[quote]zarathus wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
I’m not going to hijack and “speak up for a supreme being” here, but I will mention that the human brain may have a fundamental physical characteristic that no other animals have on earth which is the ability to cause collapse of the wave function in a quantum system by the act of observation. We know that humans can do this. It has never been tested whether other animals can, I mean Schodender could collapse the wave function by opening the box, but his cat could not-at least he never considered that it could, and certainly a Poinsettia plant could not.
Also, near death experiences could be explained as a simply a large outpouring of endorphines to numb the pain which happens in that case to be associated with death.
I’m sorry, but the quantum theory of cognition has not ever been demonstrated as you describe, though people have proposed it, but I’m not a believer.
[/quote]
Well, actually the weak form has been demonstrated-that humans can collapse the wave function, and at least some/many non-cognitive objects cannot. Cognition is absolutely proven as one mechanism of irreversibility. There may be non-cognitive mechanisms, and there may be a level of cognition below which cannot collapse the wave function-so we can’t say its exclusive to one or the other.
Sweet Satan!
What happened to the thread…
Zealots are invading it, maiming with their ill logic to the left and right.
Please, make your own thread if you don’t won’t to truly discuss things on a polite base.
Or leave us to our nihilistic pondering.
The following items are now in question:
Is the Bible a shady collection of dusty old propaganda parchments?
And where do you draw the line. If some issues are mixed up, is the rest still god’s word?
Is it logical to assume there is a god, (with a huge beard) or is it the other way round?
What is wrong with the life of all those online inquisitors who are always so negative and can’t let the happy agnostic/atheistic laddies frolic around in their honest persuit of ungodly happiness?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
God Created the Integers per Steven Hawking.
Hawking is wrong! Integers are nothing more than a convention. We need integers in order to exlain ordinary process becasue it is easier to describe events with whole numbers. By the way, and I’m sure I don’t need to remind you, there are very few quantities in the universe that are integer values–depending on whose units one decides to use. Again its just convention.[/quote]
No, everything in the universe can be described using integers as long as your units are planck units.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
gojira wrote:
I don’t believe in any invisible entity having control over the universe or our lives.
I don’t believe in miracles.
I don’t believe in the supernatural.
I don’t believe in an afterlife.
I don’t believe I have anymore of a “soul” than an earthworm does.
I’m sure Jesus was a great guy, but just a human guy with some idealistic ideas on how people should live together. Same with Mohammed, Jehovah, etc.
Humans need to feel they are above the natural world and won’t die and decompose and return to the earth like the rest of the organisms on this planet. They like to think they are superior so they have made up this whole “created in God’s image” thing.
They fall easy prey to the promises of an afterlife and the idea that some super being is responsible for all the joy and pain in the world and that there is “a plan” for each of us. It’s a great way to control the masses. And that is what religion is all about - control.
I believe in nature. I believe in a natural order of life. I believe in natural selection.
If you want to give that a name and worship it, more power to ya. But don’t waste your time praying for me to some imaginary superbeing.
You live your life the way you want let me live mine the way I want.
Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.
What about souls? That’s my great sticking point. Humans are above animals.
No other animal has the luck or curse of rational thought, no other animal knows that it will die. No other animal has morals, or the complexity that the human mind has.
There’s the old thing about energy not being able to be destroyed- how would you account for the energy that is given off when a human dies?
What about accounts of ghosts and hauntings? There are things that happen that are just to strange to be explained away by science.
First off you are taking one view of God and trying to use it to debate all views of God.
Sorry, are you a Christian? Is there a Christian God who is not omniscient?
[/quote]
Yes I am Christian, and yes there are other Christian views about God.
See arminian/calvinistic views of God.
[quote]
Secondly it is only non-sensical to those who don’t understand the frame work in which such an action is possible. Think about it, even you a none omniscient being know certain things that will happen before they happen, but that doesn’t stop you from letting those things happen. does that mean you are non-sensical?
It only makes me non-sensical if I don’t want those things to happen, but let them happen anyway.
I understand the framework in which it could happen. God creating the universe while knowing all that is going to happen is like me playing a chess game in which I know every single move and the end result. It is pointless.[/quote]
You know you will die, so why continue living? dore knowledge doesn’t equate for ordainment. Besides that entire premise is based on the argument of How can we have free will if God knows what we will do. God is not “playing chess in these instances” as much as he is allowing them to unfold in a natural progressive order. Now id you ask what is the point? That is like asking what is the meaning of life. Last time I checked no one had the exact answer.
