Why is this a thing. It's a common and well understood idea comparing God's action to controlling a colony of ants. But really does this need to be 8 bloody minutes long video, the point could easily be made in 5 seconds and have been much more robust and well understood.
Also because he extends it for so long the analogy breaks down at places quite badly, by the end it doesn't even make a compelling argument because he's over exaggerated every aspect of the idea to stretch the video out.
The video was pretty well made. The narrator jumps between subtle metaphors and literal statements about God, but other than that it was worth the watch.
Rather than a boring rant where the argument simply outright compares ant farms to god and religion, this one didn't even attempt to make it too obvious until near the very end. I found it very enjoyable despite the argument having been used before, because the video maker did so in a way that was actually fun to watch. It's one of those videos that doesn't just shove the person's belief in your face in an angry or boring way, rather, it gives a good degree of subtle hints as to what the message is before outright saying it.
I liked it, one of the videos that could even get Christians thinking.
So what exactly is he trying to prove? That messing with ants is like playing God? That God is an egotistical and insane prick?
Yeah, no shit, I kind of figured that out when the Bible said he supposedly flooded the Earth and nearly killed everybody.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;36774811]So what exactly is he trying to prove? That messing with ants is like playing God? That God is an egotistical and insane prick?
Yeah, no shit, I kind of figured that out when the Bible said he supposedly flooded the Earth and nearly killed everybody.[/QUOTE]
Many Christians say that God has the right to kill people. In this video you can hear someone (and not just someone, it's the famous William Lane Craig!) say it:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Na_wcvqUOY[/media]
From 1:12. He literally says "God has the right give and take life as he sees fit", and that is exactly what OP's video and Thunderf00t's video (the one in my post) object to.
[QUOTE=FPtje;36779491]Many Christians say that God has the right to kill people. In this video you can hear someone (and not just someone, it's the famous William Lane Craig!) say it:
From 1:12. He literally says "God has the right give and take life as he sees fit", and that is exactly what OP's video and Thunderf00t's video (the one in my post) object to.[/QUOTE]
What an inflammatory video..
[QUOTE=ghosevil;36780971]What an inflammatory video..[/QUOTE]
Regardless of how provocative it is, it gets the point across clearly and gives good arguments.
I liked the music and voice but I'm not sure if I liked the video
The voice reminds me a little of this guy: [img_thumb]http://chabrieres.pagesperso-orange.fr/clockwork_orange/moloko.jpg[/img_thumb]
The difference in complexity between human and ant is infinitely smaller than the difference between human and god. Emotions like anger and love don't apply in human terms. Most people forget this shit when they're trying to be deep.
I quite liked it, you know, I've always wanted a little colony of ants to watch.
Philhellenes is the maker of such videos as "Science Saved My Soul". By far he's my favorite atheist Youtuber, and pretty much THE guy who's content taught me enough about atheism and religion to become an atheist without a hint of trepidation. Seriously, I listen to this shit in my car.
And part of that content is this video. Rather than putting the Christian god on some pedestal, he brings him down to our level and makes us realize that in the context of a mortal man, these actions would be those of an incredibly disturbed individual.
I think one of my absolute favorites of his however are these two: "Why Don't Scientists Fear Hell?" which offers a profound argument against the threats at their deepest level, and "Reasonably Certain," which gets me crying more often than I like to admit, and shows us how there is no need to be 100% certain that there is no god, only certain enough.
[video=youtube;wbrQI0r1B7w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbrQI0r1B7w[/video]
[video=youtube;m15lVvspDXg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m15lVvspDXg[/video]
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36783874]Philhellenes is the maker of such videos as "Science Saved My Soul". By far he's my favorite atheist Youtuber, and pretty much THE guy who's content taught me enough about atheism and religion to become an atheist without a hint of trepidation. Seriously, I listen to this shit in my car.
And part of that content is this video. Rather than putting the Christian god on some pedestal, he brings him down to our level and makes us realize that in the context of a mortal man, these actions would be those of an incredibly disturbed individual.
I think one of my absolute favorites of his however are these two: "Why Don't Scientists Fear Hell?" which offers a profound argument against the threats at their deepest level, and "Reasonably Certain," which gets me crying more often than I like to admit, and shows us how there is no need to be 100% certain that there is no god, only certain enough.
[video=youtube;wbrQI0r1B7w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbrQI0r1B7w[/video]
[video=youtube;m15lVvspDXg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m15lVvspDXg[/video][/QUOTE]
That was actually very very interesting, a lot better than the typical obnoxiously loud youtube "famous" AmazingAtheist with forced wittiness.
[QUOTE]My girlfriend asked, "Why are you smiling?"
And I answered, "...Because we're not watching the same movie."
And [I]that[/I], is atheism.
[/QUOTE]
That bit, combined with his stunning use of music, always gets me. Either I feel chills, or I shed a few tears.
Really loved the music.
This would be an accurate depiction of God if he were equal intellectually to humans, had rules for us to follow but did not tell us what they were and did not offer any way to salvation apart from following his rules to the letter. Fortunately that's not the Christian God.
To try and apply some sort of behavioural disability to God is useless as his thoughts are above ours, as a being that can see past present and future it makes sense that we shouldn't understand his actions. Not to mention God doesn't simply expect us to follow rules that we don't even know, he tells us how we are supposed to live but doesn't even expect us to do it, he makes it clear what behaviours are sinful and which are not. Also God offers a way of reaching salvation through the death of Christ who was both his son and himself in human form, instead of following rules we are expected to simply accept his sacrifice for us.
All in all the video offers a weak analogy that only appears strong because of the emotions it stirs.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;36786546]This would be an accurate depiction of God if he were equal intellectually to humans[/quote]
How does THIS matter? God's supposed intelligence makes him immune to criticism and gives him dominion over sapient races? Says who?
And I directly challenge this idea that this god is so much smarter than we are, because he certainly doesn't demonstrate this.
[quote]had rules for us to follow but did not tell us what they were[/quote]
Oh, so you think the Bible... TEXT on PAPER... is ACTUALLY a sufficient means of communicating his will to the entire world so that everyone can understand it? Because —newsflash— there are currently three separate major religions trying to follow him, and 30,000 denominations in just ONE of those religions. That doesn't ring of truth, nor does it ring of effectiveness, if your god's will is so vastly open to interpretation.
[quote]and did not offer any way to salvation apart from following his rules to the letter.[/quote]
Um... are you suggesting that this god offered some ALTERNATIVE way to dodge his torture chamber? Or are you just citing how anyone can go to heaven if they just BELIEVE?
