point. However, that doesn't alter the fact that Hilter and some like have misrepresented Darwins meaning, whether intentionally or not, and used the concept to justify their actions. At any rate, thank you for the information. New knowledge is greatly appreciated. I mean that sincerely.

Now to this post. You have stated opinion and not empirical evidence. My religious experience was combined with physical changes. God literally cured by alcohol addition. I did not experience withdrawal or require detox as I had previously when I dried up. You may not accept that but that is the truth.

For the record most people don't go through the type of experience that you are speaking of. There is not radical change or vision or anything like than in most Christian conversions. It can best be described as a change in outlook. The type of conversions that involve seeing visions is really rare. I don't dispute them but I didn't experience something like that. Most people don't see visions or here voices or anything like that. A few hippies on drugs maybe but most just come to believe. That is what grace is. What is not is some magical event like you seem to believe Christians experience. God alters one's view of things and what made no sense one day is understandable the next. Its more like an Epiphany than anything elsel

The most common religious experience is nothing like you describe it. In short, you seemed to have based your response on what is at best a rare event. You make it sound like every Christian had a hallelujah moment and it is really not like that. You're answers do not addrese the reality of the religious experience so I am still waiting for that.

FlaGator
09-08-2009, 09:26 PM
Wilbur,

I believe you have ignored Florida Gator's challenge.


Prove God does not exist.

He has never answered that in all the years I've known him. I don't expect now to be different.:)

djones520
09-08-2009, 09:40 PM
Wilbur,

I believe you have ignored Florida Gator's challenge.


Prove God does not exist.

Prove he does.

There is no proving that God does not exist.

In order to do so, one must be an omnipotent, omnipresent being, capable of seeing the entire universe throughout all of time. But in order to do so, one would end up being what he is attempting to disprove.

The belief that God does not exist is just as faith based as the belief that he does. We just continue to seek answers to explain how it all happened, where those who believe stopped searching long ago.

wilbur
09-09-2009, 07:31 AM
Wilbur,

I believe you have ignored Florida Gator's challenge.

Prove God does not exist.

I will as soon as you prove to me, none of the Gods on this list exist - we'll just start with names beginning with the letter "A" for now ;).