[quote]
Also, since there is no actual evidence for his existence, why is it not logical to assert he doesn’t exist? [/quote]
Read my last post to DPH
[quote]
Please lay it out for me.
As DPH corrected my poor choice of wording it is a logical fallacy.
Lay what out for you? [/quote]
You asked if I wanted someone to lay a logical argument out for me. I asked you to do it.
Soren Kierkegaaurd (Sp?) makes an excellent point: A religious experience must, by nature, be a singular event. If you have one, you simply can’t prove it happened. It can’t be tested scientifically (falsifiable) so it simply is a matter of faith.
I have had 2 such experiences. Of course, no way to confirm or disprove. I know there is a God but proving it…nope.
After the first one, my life turned completely around. Was it a miracle? I think so. But, as Jodie Foster’s character in the movie CONTACT relates, you just can’t prove a thing.
True, but imagine there is a being who is not prime mover. Looks like we are where we started.
[/quote]
Not really, because now we are dealing with probabilities.
Assuming there is a god it is extremely unlikely that he is the christian version.
The chances are infinity to one.
A christian does not win anything by claiming that I cannot disprove the existence of a deity.
I cannot deny that the possibility exists that a purple dinosaur is orbiting one of Jupiters moons.
You?d be amazed by the possibilities I cannot deny, but I won?t spend my life on my knees whorshipping the gods of a semitic nomadic tribe because of it.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Sweet Satan!
What happened to the thread…
Zealots are invading it, maiming with their ill logic to the left and right.
Please, make your own thread if you don’t won’t to truly discuss things on a polite base.
Or leave us to our nihilistic pondering.
The following items are now in question:
Is the Bible a shady collection of dusty old propaganda parchments?
And where do you draw the line. If some issues are mixed up, is the rest still god’s word?
Is it logical to assume there is a god, (with a huge beard) or is it the other way round?
What is wrong with the life of all those online inquisitors who are always so negative and can’t let the happy agnostic/atheistic laddies frolic around in their honest persuit of ungodly happiness?
[/quote]
pursue all you want, but get the historical facts right or atleast post a scholar that I can study. Why is it atheist/agnostics think they are the only ones looking at the evidence? There is a lot of information out there, and I would like to see it since I am constantly discovering more things about my faith.
While its okey to debate, you are spreading your anti-religious hate here. Why not debate the topic intelligently? Why do you have to make Christians angry by calling them dumb and making fun of their God?
I was just asking a question. I don’t understand why you athiests and liberals avoid direct questions and debates?
And why all the hate, Irish? I like rap music. And what about your name? “Fighting Irish”? Please. Are you in the IRA or something, wow so dangerous.
[quote]haney wrote:
Well only two of the Authors in question would have known Jesus.
Matt, and John
Mark most likely wrote what Peter preached since he was a close friend, and Luke wrote for the Gentile reader.
There is no reason to assume that none of them knew him. aside from that. It seems very clear from the book of Acts which is attributed to Luke, seemed to have an extensive relationship with some, if not all of the originaly Apostles/Disciples.
I tell you what you give me references, and we can go from there. up until now you are just asserting your opinion.
[/quote]
This is totally out of line!
It shows how misinformed you really are.
Even two centuries ago, the most pro-christian scholars have all agreed that the evangelia are written well after Jesus demise, at LEAST 40 years, some (John, Matt) probably after hundred years.
This includes schoolars like Adolf von Harnack, John A. T. Robinson, Werner Georg Kummel, Raymond E. Brown or the Encyclopedia Brittanica.
Now to your amazing feats of logic.
Don’t assume I’m negating anything. Nobody here wants to doubt anything he is aware of.
If you now approach us with this god of yours, be so kind and show us a proof.
You’re the one who directly starts with god and bases all arguments around this pretension. Now SHOW US your god. I’m not denying anything I can comprehand through rational or empirical proof.
I believe you are denying the world around you by living in some kind of Fantasy a la “Lord of the Rings”.
Just believing the Bible or Tolkien won’t do the trick.
True, but imagine there is a being who is not prime mover. Looks like we are where we started.