[quote]To try and apply some sort of behavioural disability to God is useless as his thoughts are above ours, as a being that can see past present and future it makes sense that we shouldn't understand his actions.[/quote]
Again, this god NEVER demonstrates that he is especially intelligent. This argument of god being inscrutable to us because he's just so smart, sounds to me like how an idiot who doesn't KNOW he's an idiot comically explains why everyone thinks he's an idiot.
Point is, I trust something LESS when it tries to pull that manner of bullshit. It's a call for ignorance in how it bids that you blindly trust god. "Sure, it doesn't make any sense, but then, he's SMARTER than you! He must be, after all, because he says he is!"
[quote] Not to mention God doesn't simply expect us to follow rules that we don't even know, he tells us how we are supposed to live but doesn't even expect us to do it, he makes it clear what behaviours are sinful and which are not. Also God offers a way of reaching salvation through the death of Christ who was both his son and himself in human form, instead of following rules we are expected to simply accept his sacrifice for us.[/quote]
No moral person WOULD accept this "sacrifice".
I accept no barbaric blood sacrifice made for me to the benefit of some sky-daddy who enjoys the smell of burning hemoglobin. I never asked for it, and I reject the necessity for it.
Please explain to me why, if this god's ultimate intention was to forgive the people he created, couldn't he have merely snapped his fingers and said he'd forgiven them? Why the fuck does he need to turn himself human, so as to sacrifice himself TO himself, to atone for mistakes that were made, by beings he created [I]specifically [/I]to be able to make mistakes?
It's asinine, and it sits upon a foundation of immorality that also includes such gems as the original sin, which condemns every human being for something they had no part in to begin with.[/quote]
[quote]All in all the video offers a weak analogy that only appears strong because of the emotions it stirs.[/QUOTE]
A theist tries calling an atheist video out for [I]emotional manipulation[/I]? Are you even sufficiently within sight of reality to appreciate how ironic that sentiment is?
The analogy is fine, and the only emotion it stirs is disgust, and rightly so. All he did was take the same actions as the Abrahamic god and apply them to a different scenario.
Those ants surely wouldn't comprehend the actions or will of a human that took care of them either, but it wouldn't make the man's actions any less repugnant.
If anything, this analogue is being kind, in that the man at least TRIES to communicate with the ants even if he ultimately fails. Whereas an all-powerful god would have no problem reaching everyone if he cared to. And this leaves a few options. Either he DOESN'T care, or he doesn't exist. Feel free to add to those options if you think of more, but I can't, at least not at five AM.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36793534]How does THIS matter? God's supposed intelligence makes him immune to criticism and gives him dominion over sapient races? Says who?
And I directly challenge this idea that this god is so much smarter than we are, because he certainly doesn't demonstrate this.
Oh, so you think the Bible... TEXT on PAPER... is ACTUALLY a sufficient means of communicating his will to the entire world so that everyone can understand it? Because —newsflash— there are currently three separate major religions trying to follow him, and 30,000 denominations in just ONE of those religions. That doesn't ring of truth, nor does it ring of effectiveness, if your god's will is so vastly open to interpretation.
Um... are you suggesting that this god offered some ALTERNATIVE way to dodge his torture chamber? Or are you just citing how anyone can go to heaven if they just BELIEVE?
Again, this god NEVER demonstrates that he is especially intelligent. This argument of god being inscrutable to us because he's just so smart, sounds to me like how an idiot who doesn't KNOW he's an idiot comically explains why everyone thinks he's an idiot.
Point is, I trust something LESS when it tries to pull that manner of bullshit. It's a call for ignorance in how it bids that you blindly trust god. "Sure, it doesn't make any sense, but then, he's SMARTER than you! He must be, after all, because he says he is!"
No moral person WOULD accept this "sacrifice".
I accept no barbaric blood sacrifice made for me to the benefit of some sky-daddy who enjoys the smell of burning hemoglobin. I never asked for it, and I reject the necessity for it.
Please explain to me why, if this god's ultimate intention was to forgive the people he created, couldn't he have merely snapped his fingers and said he'd forgiven them? Why the fuck does he need to turn himself human, so as to sacrifice himself TO himself, to atone for mistakes that were made, by beings he created [I]specifically [/I]to be able to make mistakes?
It's asinine, and it sits upon a foundation of immorality that also includes such gems as the original sin, which condemns every human being for something they had no part in to begin with.
A theist tries calling an atheist video out for [I]emotional manipulation[/I]? Are you even sufficiently within sight of reality to appreciate how ironic that sentiment is?
The analogy is fine, and the only emotion it stirs is disgust, and rightly so. All he did was take the same actions as the Abrahamic god and apply them to a different scenario.
Those ants surely wouldn't comprehend the actions or will of a human that took care of them either, but it wouldn't make the man's actions any less repugnant.
If anything, this analogue is being kind, in that the man at least TRIES to communicate with the ants even if he ultimately fails. Whereas an all-powerful god would have no problem reaching everyone if he cared to. And this leaves a few options. Either he DOESN'T care, or he doesn't exist. Feel free to add to those options if you think of more, but I can't, at least not at five AM.[/QUOTE]
Well as a being that created everything I think it's firstly safe to say that God is fairly intelligent as even we are unable to fully comprehend the universe yet. As for the several denominations of Christianity, clear study into their practices will show that in many ways they stray from scripture for the sake of heresy or useless ritual. As for Christ's sacrifice, that IS the way to salvation, It's not barbaric on God's part because HE's not the one that killed Christ. The ONLY way to salvation in Christianity is to accept this sacrifice was for you and if you refuse it well, ok fine, whatever, you can't just refuse the way to salvation and say that God offers none.
Also the video is emotionally manipulative, atheists aren't some sort of perfect race that are above corruption or emotional manipulation. The video DOES have many holes in the depiction of God and the only reason it doesn't seem so is because of how well crafted it is to stir emotions of disgust to draw you away from the holes. You're more inclined to think of what an awful, evil concept God is rather than recognize the mistakes in the interpretation.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;36793917]Well as a being that created everything I think it's firstly safe to say that God is fairly intelligent as even we are unable to fully comprehend the universe yet.[/quote]
That's the problem though: this god of yours gets just about EVERY DETAIL [I]WRONG [/I]whenever he speaks at any length about us or the Universe he claims to have created. He creates light before the Sun, and the Sun before other stars, not even acknowledging that the Sun IS a star. He talks of a solid layer of water above the Earth to explain where rain comes from.
Does this not sound to you like the primitive observations of tribal humans who simply didn't know any better? Because otherwise, I object wholesale to this notion that your god knows more about the Universe than we do.
[quote] As for the several denominations of Christianity, clear study into their practices will show that in many ways they stray from scripture for the sake of heresy or useless ritual.[/quote]
"For the sake of heresy or ritual?" Oh, so these denominations are just willfully and knowingly being heretics the the religion they legitimately believe... because, y'know... THAT makes any sense.