Gods you deny

A
A-a
Aías
Aabit
Aakuluujjusi
Aasith
Aataentsic
Aatxe
Ab Kin Xoc
Aba Khatun Baikal
Abaangui
Abaasy
Abandinus
Abarta
Abeguwo
Abellio
Abeona
Abere
Abgal
Abhijit
Abhijnaraja
Abhimukhi
Abhiyoga
Abnoba
Abonsam
Abora
Abowie
Abu
Abuk
Abundantia
Abzu
Ac Yanto
Acacila
Acala
Acan
Acat
Acaviser
Acca Larentia
Acchupta
Accasbel
Acco
Achiyalatopa
Acolmitztli
Acolnahuacatl
Adad
Adamas
Adekagagwaa
Adeona
Adhimukticarya
Adhimuktivasita
Adibuddha
Adidharma
Adikia
Adimurti
Aditi
Aditya
Adnoartina
Adonis
Adrastea
Adro
Aecos
Aed
Aegir
Aengus
Aeolos
Aeolus
Aequitas
Aericura
Aesculapius
Aesir
Aether
Agathos Daimon
Age
Aglibol
Agni
Agnikumara
Agnostos Theos
Aguígux
Agunua
Ah Bolon Dzíacab
Ah Cancum
Ah Chun Caan
Ah Ciliz
Ah Cuxtal
Ah Hulneb
Ah Kin
Ah Kin Xoc
Ah Kumix Unicob
Ah Mun
Ah Muzencab
Ah Patnar Unicob
Ah Peku
Ah Tabai
Ah Uincir Dzíacab
Ah Uuc Ticab
Aha
Ahriman
Ahsonnutli
Ahura Mazda
Ahti
Ahurani
Ai Apaec
Aide
Aine
Airsekui
Ajalamo
Ajaya
Aje
Aji-Shiki-Taka-Hiko-Ne
Ajysyt
Akasagarbha
Akelos
Aken
Aker
Akerbeltz
Akeru
Akonadi
Akongo
Aksayajnana-Karmanda
Aksobhya
Aktunowihio
Ala
Alad Udug Lama
Alaisiagae
Alalu
Aluluei
Alatangana
Alaunus
Alicis
Alemona
Alisanos
Alkíuntaím
Allah
Allat
Allatu
Almaqah
Almudj
Alpanu
Altjira
Ama-arhus
Amaethon
Amasagnul
Amaterasu-O-Mi-Kami
Ama-Tsu-Mara
Amatsu Mikaboshi
Amaunet
Ame-No-Kagase-Wo
Ame-No-Mi-=Kumari-No-Kami
Ame-No-Minaka-Nushi-No-Kami
Ame-No-Tanabata-Hime-No-Mikoto
Ame-No-Toko-Tachi-No-Kami
Ame-No-Uzume
Ame-Waka-Hiko
Am-Heh
Amida
Amimitl
Amitabha
Amm
Amma (1)
Amma (2)
Ammavaru
Ammut
Amoghapasa
Amoghasiddhi
Amor
Amphion
Amphitrite
Amun
Amurru
An (1)
An (2)
Anaitis
Anala
Ananke
Ananta
Anantamukhi
Anantesa
Anat
Anaulikutsaiíx
Anbay
Ancamma
Andarta
Andjety
Andrasta
Anextiomarus
Angru Mainyu
Angwusnasomtaka
Anhouri
Ani
Anila
Anjea
Ankalamman
Anna Kuari
Anna Perenna
Annamurti
Ansa
Anti
Antu
Anu (1)
Anu (2)
Anubis
Anukis
Anunitu
Anunnaki
Anuradha
Aondo
Apa
Apacita
Apam Napat
Apap
Aparajita
Apedemak
Aphrodisias
Aphrodite
Apis
Aplu
Apo
Apollo
Apsaras
Apsu
Aquilo
Aíra
Arachne
Aralo
Aranyani
Arapacana
Arawa
Arawn
Aray
Archons
Arcismati
Ardhanarisvara
Ardra
Arduinna
Arebati
Areimanios
Arensnuphis
Ares
Ariadne
Arianrhod
Arimanius
Arinna
Aristaios
Arjuna
Arma
Armaz
Arnakuaígsak
Arnemetia
Arom
Arsan Uolai
Arsay
Arsu
Artemis
Arthapratisamvit
Artio of Muri
Arundhati
Aryaman
Arya-Tara
As
Asalluha
Asar
Asase Yaa
Asherah
Asertu
Ashiakle
Asira
Asis
Asklepios
Aslesa
Asnan
Asokottamasri
Asopos
Aspalis
Asratum
Assur
Astabi
Astamatara
Astaphaios
Astar
Astaroth
Astarte
Astlik
Astoreth
Asuha-No-Kami
Asurakumara
Asuras
Asvins
Asvayujau
Ataa Naa Nyongmo
Ataecina
Atargatis
Atarrabi
Atarsamain
Ate
Atea
Aten
Atete
Athena
Athirat
Aticandika
Atl
Atlahua
Atropos
Attar
Attis
Atua Fafine
Atua I Kafika
Atua I Raropuka
Atum
Atunis
Aufaniae
Aurora
Auseklis
Avalokitesvara
Avatea
Aveta
Avrikiti
Awonawilona
Axo-Mama
Aya
Ayaba
Ayií-Uruín Toyoín
Ayiyanayaka
Ayurvasita
Ayyappan
Azeban
Azizos

FlaGator
09-09-2009, 08:07 AM
Prove he does.

There is no proving that God does not exist.

In order to do so, one must be an omnipotent, omnipresent being, capable of seeing the entire universe throughout all of time. But in order to do so, one would end up being what he is attempting to disprove.

The belief that God does not exist is just as faith based as the belief that he does. We just continue to seek answers to explain how it all happened, where those who believe stopped searching long ago.

Explain that to wilbur. He denies that atheism is based on faith.

BTW, I agree with your post to some degree. There is no empirical proof of God's existence but there is evidence that points to His existence and His responsibility for creation. I have weighted the evidence and concluded that there is a creator. Some people look at the evidence and conclude otherwise. That is why juries are so fickle. I conclude that God created us and others conclude that we are here because of a fluke.

FlaGator
09-09-2009, 08:10 AM
I will as soon as you prove to me, none of the Gods on this list exist - we'll just start with names beginning with the letter "A" for now ;).

Gods you deny

A
A-a
Aías
Aabit
Aakuluujjusi
Aasith
Aataentsic
snip

Pretty amazing list. But my list is still one God shorter than yours.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-09-2009, 08:24 AM
You were asked first.

You have spent a considerable amount of time asking us to "PROVE" he exists, I thought a turnabout was fair.

Proof exists in the fact you are here.