Not really, because now we are dealing with probabilities.
Assuming there is a god it is extremely unlikely that he is the christian version.
The chances are infinity to one.
A christian does not win anything by claiming that I cannot disprove the existence of a deity.
I cannot deny that the possibility exists that a purple dinosaur is orbiting one of Jupiters moons.
You?d be amazed by the possibilities I cannot deny, but I won?t spend my life on my knees whorshipping the gods of a semitic nomadic tribe because of it.
[/quote]
Lets take the probability argument futher.
the general consensus/religion estimates that as long as you live a good life, and believe in some entity that you will find your way to a Heaven of sorts. That being said If there is a God, and we are using that term the odds are in my favor.
as a side thought. If there is a God, and my odds are still the same (infinity to 1) I am one up on you!
[quote]miniross wrote:
Evolution as a component of this discussion is something of such magnificence that it does not suprise me that it is lost on you. In that i do not mean to be patronising.
What i mean is that the details of evolution in the most proper and exact terms are understood by relatively few people. danile Dennett writes on this, and writes well, but a a concept to explain to the uninniciated, it is heavy, to say the least.
The rest of us have to do witha simplified version until we can build upon that, or not. What you say is what can only be considered an oversimplification of the highest order. The volumes and probonilities in evolution are mind boggling, as seems to be the case here.
If you say that your faith is based where you have stated, then this is a simple issue of the worsip of the gap god. the gap god happilysits in those distant reaches of the unexplainable, the before the big bang, the areas where we cant currently measure. the gap god is a weak god, where sooner or later the facade of mystery will fall to information.
be wary of the gap god. he has survived for milenia, but is chased to further and further reaches of existence as we discover more. Eventually he may de disclosed as a moused in a beard.
or not…[/quote]
Bro, neither you nor science can explain why there is no factual missing link or where or how matter originated. I explain this gap with God, and you explain it with science. You believe that if you just wait long enough science will find the answers. So science is your “gap-god” because your faith is in science.
Next, theory is not proof. You can get all the deep ideas you want to, but proof is proof and science has none for the missing link and the origins of matter. So once again it is your faith in the gap-god of science that helps you sleep at night.
And if you don’t think it is faith, explain to me how something that is supposed to be scientific continues when proven wrong?
The theory of evolution has been proven wrong many times and yet the theory remains. The scientific method dictates that you start with an idea (hypothesis) and then test that idea. If that idea is not proven, you throw it out or revise it and try again. So when has the hypothesis that man evalued ever been changed or throw out? NEVER! That my friend, makes evolutionary science, unscientific. And if it is unscientific because it doesn’t follow the scientific method, then it is faith-based and a belief system.
So you are just exchanging one religious belief system for another. But without proof it is all just faith.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Soren Kierkegaaurd (Sp?) makes an excellent point: A religious experience must, by nature, be a singular event. If you have one, you simply can’t prove it happened. It can’t be tested scientifically (falsifiable) so it simply is a matter of faith.
[/quote]
Well, you are right.
But so many devout souls here believe in divine special effects, like raising the dead. Things that are not really personal.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
So what does pyschological phenomena mean?
One could say the same about alien abductions, which I believe would prove that there is no god.[/quote]
My use of ‘psychological phenomena’ refers to things that we can delude, hallucinate, feel/perceive/imagine happen, but don’t actually occur.
Nothing too special in my use of those words, I hope.
Now it’s difficult to say what is a result of our perception and what is ‘real’, but if there are such tangible such as ghosts/aliens, wouldn’t an experience with them surely leave some evidence?
Forensic science these days is pretty good… (oh… yes, cover-ups I forgot. Darn, gosh and golly!)
While its okey to debate, you are spreading your anti-religious hate here. Why not debate the topic intelligently? Why do you have to make Christians angry by calling them dumb and making fun of their God?
I was just asking a question. I don’t understand why you athiests and liberals avoid direct questions and debates?
And why all the hate, Irish? I like rap music. And what about your name? “Fighting Irish”? Please. Are you in the IRA or something, wow so dangerous.
[/quote]
As an atheist it is essentially true to be anti religious. not hate, but in the most passive way you can imagine…by establishing it as the bronse age nonsense it is.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
This is totally out of line!
It shows how misinformed you really are.