I suppose I should ask then, if so many of these sects are so [I]obviously [/I]mistaken, what IS the 'true way', according to you?
[quote] As for Christ's sacrifice, that IS the way to salvation, It's not barbaric on God's part because HE's not the one that killed Christ. The ONLY way to salvation in Christianity is to accept this sacrifice was for you and if you refuse it well, ok fine, whatever, you can't just refuse the way to salvation and say that God offers none.[/quote]
Is your god omniscient or isn't he? I ask, because so many theists try and play like their god's hands are clean of certain things because he didn't specifically do them, but if he's fucking GOD, and in absolute control, such that everything goes exactly his way, then EVERYTHING that happens is on him. He even says himself that he's the source of all good AND evil.
Point is, he only sent/came down as/Jesus in order to enact this blood sacrifice TO HIMSELF, as a LOOPHOLE to rules HE CREATED.
Why, why can't he just change the rules if he's had this change of heart all the sudden? Isn't he in charge? Although of course, maybe it's to avoid the fact that by changing his mind, he's admitting, in essence, that he was mistaken before, and therefore not the perfect being he and so many claim him to be.
All this comes down to this issue of God "offering salvation". It makes it sound like he's saving you from something, when in reality he's just kicked your ass overboard into the open sea and said, "hey, I've got a life preserver! Anybody wanna not drown?"
If those are MY choices, then I'll tell this celestial mafia boss to go fuck himself, because I won't play his little game. I will offer no concessions to a being who will BURN ME [I]FOREVER[/I] if I don't believe in him, especially when he has failed to give me any reason to rationally believe he even exists. His criteria for who gets the carrot and who gets the stick is almost as ethically defunct and nonsensical as his insistence upon creating eternal punishment and eternal reward for finite crimes.
[quote]Also the video is emotionally manipulative, atheists aren't some sort of perfect race that are above corruption or emotional manipulation. The video DOES have many holes in the depiction of God and the only reason it doesn't seem so is because of how well crafted it is to stir emotions of disgust to draw you away from the holes. You're more inclined to think of what an awful, evil concept God is rather than recognize the mistakes in the interpretation.[/QUOTE]
I never said we were above anything, but I'll defend THIS atheist and his videos because I have a personal history with them.
Since you're the one to claim the existence of holes and errant inaccuracies, why don't you further elaborate? Again, I dismiss your claim that you can't compare god's intellect with a man's, if you're going to try bringing that up again. An ant could scarcely comprehend what a human was thinking, but that doesn't make the human any less of a disturbed, power-crazed control freak with an unhealthy obsession with personal adulation.
[QUOTE=Drax-Quin;36772009]Why is this a thing. It's a common and well understood idea comparing God's action to controlling a colony of ants. But really does this need to be 8 bloody minutes long video, the point could easily be made in 5 seconds and have been much more robust and well understood.
Also because he extends it for so long the analogy breaks down at places quite badly, by the end it doesn't even make a compelling argument because he's over exaggerated every aspect of the idea to stretch the video out.[/QUOTE]
Why are you guys taking this so seriously, are some of you legitimately autistic? It's just a bloody hobby made for the fun of it by some guy who's probably studying media; because it's put together VERY VERY well. He's no philosopher, but who gives a fuck. Nobody's forcing you to watch all 8 minutes of it. I really enjoyed it.
This whole thread is taking it way too seriously
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36798837]That's the problem though: this god of yours gets just about EVERY DETAIL [I]WRONG [/I]whenever he speaks at any length about us or the Universe he claims to have created. He creates light before the Sun, and the Sun before other stars, not even acknowledging that the Sun IS a star. He talks of a solid layer of water above the Earth to explain where rain comes from.[/QUOTE]
I don't see why creation had to take place in order, if God created the laws of the universe then why should he comply to them before they were even set in place? As for the solid layer of water Genesis speaks of a "vault" that separates waters. Obviously it couldn't be a figurative vault, you don't look into the sky and see a giant vault, it's metaphor mean to refer to the rain and the water on Earth. As for the sun and the other stars, the sun is kind of important as it IS the centre of the solar system.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36798837]Does this not sound to you like the primitive observations of tribal humans who simply didn't know any better? Because otherwise, I object wholesale to this notion that your god knows more about the Universe than we do.[/QUOTE]
The bible was written by primitive people under divine inspiration, they weren't given some sort of amazing illumination into how the universe works. I don't see what the knowledge of primitive people have to do with the
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36798837]"For the sake of heresy or ritual?" Oh, so these denominations are just willfully and knowingly being heretics the the religion they legitimately believe... because, y'know... THAT makes any sense
I suppose I should ask then, if so many of these sects are so [I]obviously [/I]mistaken, what IS the 'true way', according to you?[/QUOTE]
True Christianity is Christianity that follows scripture to the letter anything that adds to it or takes away is not Christianity. To give some examples Gnosticism is heresy because it states that only certain people can be saved by God while others are doomed to hell no matter what, while Catholicism engages in pointless ritual such as confessions to priests or priests not being allowed to marry.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36798837]Is your god omniscient or isn't he? I ask, because so many theists try and play like their god's hands are clean of certain things because he didn't specifically do them, but if he's fucking GOD, and in absolute control, such that everything goes exactly his way, then EVERYTHING that happens is on him. He even says himself that he's the source of all good AND evil.[/QUOTE]
Free will still plays a part into the actions of people, God doesn't control what we do, we do. As for natural disasters or animal attacks, that is all due to sin and the world not being what God made it to be. God isn't to blame for the terrible things that happen, our fallen world and our sinful nature is.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36798837]Point is, he only sent/came down as/Jesus in order to enact this blood sacrifice TO HIMSELF, as a LOOPHOLE to rules HE CREATED.