Your faith just tells you that it is more likely that random acts that require an incomprehensible number of variables to occur in EXACTLY the correct sequence and ALL of the correct chemicals had to also be present at those exact times. That first organism had to have the exact right type of food so it could survive AND the exact right atmosphere. It had to have the ability to reproduce itself - right from the get go. It had to survive a hostile atmosphere and THEN it had to evolve into the millions of species we have today. All directed by chance and coincidence.

That, to me requires FAR more faith than believing that an intelligent entity put things in place and directed events so these things would occur.


If you come across a turtle on a fencepost, you know he didn't get there by himself.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-09-2009, 08:34 AM
You put your faith in men who are constantly being proven wrong.

Just today, they figured out they were wrong on the evolutionary history of man.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-skull-that-rewrites-the-history-of-man-1783861.html


It's funny how often man gets it wrong and yet you put your faith there - where they are PROVABLY wrong so often.

Yet historical instances written about in the Bible - places, events etc are constantly being proved accurate and you doubt that!!

wilbur
09-09-2009, 08:48 AM
You were asked first.

You have spent a considerable amount of time asking us to "PROVE" he exists, I thought a turnabout was fair.


Well here is the point of the illustration - its quite impossible to disprove most of the Gods on the list. I don't have to disprove the existence of your god or any other... all one has to do is show that supposed evidence for their existence is insufficient.



Your faith just tells you that it is more likely that random acts that require an incomprehensible number of variables to occur in EXACTLY the correct sequence and ALL of the correct chemicals had to also be present at those exact times. That first organism had to have the exact right type of food so it could survive AND the exact right atmosphere. It had to have the ability to reproduce itself - right from the get go.

There are actually several examples of inorganic molecules that replicate (or reproduce, if you will), and actually change with time. I would suggest you invert your thinking a little bit here.... food wasnt magically present and waiting for the arrival of the first organisms.. the first organisms evolved to take advantage of what was already there.




It had to survive a hostile atmosphere and THEN it had to evolve into the millions of species we have today. All directed by chance and coincidence.

That, to me requires FAR more faith than believing that an intelligent entity put things in place and directed events so these things would occur.


There is a lot to wonder and be amazed about the existence of life and the existence of the universe, I agree.

But... however incomprehensible all that is, it is even more incomprehensible and strained to believe that a being that is allegedly infinitely greater and infinitely more amazing than this universe (or anything in it) simply exists - yet that is what you propose. Naturalistic hypotheses are infinitely more parsimonious than yours.




If you come across a turtle on a fencepost, you know he didn't get there by himself.

In a large enough universe, there is certain to be an uncountable number of turtles on fenceposts - who got there by themselves.

wilbur
09-09-2009, 09:07 AM
You put your faith in men who are constantly being proven wrong.

Just today, they figured out they were wrong on the evolutionary history of man.


No problem for me, I don't consider science infallible - I expect there to be errors, and I expect knowledge to be refined as new things are learned. The proper way to believe a scientific claim is not to believe it religiously. Its surely wiser to place more trust in modern science, than it is to place trust in ancient primitive, superstitious man.





http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-skull-that-rewrites-the-history-of-man-1783861.html


It's funny how often man gets it wrong and yet you put your faith there - where they are PROVABLY wrong so often.

Yet historical instances written about in the Bible - places, events etc are constantly being proved accurate and you doubt that!!

Your article isn't loading for some reason, but I don't know where you think the historicity of the Bible is being validated in any way - modern scholarship isnt helping the case for Christianity at all - sure you can find some accuracies in the Bible, but none that are helpful for the claims of Christianity - but otherwise history is pretty damning of Christianity, especially when looking at the types of myths that were prevalent during that time of Christ. The Jesus legend is wholly unremarkable with respect to other apocalyptic myths at the time... except in the fact that it was the one that stuck.

djones520
09-09-2009, 05:34 PM
You put your faith in men who are constantly being proven wrong.

Just today, they figured out they were wrong on the evolutionary history of man.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-skull-that-rewrites-the-history-of-man-1783861.html


It's funny how often man gets it wrong and yet you put your faith there - where they are PROVABLY wrong so often.

Yet historical instances written about in the Bible - places, events etc are constantly being proved accurate and you doubt that!!

Proven wrong? I've missed the part where Paleoanthropologists worldwide had agreed that the evolutionary chain of human had been settled as fact.

Every year some new fossils are being found that revise the theory just a bit more. Some finds are bigger then others. THAT IS WHY PEOPLE ARE STILL OUT THERE DIGGING! So they can keep refining that theory.