Even two centuries ago, the most pro-christian scholars have all agreed that the evangelia are written well after Jesus demise, at LEAST 40 years, some (John, Matt) probably after hundred years.
[/quote]
It would be impossible for John to have been 100 years after since we have papal dating as early as 115 AD
I assume that you are nformed that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and then later translated it into Greek. Which might give it an even earlier date than Mark. I would actually date the gospels pre 70 in most instances. WHich I am sure you will take issue with, and I am fine with that. The question is though what does the dating have to do with your claims about Christ and the history of the Church.
However that is irrevelent since you also ignore oral traditions as a prominent part of the day, and written word came secondary.
[quote]
This includes schoolars like Adolf von Harnack, John A. T. Robinson, Werner Georg Kummel, Raymond E. Brown or the Encyclopedia Brittanica.[/quote]
I will include alist at the end of this post of scholars that would take issue with some of your dates.
I have not asked you to believe in God, or miracles. I have asked you to give me a scholars who debate Jesus being Crucified.
Alb.Mt Albright, W. F. and C. S. Mann. Matthew. New York: Doubleday, 1971.
Ander.GM Anderson, Hugh. The Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.
Beck.TGJ Beck, Dwight M. Through the Gospels to Jesus. New York: Harper Brothers, 1954.
Blom.Mt Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.
Blom.Jn Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel. IVP, 2001.
Bock.L Bock, Darrell. Luke. Downers Grove: IVP, 1994.
Boyd.CSSG Boyd, Gregory A. Cynic Sage or Son of God? Chicago: Bridgepoint, 1995.
CarMoo.Int Carson, D.A., Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Chars.JDSS Charlesworth, James H. John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Crossroad, 1991.
Davi.INP Davies, W. D. Invitation to the New Testament. New York: Doubleday, 1966.
Dunn.CS2 Dunn, William D. G. Christ and the Spirit Vol. 2. Eerdmans, 1998.
Ell.Lk Ellis, E. Earle. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966.
Evan.Lk Evans, Craig A. Luke. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1990.
Fitz.Lk Fitzmeyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke. New York: Doubleday, 1981.
Fran.EvJ France, R. T. The Evidence for Jesus. Downers Grove: IVP, 1986.
Fran.MET France, R. T. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.
Full.CNT Fuller, Reginald H. A Critical Introduction to the New Testament. London: Gerald Duckworth and Co., 1966.
Gran.GOG Grant, F. C. The Gospels: Their Origin and Their Growth. London: Faber and Faber, 1957.
Gran.HNT Grant, Robert M. A Historical Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1963.
Gund.Mk Gundry, Robert H. Mark. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Gund.Mt Gundry, Robert H. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Hag.Mt Hagner, Donald. Matthew 1-13. Dallas: Word, 1993.
Heib.Int Heibert, D. Edmond. An Introduction to the New Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1975.
Heng.Mark Hengel, Martin. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. London: SCM, 1985.
Heng.4G Hengel, Martin. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ. Trinity Press International, 2000.
Keen.Mt Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Kelb.OWG Kelber, Werner. The Oral and the Written Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
Kiste.GCS Kistemaker, Simon. The Gospels in Current Study. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972.
Kumm.Int K?mmel , Wener G. Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973.
Mack.Q Mack, Burton L. The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q. San Francisco: Harper , 1993.
Mack.WhoNT Mack, Burton L. Who Wrote the New Testament? San Francisco: Harper, 1995.
Mart.NTF Martin, Ralph P. New Testament Foundations. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.
Meie.MarJ Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. New York: Doubleday, 1991.
Mine.MTG Minear, Paul S. Matthew: The Teacher’s Gospel. New York: Pilgrim Press, 1982.
More.ScCy Moreland, J. P. Scaling the Secular City. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.
Moul.BNT Moule, C.F.D. The Birth of the New Testament. Cambridge: Harper and Row, 1982.
Moun.Mt Mounce, Robert H. Matthew. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991.
Nick.SGI Nickle, Keith F. The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction. Atlanta: John Knox, 1980.
Patz.MNT Patzia, Arthur G. The Making of the New Testament. Downers Gove: IVP, 1995.
Perr.NTI Perrin, Norman. The New Testament: An Introduction. New York: HBJ, 1974.
Pric.INP Price, James L. Interpreting the New Testament. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971.