Why, why can't he just change the rules if he's had this change of heart all the sudden? Isn't he in charge? Although of course, maybe it's to avoid the fact that by changing his mind, he's admitting, in essence, that he was mistaken before, and therefore not the perfect being he and so many claim him to be.[/QUOTE]
God is constant and does not change, as a holy being to be anything else is to be unholy. As for the transition between the old covenant and new covenant, I cannot say for sure. The bible doesn't speak of why God didn't have Christ come in the old testament, but it's generally believed it was to show how difficult it is to reach salvation without grace.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36798837]All this comes down to this issue of God "offering salvation". It makes it sound like he's saving you from something, when in reality he's just kicked your ass overboard into the open sea and said, "hey, I've got a life preserver! Anybody wanna not drown?"[/QUOTE]
That's not quite the case as he did not create hell for us originally, only for those angels that did not follow him. The only issue is that once we became sinners he couldn't permit anybody who was less that holy into heaven after death. Not to say that Christians are holy in life either but by accepting Christ as your saviour because he died on the cross, you have the debt paid by God himself so that he cant accept you into heaven.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36798837]If those are MY choices, then I'll tell this celestial mafia boss to go fuck himself, because I won't play his little game. I will offer no concessions to a being who will BURN ME [I]FOREVER[/I] if I don't believe in him, especially when he has failed to give me any reason to rationally believe he even exists. His criteria for who gets the carrot and who gets the stick is almost as ethically defunct and nonsensical as his insistence upon creating eternal punishment and eternal reward for finite crimes. [/QUOTE]
Well this gets a bit into personal opinion and the subject of the existence of God, two things that I don't want to talk about here as they are not related to the video and take a very long time to explain clearly(although I would be glad to elaborate over PMs if you're interested). All I'll say is that it's stated in the bible that there is sufficient evidence in the universe around us of God's existence as long as we look for it. Any disbelief in his existence is purely our fault and not his.
As for the the idea that his punishment is unjust, God is holy and therefore intolerant of anything less than holy in his presence. The only place for the unholy souls is hell as they cannot go to heaven.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36798837]I never said we were above anything, but I'll defend THIS atheist and his videos because I have a personal history with them.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36798837]A theist tries calling an atheist video out for emotional manipulation?[/QUOTE]
I refer to the above quote which implies that as a theist I am in no position to accuse an atheist video of emotional manipulation for some reason.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36798837]Since you're the one to claim the existence of holes and errant inaccuracies, why don't you further elaborate? Again, I dismiss your claim that you can't compare god's intellect with a man's, if you're going to try bringing that up again. An ant could scarcely comprehend what a human was thinking, but that doesn't make the human any less of a disturbed, power-crazed control freak with an unhealthy obsession with personal adulation.[/QUOTE]
I have elaborated, God is above us by such an unimaginable scale that it's impossible to comprehend his thoughts or to plaster such mental disorders as psychopathy to his psyche. In the case of the man in the video we have other healthy humans to compare to, in the case of God he is the one and the only and as a holy being he cannot be wrong.
[QUOTE]I don't see why creation had to take place in order, if God created the laws of the universe then why should he comply to them before they were even set in place? As for the solid layer of water Genesis speaks of a "vault" that separates waters. Obviously it couldn't be a figurative vault, you don't look into the sky and see a giant vault, it's metaphor mean to refer to the rain and the water on Earth. As for the sun and the other stars, the sun is kind of important as it IS the centre of the solar system.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The bible was written by primitive people under divine inspiration, they weren't given some sort of amazing illumination into how the universe works. I don't see what the knowledge of primitive people have to do with the
[/QUOTE]
So far I'm seeing a lot of excuses and claims of metaphor, but I'm not hearing a whole lot supporting facts or evidence, just post-hoc apologetics.
[QUOTE]True Christianity is Christianity that follows scripture to the letter anything that adds to it or takes away is not Christianity. To give some examples Gnosticism is heresy because it states that only certain people can be saved by God while others are doomed to hell no matter what, while Catholicism engages in pointless ritual such as confessions to priests or priests not being allowed to marry.[/QUOTE]
Ah, so in other words, Christian Fundamentalism is the one true way. And by extension, you're telling me every word of the Bible is absolute truth.
So, the Universe and everything in it was the ACTUAL product of seven days' work, the human species ACTUALLY began with two individuals —the first of whom probably had sexual organs before the partner he could use them with existed— and a woman ACTUALLY conversed with a snake.
Also, the Universe is ACTUALLY six-thousand-years-old, there was ACTUALLY a global flood, and at one time in history the Egyptian people had enslaved an entire race of people.
I could go on for quite a while with this list...
This seems like it might conflict with how earlier you were referring to portions of the Bible as metaphorical. How exactly do you determine what is metaphor and what isn't then?
[QUOTE]Free will still plays a part into the actions of people, God doesn't control what we do, we do. As for natural disasters or animal attacks, that is all due to sin and the world not being what God made it to be. God isn't to blame for the terrible things that happen, our fallen world and our sinful nature is.[/QUOTE]
Firstly, we do NOT have free will. Science has even proven, we have been known to make decisions as many as ten seconds before consciously deciding something. We are complex chemical reactions, and our consciousness is an illusion. We have no more true "free will" than water coursing down a stream.
Second, according to your theology, didn't God make humans specifically with the intent that they be capable of disobeying him? Why the fuck then, does he act surprised when they behave precisely the way he intended? If I created a race of robots that had what we might refer to as "free will" and then blamed THEM when they did things I didn't want them to do, would you NOT call me a fucking idiot, and then ask me what the hell I expected to happen?
Also, again, IS your god NOT in charge? Don't give me this bullshit that we bring tragedy down upon ourselves. Are you really saying then, that when bad things happen to people, it's because they DESERVE it? What a sickening fucking notion. So you really think that Japan's tsunami, which killed untold numbers of people, was all a punitive measure? And for WHAT?
Because here's a newsflash: we KNOW why tsunamis happen. We KNOW why earthquakes happen. We KNOW why volcanoes erupt. And "God did it," isn't a reason for ANY of them.
Tragedies are not the cause of divine punishment because we decided to support the love of people of the same sex or something. Tragedies are the infinitely regrettable, but inevitable byproduct of life simply being possible in the first place.
The causes of all tragedies are the causes of life itself. The gravity that kills is the same gravity that makes stars shine, planets form and keeps all the other kids safely on the ground.
The Universe doesn't hate us, doesn't toy with us, mock us, torture us or punish us. We are NOT born into any shame. To say we are IS a crime against humanity.
We inflict shame on ourselves to atone for our imperfections, while trying to be more perfect than we CAN be. That's almost noble, AND dumb at the same time.
[QUOTE]God is constant and does not change, as a holy being to be anything else is to be unholy.[/quote]
Well, except, y'know, for those times when he told people to kill non-believers —which the Israelites did in the thousands to other tribes— and later decided instead to "spread the good news". And all those times in the Bible where he contradicts his own words, like when he talks about whether or not he'll be furious at someone forever...
[quote]As for the transition between the old covenant and new covenant, I cannot say for sure. The bible doesn't speak of why God didn't have Christ come in the old testament, but it's generally believed it was to show how difficult it is to reach salvation without grace.[/QUOTE]
Y'know... [I]I [/I]have a theory. It [B]could [/B]just all be bullshit...
[QUOTE]That's not quite the case as he did not create hell for us originally, only for those angels that did not follow him. The only issue is that once we became sinners he couldn't permit anybody who was less that holy into heaven after death. Not to say that Christians are holy in life either but by accepting Christ as your saviour because he died on the cross, you have the debt paid by God himself so that he cant accept you into heaven.[/QUOTE]
Okay, so?