I'm curious where this fossil find fits into your worldview. Do you accept that humans have not always been as we are today? Or is it just that there happens to have been many differant species of us who have died out at specific points in time? Or have all these bones just been put into the ground to challenge our concept of faith?

AmPat
09-09-2009, 05:40 PM
St. Augustine called reason the Devil's Bride. He didn't pull that idea out of his butt. He got it from the Bible.

Alright, all you disciples of St Augustine, raise your hands.:rolleyes:

Many people get strange and oftentimes false ideas from the Bible. That doesn't make the Bible false.

wilbur
09-09-2009, 06:25 PM
Alright, all you disciples of St Augustine, raise your hands.:rolleyes:

Many people get strange and oftentimes false ideas from the Bible. That doesn't make the Bible false.

Well... Augustine really was the Aristotle of Christianity, if you want to talk about the breadth and scope of influence. Nearly every Christian out there is a "disciple of Augustine", whether they realize it or not.

House
09-09-2009, 06:39 PM
Alright, all you disciples of St Augustine, raise your hands.:rolleyes:

Many people get strange and oftentimes false ideas from the Bible. That doesn't make the Bible false.

Now it's been mentioned several times in this thread that there's a widespread idea that Hitler used Evolution to justify and rationalize the Holocaust, now I don't personally believe that, but if that was true, then according to your logic that wouldn't have any importance in the discussion of whether or not Evolution is right or wrong. And if you do believe that it does have an impact that would make you a hypocrite.

Now of course this is evident to anyone who examines the argument from a logical standpoint rather than just being morally outraged at the possibility that Evolution was used by Hitler and subsequently discarding Evolution as a viable theory based solely on that. Scientific theories can be used for propoganda and used for internal justification for morally bankrupt actions, that does NOT make them any less viable - It just means they were incorrectly interpreted by individuals at a position of power and that's a problem with the individual, not the theory.

NJCardFan
09-10-2009, 01:51 AM
OK, I've read though 6 pages and since this is time out of my life I will never get back, I think it's time to take Wilbur to school on a few things. For starters, it's evident that you don't believe in God. Fair enough. You're choice and none of us will ever saw you from your opinion. Nor will you sway us from ours. You call faith a fallacy but not believing is a faith unto it's own, no? Faith is a belief in it's truest definition. If you don't believe in God, your faith is one of non-belief. That said, you brought up all of these other gods and asked FlaGator to disprove them. He doesn't have to. Even our God acknowledges there existence in the 1st Commandment:

"I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me"

Here God tells the Israelites that they shall "have no other gods before Me." He acknowledges that other gods exist but that He is the one true God. So this blows your whole cute little attempt out of the water. Now, I loved the little barb by Night Owl about God being good. Let me ask you, if you had people cursing you and telling you that you didn't exist, how would you feel about them?

FlaGator
09-10-2009, 07:40 AM
Well... Augustine really was the Aristotle of Christianity, if you want to talk about the breadth and scope of influence. Nearly every Christian out there is a "disciple of Augustine", whether they realize it or not.

Actually we are the children of many fathers, Augustine being one, but the creation of one. Of our earthly interpreters there is also Athanasias, Clement, Ignatius, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin. Most importantly there is Paul from whom everyone took theit understanding and Paul took his from a revelation of Jesus Christ who is the true Father of all disciples. Paul's influence extends much further than Augustine's who was a disciple of Paul.

The Night Owl
09-10-2009, 09:07 AM
To me, as an engineer and man of science it is totally incomprehensible that I live in a happenstance Universe. This is a fantastic Universe that I live in and I praise God almost ever day of my life for providing it to me and my fellow humans. God is truly great.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_hypothesis

:D

The Night Owl
09-10-2009, 09:22 AM
Now, I loved the little barb by Night Owl about God being good. Let me ask you, if you had people cursing you and telling you that you didn't exist, how would you feel about them?

If I were omnipotent I probably wouldn't be bothered in the least by my creations cursing me or not believing in me. And, I probably wouldn't drown my creations for minor offenses such as blasphemy or infidelity but if I did I wouldn't require them to think of me as good.

FlaGator
09-10-2009, 09:25 AM
If I were omnipotent I probably wouldn't be bothered in the least by my creations cursing me or not believing in me. And, I probably wouldn't drown my creations for minor offenses such as blasphemy or infidelity but if I did I wouldn't require them to think of me as good.