Pritch.Lit Pritchard, John Paul. A Literary approach to the New Testament. Norman: U. of Oklahoma Press, 1972.
Reic.Root Reicke, Bo. The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.
Ridd.Mt - Ridderbos, H. N. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.
Robin.PJ Robinson, J. A. T. The Priority of John. London: Meyer and Stone, 1985.
Robin.RNT Robinson, J. A. T. Redating the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Sen.GM Senior, Donald. The Gospel of Matthew. Nashville: Abingdon, 1997.
Spiv.ANT Spivey, Robert A. and D. Moody Smith. Anatomy of the New Testament. New York: Macmillan, 1989.
Stone.OSG Stonehouse, Ned B. Origins of the Synoptic Gospels. London: Tyndale, 1963.
Stree.4G Streeter, B. H. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. London: Macmillan, 1951. (published 1924)
Tayl.FGT Taylor, Vincent. The Formation of the Gospel Tradition. London: Macmillan, 1957.
Thie.EvJ Thiede, Carsten Peter. Eyewitness to Jesus. New York: Doubleday, 1996.
Thom.HG Thomas, Robert L. and Stanley Gundry. A Harmony of the Gospels. Chicago: Moody Press, 1978.
Walk.RAG Walker, William O. The Relationshps Among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue. San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1978.
Wenh.RMML Wenham, John. Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke. Downers Grove: IVP, 1992.
Wilk.JUF Wilkins, Michael J. and J. P. Moreland, eds. Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
With.AA - Witherington, Ben. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Paternoster, 1998.
Wrig.PG Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
[quote]miniross wrote:
What i mean is that the details of evolution in the most proper and exact terms are understood by relatively few people. danile Dennett writes on this, and writes well, but a a concept to explain to the uninniciated, it is heavy, to say the least.
The rest of us have to do witha simplified version until we can build upon that, or not. What you say is what can only be considered an oversimplification of the highest order. The volumes and probonilities in evolution are mind boggling, as seems to be the case here.
[/quote]
This is intelligent design propaganda, telling us that:
Evolution has been proven to be completely wrong (bullshit)
It’s real use is so scientific that normal people cannot comprehend it (While this is true with the theory of relativity, here it is …bullshit again)
a missing link? This is so low it’s unbelievable. The term was used wrongly as an argument against Darwin in 19th century. Since then some 1000 “missing links” have been found. Evolution is scientific, and it’s proven itself time and again.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Don’t assume I’m negating anything. Nobody here wants to doubt anything he is aware of.
If you now approach us with this god of yours, be so kind and show us a proof.
You’re the one who directly starts with god and bases all arguments around this pretension. Now SHOW US your god.
[/quote]
Romans 1:20:
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his etnernal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from the what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
Not true at all. I’ve had atheist scholars tell me that Aramaic fragments were being passed around by 40 A.D. As far as a final formulation and acceptance of the complete text, it would be as late as say 100, probably sooner, but John probably lived until about 100 A.D.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
haney wrote:
Well only two of the Authors in question would have known Jesus.
Matt, and John
Mark most likely wrote what Peter preached since he was a close friend, and Luke wrote for the Gentile reader.
There is no reason to assume that none of them knew him. aside from that. It seems very clear from the book of Acts which is attributed to Luke, seemed to have an extensive relationship with some, if not all of the originaly Apostles/Disciples.
I tell you what you give me references, and we can go from there. up until now you are just asserting your opinion.
This is totally out of line!
It shows how misinformed you really are.
Even two centuries ago, the most pro-christian scholars have all agreed that the evangelia are written well after Jesus demise, at LEAST 40 years, some (John, Matt) probably after hundred years.
This includes schoolars like Adolf von Harnack, John A. T. Robinson, Werner Georg Kummel, Raymond E. Brown or the Encyclopedia Brittanica.
Now to your amazing feats of logic.
Don’t assume I’m negating anything. Nobody here wants to doubt anything he is aware of.
If you now approach us with this god of yours, be so kind and show us a proof.
You’re the one who directly starts with god and bases all arguments around this pretension. Now SHOW US your god. I’m not denying anything I can comprehand through rational or empirical proof.
I believe you are denying the world around you by living in some kind of Fantasy a la “Lord of the Rings”.
Just believing the Bible or Tolkien won’t do the trick.
[/quote]