So we go from, "he doesn't want you in HEAVEN", to "he sends you to hell"?
Please, explain this one to me: was there a REASON he couldn't just create a place FOR the people he didn't want in his heaven? Y'know, rather than chucking them over his shoulder into the incinerator?
Again, you try to make God dodge responsibility, but in the end, HE is the one who decides where these people go. Nobody forced his hand, he's not obligated to torture dead people for all eternity. Obviously this is what he intended, and what he expected to happen ALL ALONG if he really knows everything that's going to happen. You cannot tell me "he didn't create Hell for us" if he knew all this in advance. YOU...CAN'T...
[QUOTE]Well this gets a bit into personal opinion and the subject of the existence of God, two things that I don't want to talk about here as they are not related to the video and take a very long time to explain clearly(although I would be glad to elaborate over PMs if you're interested). All I'll say is that it's stated in the bible that there is sufficient evidence in the universe around us of God's existence as long as we look for it. Any disbelief in his existence is purely our fault and not his.[/quote]
Okay, I'll play:
If there is sufficient evidence, then why haven't the VERY PEOPLE seeking truth [I]FOUND[/I]... [I][B]ANYTHING[/B][/I]...?
Nothing. Literally nothing.
If God is really waiting for people to stumble upon his evidence, then why is he punishing them for their diligence by presenting them a neverending stream of contradictory information?
The first people who could truly be called "scientists" were mostly Christians, seeking greater truth for the glory of their lord. Why would he do something so dickish to what must have been pretty devout followers?
And why wouldn't this information be plain for the dumbest individual to see? Who exactly does God WANT? Does he want gullible sheep or does he want the devoted elite? None of this makes any sense!
[quote]As for the the idea that his punishment is unjust, God is holy and therefore intolerant of anything less than holy in his presence. The only place for the unholy souls is hell as they cannot go to heaven.[/QUOTE]
Again, why Hell? I don't believe there's can BE justification for someone to be tortured forever, but this sure as shit doesn't cut it!
[QUOTE]I refer to the above quote which implies that as a theist I am in no position to accuse an atheist video of emotional manipulation for some reason.[/QUOTE]
I say this, because religion's BUSINESS is emotional manipulation. It's all it CAN do, because it doesn't have the facts or the evidence to back itself up. Religion co-opts things like love and twists them to make gullible people believe the most abhorrent things.
Whereas Philhellenes was trying to make people disgusted at God's actions and methods while removing the "God" context and supplementing something else, in order to remove the rose-tinted lenses a lot of people wear when looking at God's atrocious deeds and see that this being, even if he exists, IS accountable for what he does and SHOULD be studied with a critical eye.
So in essence, he uses emotional manipulation to get you to THINK about the issue, whereas theists use emotional manipulation to KEEP you from thinking and instead play off your emotions.
[QUOTE]I have elaborated, God is above us by such an unimaginable scale that it's impossible to comprehend his thoughts or to plaster such mental disorders as psychopathy to his psyche. In the case of the man in the video we have other healthy humans to compare to, in the case of God he is the one and the only and as a holy being he cannot be wrong.[/QUOTE]
I think I've indulged your hypotheticals long enough, because at this point you're making claims about the nature of something that has NEVER been observed and expecting me to buy into it.
It's at this point that I throw out the supposition that this abhorrent entity you worship exists, and ask that you give me any reason to take what you're saying seriously. I've chased you far enough down this rabbit hole.
That was a great video. Well done.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]So far I'm seeing a lot of excuses and claims of metaphor, but I'm not hearing a whole lot supporting facts or evidence, just post-hoc apologetics.[/QUOTE]
I really don't see how you can think that people literally thought there was vault a massive, as in an artificial storage container, separating the water in the sky from the water on Earth. You're getting hung up over a little figure of speech that's being used to describe the sky.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]Ah, so in other words, Christian Fundamentalism is the one true way. And by extension, you're telling me every word of the Bible is absolute truth.[/QUOTE]
What people often forget is that someone following every word in the bible does not follow old testament law, as a true Christian knows that the law was fulfilled by Christ so that we only needed Grace to come to salvation. Yes there are horribly strict laws in the old testament, but we don't have to follow them any more, in fact we aren't supposed to follow them any more.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]So, the Universe and everything in it was the ACTUAL product of seven days' work, the human species ACTUALLY began with two individuals —the first of whom probably had sexual organs before the partner he could use them with existed— and a woman ACTUALLY conversed with a snake.
Also, the Universe is ACTUALLY six-thousand-years-old, there was ACTUALLY a global flood, and at one time in history the Egyptian people had enslaved an entire race of people.
I could go on for quite a while with this list...[/QUOTE]
Yes,yes and yes(Although I believe it's more 60'000 years than 6'000). Also your ignoring all of the documented historical facts in the bible such as the tribe of Abraham, the existence of several biblical cities, The existence of several nations and peoples in the bible not to mention even the record of Christ's resurrection(although this specific part of the text it was in as discredited by jewish and atheist scholars).
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]This seems like it might conflict with how earlier you were referring to portions of the Bible as metaphorical. How exactly do you determine what is metaphor and what isn't then?[/QUOTE]
As I said the bible clearly states when it is speaking in metaphor and when it is not.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]Firstly, we do NOT have free will. Science has even proven, we have been known to make decisions as many as ten seconds before consciously deciding something. We are complex chemical reactions, and our consciousness is an illusion. We have no more true "free will" than water coursing down a stream.[/QUOTE]
So we make decisions before we consciously know it, that's still making decisions... I fail to see what this proves.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]Second, according to your theology, didn't God make humans specifically with the intent that they be capable of disobeying him? Why the fuck then, does he act surprised when they behave precisely the way he intended? If I created a race of robots that had what we might refer to as "free will" and then blamed THEM when they did things I didn't want them to do, would you NOT call me a fucking idiot, and then ask me what the hell I expected to happen?[/QUOTE]
God isn't surprised by anything as he sees past, present and future. The idea is that he want's us to choose him instead of just follow him because he built us that way.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]Also, again, IS your god NOT in charge? Don't give me this bullshit that we bring tragedy down upon ourselves. Are you really saying then, that when bad things happen to people, it's because they DESERVE it? What a sickening fucking notion. So you really think that Japan's tsunami, which killed untold numbers of people, was all a punitive measure? And for WHAT?
Because here's a newsflash: we KNOW why tsunamis happen. We KNOW why earthquakes happen. We KNOW why volcanoes erupt. And "God did it," isn't a reason for ANY of them.