Do you understand the purpose for those rules? Do you know why He asks us to behave in a certain way? If you don't know His reasons for things then how do you know how you would act? I suspect that if you knew His reason then you would act just has He does.

wilbur
09-10-2009, 10:07 AM
OK, I've read though 6 pages and since this is time out of my life I will never get back, I think it's time to take Wilbur to school on a few things. For starters, it's evident that you don't believe in God. Fair enough. You're choice and none of us will ever saw you from your opinion. Nor will you sway us from ours. You call faith a fallacy but not believing is a faith unto it's own, no? Faith is a belief in it's truest definition. If you don't believe in God, your faith is one of non-belief. That said, you brought up all of these other gods and asked FlaGator to disprove them. He doesn't have to. Even our God acknowledges there existence in the 1st Commandment:

"I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me"

Here God tells the Israelites that they shall "have no other gods before Me." He acknowledges that other gods exist but that He is the one true God. So this blows your whole cute little attempt out of the water.


Well, that's certainly one novel way to try and respond to the issue - just claim that stuff can't be disproved because its all is true! As for the list of gods, I think you'll find few Christians who would agree that they are actually all real. No small number of mainstream Christians would say that's heretical. I'll let you argue with them over that.... but the same issue still exists, even if you believe those gods are real - there are all kinds of things that cannot be disproved, even though they are not true.



Now, I loved the little barb by Night Owl about God being good. Let me ask you, if you had people cursing you and telling you that you didn't exist, how would you feel about them?

If I were the omnipotent superbeing that designed said people (down to each individual hair on their heads, of course), I think I would have to say "Sorry, my bad!"

wilbur
09-10-2009, 10:09 AM
Do you understand the purpose for those rules? Do you know why He asks us to behave in a certain way? If you don't know His reasons for things then how do you know how you would act? I suspect that if you knew His reason then you would act just has He does.

Well, perhaps you should also give NJCardFan a talking too as well... since he really tried to justify things about God by appealing to what we would do, as people, were we in his shoes.

But it does raise an interesting point - when we do try and empathize with the Christian God by asking ourselves what we would do in his shoes, it is utterly baffling, isnt it? His justice certainly isn't my justice. His good certainly doesnt seem like any good I know of. Like you do here, you basically just have throw up your hands and say, "We can't know, but He just HAS TO have some sufficient reasons to do the things He does!"

Is it more plausible that the Yahweh character has some morally sufficient and perfectly just reason to commit genocide or to let people be tortured forever in a lake of fire or is it more plausible that He is a fictional character made by the minds of primitive peoples who were predisposed to make up and believe such things? Go ahead... put yourself in God's shoes.... The answer is easy.

FlaGator
09-10-2009, 10:55 AM
Well, perhaps you should also give NJCardFan a talking too as well... since he really tried to justify things about God by appealing to what we would do, as people, were we in his shoes.

But it does raise an interesting point - when we do try and empathize with the Christian God by asking ourselves what we would do in his shoes, it is utterly baffling, isnt it? Like you do here, you basically just have throw up your hands and say, "We can't know, but He just HAS TO have some good reason! We just have to trust".

Is it more plausible that the Yahweh character has some morally sufficient reason to commit genocide or to let people be tortured forever in a lake of fire or is it more plausible that He is a fictional character made by the minds of primitive peoples who were predisposed to make up and believe such things? Go ahead... put yourself in God's shoes.... The answer is easy.

You misunderstand my point. God's stated objective is to redeem man and reconcile man to God. Now what this involves, the mechanics of it if you will, I do not fully understand but I trust that what He does is necessary.

The problem, and I say this respectfully, is that you see death as the very end of things and believers don't. Since death is the end for you then aren't able to truly comprehend what those who see it differently feel about it. If those who die in an act of genocide go on to better existence after death is their death really such a bad thing? If you were to lose your job but were told that you would live out your life in splendor in Hawaii, would losing your job be a bad or good thing? If those who die and receive the justice that they were destined to receive (the justice that they chose for themselves) whether it is today or 10 years from now, does that really matter? If a criminal gets caught and goes to prison to day instead of in 10 years, isn't it a good thing that he can no longer commit crimes?

So if you die and find out that there really is a God that you have denied for the x number of years you lived, would you expect Him to embrace you and say that's ok. Where is the justice for those who died trusting in His existence? God merely gives you what you want. God says that you denied Him in life so He will allow you to continue that denial away from Him. Hell is not so much a lake of fire as it is a sea of regret. Imagine getting to stand before your creator, a perfect being who you now know can fulfill every need you will every have and then, because of the choices you made, you are removed from his presence with eternity to regret losing the brief contact that you had with Him.

I'm not trying to convince you. I am trying to give you some perspective. I hope that I am allowing you to see thing from my eyes and with a tiny bit of my understanding.