Tragedies are not the cause of divine punishment because we decided to support the love of people of the same sex or something. Tragedies are the infinitely regrettable, but inevitable byproduct of life simply being possible in the first place.
The causes of all tragedies are the causes of life itself. The gravity that kills is the same gravity that makes stars shine, planets form and keeps all the other kids safely on the ground.[/QUOTE]
I never said we bring all tragedies among ourselves, I said that our world is a fallen world ever since Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden. God quite clearly told them that world would work differently and that even their bodies would. I meant in no way to say that people who suffer from horrible illness or have the misfortune of falling prey to natural disasters deserve it somehow, it's just a fact of how our world works since it deviated from God's original design.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]The Universe doesn't hate us, doesn't toy with us, mock us, torture us or punish us. We are NOT born into any shame. To say we are IS a crime against humanity.
We inflict shame on ourselves to atone for our imperfections, while trying to be more perfect than we CAN be. That's almost noble, AND dumb at the same time.[/QUOTE]
I don't get where all of this being born into shame comes from, are you referring to the idea that everyone is a sinner? Also Christianity has nothing to do with being perfect(which I agree we can't be), it's about accepting Christ's sacrifice for us.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]Well, except, y'know, for those times when he told people to kill non-believers —which the Israelites did in the thousands to other tribes— and later decided instead to "spread the good news". And all those times in the Bible where he contradicts his own words, like when he talks about whether or not he'll be furious at someone forever...[/QUOTE]
Give me one example where God contradicts his own words, and don't give me old testament laws because apart from the ten commandments those weren't even made by him.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]Y'know... [I]I [/I]have a theory. It [B]could [/B]just all be bullshit...[/QUOTE]
Um, ok, that's useful
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]Okay, so?
So we go from, "he doesn't want you in HEAVEN", to "he sends you to hell"?
Please, explain this one to me: was there a REASON he couldn't just create a place FOR the people he didn't want in his heaven? Y'know, rather than chucking them over his shoulder into the incinerator?
Again, you try to make God dodge responsibility, but in the end, HE is the one who decides where these people go. Nobody forced his hand, he's not obligated to torture dead people for all eternity. Obviously this is what he intended, and what he expected to happen ALL ALONG if he really knows everything that's going to happen. You cannot tell me "he didn't create Hell for us" if he knew all this in advance. YOU...CAN'T...[/QUOTE]
He didn't create the Earth to be as it is but it did change nonetheless and he knew it would, just because he knows past present and future that doesn't mean that he has to deviate from his plans. As for a place that's not heaven or hell, hell is WHERE unholy souls go whereas heaven is where the holy ones go. Hell isn't a torture chamber, it's a prison, a prison that houses not only people but fallen angles(or demons) who hold a strong hatred towards God and his creation, including us. Anyways, exactly what is inside hell is never revealed and neither heaven or hell are described in great detail, although it is stated that before the second coming of Christ that unrighteous souls will be kept in a place separate from heaven or hell.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]Okay, I'll play:
If there is sufficient evidence, then why haven't the VERY PEOPLE seeking truth [I]FOUND[/I]... [I][B]ANYTHING[/B][/I]...?
Nothing. Literally nothing.
If God is really waiting for people to stumble upon his evidence, then why is he punishing them for their diligence by presenting them a neverending stream of contradictory information?
The first people who could truly be called "scientists" were mostly Christians, seeking greater truth for the glory of their lord. Why would he do something so dickish to what must have been pretty devout followers?
And why wouldn't this information be plain for the dumbest individual to see? Who exactly does God WANT? Does he want gullible sheep or does he want the devoted elite? None of this makes any sense![/QUOTE]
God doesn't want gullible sheep or just devoted elite, he wants critical thinkers that do not hold their faith through ignorance. As for the contradictory evidence, I didn't want to get into this as it's a long argument, but I'll try to sum it up. Most of the evidence against God or creation can be found to have weakness, granted many of the arguments are crafted so that they are hard to argue against.
Let's start from the very beginning of life. There's still no strong scientific evidence of what was the original life form on Earth. Of course scientists have come up with ideas such as the primordial soup, which there is absolutely no evidence of. This theory was tested with in the Fox Miller experiment which involved simulating the atmosphere of the primal Earth and then sending an electric current through it to simulate lightning, the result was amino acids which are the building block of life. The only problem is that Amino acids cannot possibly endure the high temperatures caused by the electric shock and immediately were destroyed.
So let's look at life itself instead of it's origin, DNA is often used as evidence to support evolution as we hold a greater than 98% similarity to apes who are though to be related to us through the common ancestor Australopithecus. This "evidence" is pretty meaningless though as DNA similarities can be found in all sorts of things such as cats being 90% similar to humans, Bananas being 50% similar and fruit flies being 60% similar. I'm not saying this completely invalidates the argument, but it seems that just because something has a large percentage of DNA similarities to us does not mean that they are necessarily close in the evolutionary web. What is often ignored about DNA though is well, what it is, a code. A code that, unlike computer codes which uses to values, uses four values. I suppose you can say that codes can be randomly generated, but to create any useful strand of DNA this would be hard to support. Not to mention DNA itself requires amino acids to even do anything, amino acids that through their creation are destroyed instantly.
Anyway, to get off of the subject of DNA and amino acids, let's look at evolution instead. The idea that mutations in genes can change a species traits over time makes perfect sense and has been observed all throughout history. As for inter species evolution that is not quite the case. It's interesting that the only evidence for interspecies evolution can be found in fossil records, which in fact show no evidence apart from fitting into a model that was made before-hand. Several of the fossils used as transitional species in human evolution have been proven to be mistakes such as; Ramapithecus, Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Java man and Neandertal man, Australopithecus afarensis, Homo erectus and Homo habilis. These fossils aren't really anything special, they ere just forced into the model on interspecies evolution, they have been found to either be slight variations in the form of their species or composed of several different species. Nature allows for so much variation within species, two of the same can look quite different.