Rockntractor
09-10-2009, 11:30 AM
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you, MAT 7:6.
These men don't want to learn about God they want to mock him. Don't waste your time with them, they know the truth and where to find it!

wilbur
09-10-2009, 12:16 PM
So if you die and find out that there really is a God that you have denied for the x number of years you lived, would you expect Him to embrace you and say that's ok. Where is the justice for those who died trusting in His existence? God merely gives you what you want. God says that you denied Him in life so He will allow you to continue that denial away from Him. Hell is not so much a lake of fire as it is a sea of regret. Imagine getting to stand before your creator, a perfect being who you now know can fulfill every need you will every have and then, because of the choices you made, you are removed from his presence with eternity to regret losing the brief contact that you had with Him.


If the claim is that he is perfectly just, merciful, omnipotent, omniscient, then once again, I can only say this kind of response from such a being would be baffling at best. It should be to you as well - it certainly is to many other Christians. No rational person would actually choose eternal torment, or perhaps even annihilation over eternal bliss - If I consult my own sense of justice, I would have to say that as an omnipotent and perfectly just being, the only answer would be to rehabilitate those who are so impaired. After all, this being allegedly created us - its not a stretch to assume He could repair us as well?


This conundrum leaves us with a couple options. Universalist Christians choose to opt for total salvation for everyone. Most here arent universalists, so I won't bother to talk about it.

Another option is to diminish the concept of omnipotence. This sort of seems to be where you lie. These lines of reasoning say, that the perfect world of heaven, is contingent upon this reality - that it couldn't exist, unless this existence preceded it. It is not within the capacity of God's omnipotency to create heaven, without this imperfect world first, or without some souls going to hell. In other words, God has to break some eggs to make an omelette.

But its hard to imagine such an omnipotent being, being constrained in this way. After all, this guy not only created this universe, but continually intervenes in order to produce his optimal outcome. He can impregnate women with his spirit, become human, raise from the dead, perform all kinds of nature defying miracles, etc. So in the end, the limited version of omnipotence that must be invoked in order to maintain the idea of a perfectly just God, I believe, stands in direct contradiction with the being actually described in the Bible, and certainly is not compatible with how most Christians tend to explain the powers of God.

In any case, its not hard to imagine a world where one more soul is presented with opportunity to go to heaven, that would not derail Gods plans for heaven. Its much harder to imagine, in my opinion, that this world will result in the most saved souls possible, given the rules and laws as described by Christians and the Bible.

The Night Owl
09-10-2009, 12:27 PM
So if you die and find out that there really is a God that you have denied for the x number of years you lived, would you expect Him to embrace you and say that's ok. Where is the justice for those who died trusting in His existence? God merely gives you what you want. God says that you denied Him in life so He will allow you to continue that denial away from Him. Hell is not so much a lake of fire as it is a sea of regret. Imagine getting to stand before your creator, a perfect being who you now know can fulfill every need you will every have and then, because of the choices you made, you are removed from his presence with eternity to regret losing the brief contact that you had with Him.



Your use of passive voice betrays your discomfort at having to defend the concept of Hell. Deep down, you're not comfortable worshipping a god which imposes or allows eternal suffering and your writing reflects that.

Sonnabend
09-11-2009, 04:21 AM
Your use of passive voice betrays your discomfort at having to defend the concept of Hell. Deep down, you're not comfortable worshipping a god which imposes or allows eternal suffering and your writing reflects that.

John 3:16

The message of Christ is one of salvation and forgiveness, of compassion and love.

Plain and simple.

FlaGator
09-11-2009, 08:01 AM
Your use of passive voice betrays your discomfort at having to defend the concept of Hell. Deep down, you're not comfortable worshipping a god which imposes or allows eternal suffering and your writing reflects that.

I have no issues with defending the concept of Hell, just like I have no issues working with the concept of prison or justice. Each are the consequences of ones choice and actions. Deep down I have no problem with it. The only issue I found with Hell is that when you try to explain to people that the choices that they make to do will affect them forever and their ability seemingly not to care. That bothers me because I don't wish for anyone to go to hell but some people will choose it. As C.S. Lewis put it, 'The gates of hell are locked from the inside".

FlaGator
09-11-2009, 08:52 AM
If the claim is that he is perfectly just, merciful, omnipotent, omniscient, then once again, I can only say this kind of response from such a being would be baffling at best. It should be to you as well - it certainly is to many other Christians. No rational person would actually choose eternal torment, or perhaps even annihilation over eternal bliss - If I consult my own sense of justice, I would have to say that as an omnipotent and perfectly just being, the only answer would be to rehabilitate those who are so impaired. After all, this being allegedly created us - its not a stretch to assume He could repair us as well?