This is starting to get pretty long so I'll leave it at that.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]Again, why Hell? I don't believe there's can BE justification for someone to be tortured forever, but this sure as shit doesn't cut it![/QUOTE]
Hell is meant to be a place where people are separated from God for eternity, that's it, it's not supposed to be a massive eternal torture chamber. Like any prison though, the fellow prisoners can make the experience much worse.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]I say this, because religion's BUSINESS is emotional manipulation. It's all it CAN do, because it doesn't have the facts or the evidence to back itself up. Religion co-opts things like love and twists them to make gullible people believe the most abhorrent things.[/QUOTE]
That still doesn't change the fact that you implied theists are in no position to put atheists under scrutiny. Atheists believe in plenty of things that don't have direct facts or evidence to back them up. As for twisting love around, I don't quite know hat you mean.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]Whereas Philhellenes was trying to make people disgusted at God's actions and methods while removing the "God" context and supplementing something else, in order to remove the rose-tinted lenses a lot of people wear when looking at God's atrocious deeds and see that this being, even if he exists, IS accountable for what he does and SHOULD be studied with a critical eye.[/QUOTE]
The issue is that he IS removing the God context. No man can take up his responsibilities because we are totally incapable of comprehending them. As a being that created the very difference between right and wrong, he is incapable of being or doing anything but right.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]So in essence, he uses emotional manipulation to get you to THINK about the issue, whereas theists use emotional manipulation to KEEP you from thinking and instead play off your emotions.[/QUOTE]
He uses emotional manipulation and a flawed straw man concept. God sacrificed himself for us so that we could spend eternity for little more than acceptance of his sacrifice, if that sounds merciless and cruel then I don't know what isn't. I will agree that many theists do this, but it's a generalisation to say we're all blinded by emotions and ignore the world around us.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]I think I've indulged your hypotheticals long enough, because at this point you're making claims about the nature of something that has NEVER been observed and expecting me to buy into it.[/QUOTE]
Kind of like how the primordial soup or inter species evolution have never been observed?
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]It's at this point that I throw out the supposition that this abhorrent entity you worship exists, and ask that you give me any reason to take what you're saying seriously. I've chased you far enough down this rabbit hole.[/QUOTE]
You should take me seriously because I'm not beating my chest and blurting out ignorance in an attempt to drown you out. I expect you to take me seriously because I take you seriously. I'm simply describing what I believe, why and offering supporting points, believe them or not I simply ask that you are open to discussion.
[QUOTE]I really don't see how you can think that people literally thought there was vault a massive, as in an artificial storage container, separating the water in the sky from the water on Earth. You're getting hung up over a little figure of speech that's being used to describe the sky.[/QUOTE]
Your imagination fails you then. You're informed by centuries of scientific understanding on how the world actually works. The people who came up with this stuff were decidedly not.
[QUOTE]What people often forget is that someone following every word in the bible does not follow old testament law, as a true Christian knows that the law was fulfilled by Christ so that we only needed Grace to come to salvation. Yes there are horribly strict laws in the old testament, but we don't have to follow them any more, in fact we aren't supposed to follow them any more.[/QUOTE]
Bullshit. Only the SACRIFICIAL laws were abolished. Jesus specifically said at the Sermon on the Mount that he was there, not to abolish, but fulfill "The Law", and that not the slightest titter would be changed or removed.
But again, before you told me how "unchanging" God is, and now without hesitation you're admitting to me that he MUST have changed his mind. This is what we refer to as cognitive dissonance.
[QUOTE]Yes,yes and yes(Although I believe it's more 60'000 years than 6'000). Also your ignoring all of the documented historical facts in the bible such as the tribe of Abraham, the existence of several biblical cities, The existence of several nations and peoples in the bible not to mention even the record of Christ's resurrection(although this specific part of the text it was in as discredited by jewish and atheist scholars).[/QUOTE]
I don't doubt that these places exist/ed or that some of these people were real people. That much is not in contention. But just because [I]New York[/I] is a real place does not mean [I]Spider Man[/I] is real.
[QUOTE]As I said the bible clearly states when it is speaking in metaphor and when it is not.[/QUOTE]
Oh, clearly. That must be why no two people who read it have the same take on what it's really saying.
[QUOTE]God isn't surprised by anything as he sees past, present and future. The idea is that he want's us to choose him instead of just follow him because he built us that way.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, he really gives mankind such a CHOICE over whether they want to be his best bud.
I'm sorry, but putting you at gunpoint and saying, "Here, you have free will! You can either be my best friend or I can shoot you with this gun!" does not sound like he really cares about having followers who actually CHOSE him. He seems to have a lot of overlap with people who probably wouldn't care under normal circumstances, but instead are coming to him for the promise of immortality or the paralyzing fear of being sent to Hell.
If he actually wanted what you SAY he wanted, then he's going about it in the worst possible way he could have chosen.
[QUOTE]I never said we bring all tragedies among ourselves, I said that our world is a fallen world ever since Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden. God quite clearly told them that world would work differently and that even their bodies would. I meant in no way to say that people who suffer from horrible illness or have the misfortune of falling prey to natural disasters deserve it somehow, it's just a fact of how our world works since it deviated from God's original design.[/QUOTE]
Ah, so we're talking about "The Fall" now. Sorry, I hear a lot of Christians who actually believe that shit about divine punishment. If you don't, I apologize.
Still, again, God must have KNOWN Adam and Eve would do what they supposedly did, right from the get-go, so in what sense was this NOT the original plan?
If he didn't want the snake to tempt them, the snake wouldn't have ever been able to do so, right? I can only conclude that this was always the plan, or it wouldn't have happened. Not unless God isn't as omniscient or in-control as people claim.
[QUOTE]I don't get where all of this being born into shame comes from, are you referring to the idea that everyone is a sinner? Also Christianity has nothing to do with being perfect(which I agree we can't be), it's about accepting Christ's sacrifice for us.[/QUOTE]
Because the Bible exactly tells you that you're a shameful sinful creature, willed into existence by an all-knowing all-loving perfect God so he can forgive you for not being perfect...
To accept this, as free humans, we must accept that it is right for us to kneel and worship. And to accept THAT, we must accept somewhere in our being, the idea that we are lesser, even [I]shameful[/I] creatures, who SHOULD beg their maker to forgive them for not being what they could not be.
The rules that God and Jesus put down make sin out of just about everything that isn't just so, right down to our own thoughts and biological imperatives, which he would claim to have instilled in us to begin with. The Bible is clear: the penalty for sin is death. From a simple lie to a simple doubt. And to absolve it, you must kneel before God.
Where is the God so perfect, he wouldn't [I]want [/I]us to kneel? Where is the God so perfect, he couldn't bear the [I]sight [/I]of us on our knees?
[QUOTE]Give me one example where God contradicts his own words, and don't give me old testament laws because apart from the ten commandments those weren't even made by him.
[/QUOTE]
Ah. Well, I'm pretty sure trying to throw out the entire old testament is bullshit, but I'll accept that challenge. New Testament only, eh? Let's see... Jesus counts too right?
Matthew 12:30
[code]Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.[/code]
And...
Mark 9:38-40
[code]But Jesus said, "Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us.[/code]
[QUOTE]He didn't create the Earth to be as it is but it did change nonetheless and he knew it would, just because he knows past present and future that doesn't mean that he has to deviate from his plans. As for a place that's not heaven or hell, hell is WHERE unholy souls go whereas heaven is where the holy ones go. Hell isn't a torture chamber, it's a prison, a prison that houses not only people but fallen angles(or demons) who hold a strong hatred towards God and his creation, including us. Anyways, exactly what is inside hell is never revealed and neither heaven or hell are described in great detail, although it is stated that before the second coming of Christ that unrighteous souls will be kept in a place separate from heaven or hell.[/QUOTE]
Ah, so you're with the "Hell is separation from God" crowd.