This conundrum leaves us with a couple options. Universalist Christians choose to opt for total salvation for everyone. Most here arent universalists, so I won't bother to talk about it.

Another option is to diminish the concept of omnipotence. This sort of seems to be where you lie. These lines of reasoning say, that the perfect world of heaven, is contingent upon this reality - that it couldn't exist, unless this existence preceded it. It is not within the capacity of God's omnipotency to create heaven, without this imperfect world first, or without some souls going to hell. In other words, God has to break some eggs to make an omelette.

But its hard to imagine such an omnipotent being, being constrained in this way. After all, this guy not only created this universe, but continually intervenes in order to produce his optimal outcome. He can impregnate women with his spirit, become human, raise from the dead, perform all kinds of nature defying miracles, etc. So in the end, the limited version of omnipotence that must be invoked in order to maintain the idea of a perfectly just God, I believe, stands in direct contradiction with the being actually described in the Bible, and certainly is not compatible with how most Christians tend to explain the powers of God.

In any case, its not hard to imagine a world where one more soul is presented with opportunity to go to heaven, that would not derail Gods plans for heaven. Its much harder to imagine, in my opinion, that this world will result in the most saved souls possible, given the rules and laws as described by Christians and the Bible.

This is the point of the Bible. It is his plan to repair mankind and re-establish but, I believe that He works within a frame based upon all those things you mentioned; He is perfectly just, merciful, omnipotent and omniscient. Now being perfectly just (demanding justice for violations again his will) isnít He to expect justice? When God gives us a law and then does nothing when we break it, is that justice? If someone stole from you and authorities acknowledge the violation but did nothing to prosecute the guy is that not injustice. Doesnít justice demand that the individual be prosecuted? Godís justice demands death for sin (sin in this case being violation of his word). Instead of undoing man and creation after Adam sinned was not God being merciful when he let creation stand in its broken state and instituted a plan that would both satisfy His demand for justice and demonstrate his mercy.

So God lets the creation stand and slowly unveils his plan for the redemption of mankind. Why didnít He just wave a magic wand and fix things? I believe that His perfect justice demanded something else. So he removed his physical presence from man (i.e. He no longer walked in the garden with man) and instituted the concept of faith which He made known to us through Abram, Abram believed and he was credited as being righteous. Godís plan started to be revealed with Christ as the climax of that plan.

In Christ and acceptance of Christ, receiving Christ as the Greek states, both Godís perfect justice and his perfect mercy are satisfied. Those who receive Christ are forgiven; those who deny Christ are now expected to play for their sin as Christ paid the price for the sins of those who believe. In short you choose either to allow Christ to bear the justice that was due you or you accept to bear it yourself. The choice is yours. Either way Godís justice is satisfied.

I have some beliefs as to why I it might have to happen this way, but they are not Biblically based and are merely me speculating about things. I am not privy to the mind of God. I try not to anthropomorphize God because He is not a human being except in the form of Jesus and he operates under what I guess could be considered motivations that are alien to us. This is the biggest problem people have with God. We project our feelings and emotions on to God. We expect Him to act like us but He is not us. He is God.

How do you believe that God should simultaneously satisfy His perfect justice and his perfect mercy?

The Night Owl
09-11-2009, 09:21 AM
I have no issues with defending the concept of Hell, just like I have no issues working with the concept of prison or justice. Each are the consequences of ones choice and actions. Deep down I have no problem with it. The only issue I found with Hell is that when you try to explain to people that the choices that they make to do will affect them forever and their ability seemingly not to care. That bothers me because I don't wish for anyone to go to hell but some people will choose it. As C.S. Lewis put it, 'The gates of hell are locked from the inside".

If Hell is for those who choose it then why aren't the damned offered redemption once they realize the error of their ways? Could it be because the god you worship is infinitely cruel and merciless?


This is the point of the Bible. It is his plan to repair mankind and re-establish but, I believe that He works within a frame based upon all those things you mentioned; He is perfectly just, merciful, omnipotent and omniscient. Now being perfectly just (demanding justice for violations again his will) isn’t He to expect justice? When God gives us a law and then does nothing when we break it, is that justice? If someone stole from you and authorities acknowledge the violation but did nothing to prosecute the guy is that not injustice. Doesn’t justice demand that the individual be prosecuted? God’s justice demands death for sin (sin in this case being violation of his word). Instead of undoing man and creation after Adam sinned was not God being merciful when he let creation stand in its broken state and instituted a plan that would both satisfy His demand for justice and demonstrate his mercy.

Both Wilbur and I understand the concept of punishment. What we don't understand is the concept of infinite punishment. I mean, isn't say 500,000 years of punishment enough for not believing in something which never makes an appearence?

wilbur
09-11-2009, 01:02 PM
This is the point of the Bible. It is his plan to repair mankind and re-establish but, I believe that He works within a frame based upon all those things you mentioned; He is perfectly just, merciful, omnipotent and omniscient. Now being perfectly just (demanding justice for violations again his will) isn’t He to expect justice? When God gives us a law and then does nothing when we break it, is that justice? If someone stole from you and authorities acknowledge the violation but did nothing to prosecute the guy is that not injustice. Doesn’t justice demand that the individual be prosecuted? God’s justice demands death for sin (sin in this case being violation of his word). Instead of undoing man and creation after Adam sinned was not God being merciful when he let creation stand in its broken state and instituted a plan that would both satisfy His demand for justice and demonstrate his mercy.


First, there is some tension here with the idea that God acts in accordance with his perfect justice by persecuting individuals for their crimes, and the idea that people actually choose hell. One implies that God is an enforcer, and the other implies that he is a passive agent that merely grants wishes upon request.

Once again, I just have to say that no rational being, with full awareness of the truth, would ever choose anything but heaven. Actually choosing anything but heaven, would be a result of ignorance or dysfunction. This is not even an issue of free will.

In the real world, we have to punish crimes even though they are the result of ignorance and dysfunction for several reasons. But.. if we could flip a switch that cured such ignorance or dysfunction so that criminals understood the errors of their ways, would we not opt to do this instead of traditional forms of punishment? I think so. I see no good reason to believe that correcting these problems would be a logical impossibility for an omnipotent universe creator - even while leaving free will intact. God is free-willed, but incapable of sin. Souls in heaven are free-willed, and incapable of sin, presumably.. so it is possible to be incapable of sin while possessing free-will, in the Christian worldview.

One good reason for punishment in a just justice system is restitution - because crimes often damage things of value and result in material harm to others. So, ideally, we make the criminals do what is possible to repay the damage they caused. But one cannot damage an infinite, un-changable, timeless, omnipotent universe creator. Not one iota of his nature could be diminished at the hands of a mere mortal. Therefore, He has no need for restitution. On top of that, restitution is necessarily finite - at some point the restitution paid must equal or exceed the damage caused. Since Hell is eternal, we can conclude hell is not for restitution.

Sometimes justice systems do require that criminals suffer. But this is only necessary in a human based justice system in order to deter evil behavior. Just like restitution, we need to deter because of the real material harm that people experience because of crime. But God cannot be harmed, and presumably heaven is a place where no harm is possible. So this cannot be a reason for the suffering in Hell.

No truly good justice system should inflict punitive suffering, simply for the sake of suffering. It serves no just purpose, either to the world, or to a victim, to simply inflict suffering for its own sake. Since we know that choosing anything but heaven is a matter of dysfunction and ignorance, and that God could easily rectify both problems, and that God and residents of heaven have no need for restitution or deterrent, and that it would neither hinder nor help God and the residents of heaven to know that some souls suffer eternally, then we have to conclude that Hell exists simply for sinners to suffer, for suffering's sake. This is vengeance. Vengeance is not just. Therefore, God is not just.

Showing that the God of Christianity is not just, is tantamount to showing that the God of Christianity does not exist. Therefore, this God does not exist. Maybe some other God does, but we can be sure that most Christians have it wrong.



In Christ and acceptance of Christ, receiving Christ as the Greek states, both God’s perfect justice and his perfect mercy are satisfied. Those who receive Christ are forgiven; those who deny Christ are now expected to play for their sin as Christ paid the price for the sins of those who believe.


Again, I just have to be left baffled by the concept; crimes, deeds, and actions are actually irrelevant in this system of justice, since it all hinges on one single factor - whether one accepts Jesus or not. In Hell, sinners are not "paying" for their sins - they are being tortured for only one sin - not "accepting Jesus". That certainly violates every moral fiber and intuition I have, to believe that eternal salvation or eternal suffering hinges on such an silly little trifle like that. That's not any kind of justice I can endorse.

wilbur
09-11-2009, 01:14 PM
Just to save Rockntractor the trouble:

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/asleep-computer-istock-de.jpg?t=1252381916