And that'd be fine, except that the Bible CONSTANTLY refers to burning?
[code]Matthew 13:42: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
Matt 25:41: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."
Mark 9:43-48: And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched."
Luke 16:24: "And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame." (This is a plea described as coming from an inhabitant of Hell.)[/code]
And bear in mind! Hell is a New Testament thing! There isn't much focus or even MENTION of the afterlife in the Old Testament. Back when all that was written, the Jewish religion was a very life-focused doctrine.
And even if you argue that Hell isn't a burning eternity NOW, it is clear as DAY in Revelations that the sinners will be thrown into the Lake of Fire for the rest of eternity.
I understand what you believe, and I commend you for not wanting to believe the "unworthy" face torment after death, but it's all there in black and white.
[QUOTE]God doesn't want gullible sheep or just devoted elite, he wants critical thinkers that do not hold their faith through ignorance. As for the contradictory evidence, I didn't want to get into this as it's a long argument, but I'll try to sum it up. Most of the evidence against God or creation can be found to have weakness, granted many of the arguments are crafted so that they are hard to argue against.[/QUOTE]
I see you're elaborating upon this, so I'm splitting this up.
[QUOTE]Let's start from the very beginning of life. There's still no strong scientific evidence of what was the original life form on Earth. Of course scientists have come up with ideas such as the primordial soup, which there is absolutely no evidence of. This theory was tested with in the Fox Miller experiment which involved simulating the atmosphere of the primal Earth and then sending an electric current through it to simulate lightning, the result was amino acids which are the building block of life. The only problem is that Amino acids cannot possibly endure the high temperatures caused by the electric shock and immediately were destroyed.[/QUOTE]
Okay. Not sure how this is evidence for a god. These are just things we don't know yet. But it's pretty safe to conclude that life started as single cells. Apart from the fact that we are all composed of them, we have all but WITNESSED single-cell organisms turning multi-cell in the lab. That's not even to mention fossilized cyanobacteria in rock 3.5 billion years old. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet.
[QUOTE]So let's look at life itself instead of it's origin, DNA is often used as evidence to support evolution as we hold a greater than 98% similarity to apes who are though to be related to us through the common ancestor Australopithecus. This "evidence" is pretty meaningless though as DNA similarities can be found in all sorts of things such as cats being 90% similar to humans, Bananas being 50% similar and fruit flies being 60% similar. I'm not saying this completely invalidates the argument, but it seems that just because something has a large percentage of DNA similarities to us does not mean that they are necessarily close in the evolutionary web. What is often ignored about DNA though is well, what it is, a code. A code that, unlike computer codes which uses to values, uses four values. I suppose you can say that codes can be randomly generated, but to create any useful strand of DNA this would be hard to support. Not to mention DNA itself requires amino acids to even do anything, amino acids that through their creation are destroyed instantly.[/QUOTE]
Like I said, we don't with any certainty know the mechanism that caused abiogenesis. There are a lot of fascinating theories on this matter, but not enough evidence either way to decide which rings with the most truth.
Given life isn't exactly common in the Universe, I'd say it's to be expected that the mechanism would be an unlikely one, and the odds severely against. But then again, they call them [I]astronomical[/I] odds for a reason. Have enough monkeys typing on a computer for a long enough time and they'll eventually compose the full works of Shakespeare by accident. There have even been computer simulations of this exact saying, and recently the ongoing simulation actually came DAMN close to doing it. That's within the few decades we've HAD computers. Imagine a UNIVERSE of possibility and BILLIONS of years to work with.
The way I see it, if it's even remotely possible, it's probably happened SOMEWHERE. In essence, life was inevitable. It just happened to happen here. It just takes a source of energy, repetition and variation.
As to DNA similarities, cross reference them with our taxonomic classifications for the various species. We started putting certain animals in groups with others of similar traits long before we could read DNA. Lo and behold, those percentages of proximity make a lot of sense.
And the fact that we share DNA with other things like bananas doesn't surprise me either. If all life comes from a couple initial species of bacteria, I'd expect we'd have connections with most, if not ALL life forms. Do remember, those cells all follow a pretty similar build. Most of the 50% shared between Ray Comfort and his banana are probably more to do with their cells than their form. Don't quote me on that though, I'm no geneticist and no biologist.
[QUOTE]Anyway, to get off of the subject of DNA and amino acids, let's look at evolution instead. The idea that mutations in genes can change a species traits over time makes perfect sense and has been observed all throughout history. As for inter species evolution that is not quite the case. It's interesting that the only evidence for interspecies evolution can be found in fossil records, which in fact show no evidence apart from fitting into a model that was made before-hand. Several of the fossils used as transitional species in human evolution have been proven to be mistakes such as; Ramapithecus, Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Java man and Neandertal man, Australopithecus afarensis, Homo erectus and Homo habilis. These fossils aren't really anything special, they ere just forced into the model on interspecies evolution, they have been found to either be slight variations in the form of their species or composed of several different species. Nature allows for so much variation within species, two of the same can look quite different.
This is starting to get pretty long so I'll leave it at that.[/QUOTE]
Here's the problem with that:
Creationists will go down the line of transitional forms between humans and our ape ancestors, saying, "that's an ape, that's a human," ignoring the link, up until somewhere near the middle. In which case, the creationists get into an argument and can't make up their minds if the fossil is ape or human. Does this not sound indicative of the truth of the matter they're so determinedly avoiding? Personally, it amuses me.
Really, I should have looked at this entire long set of paragraphs and stopped you there, but I decided to address you instead.
Here is where I would have stopped you though:
Even if you proved evolution wrong tomorrow, threw out the entire theory and upended all of biological science, you have made the God Hypothesis NO more valid or likely. God is not the default alternative to evolution. I responded to your claims against the science, but I can't pretend you haven't essentially wasted your time trying to poke holes in the science, when the ACTUAL task was to prove the Biblical account. Which you haven't done.
[QUOTE]Hell is meant to be a place where people are separated from God for eternity, that's it, it's not supposed to be a massive eternal torture chamber. Like any prison though, the fellow prisoners can make the experience much worse.[/QUOTE]
Already addressed. Moving on.
[QUOTE]That still doesn't change the fact that you implied theists are in no position to put atheists under scrutiny. Atheists believe in plenty of things that don't have direct facts or evidence to back them up. As for twisting love around, I don't quite know hat you mean.[/QUOTE]
Hey now, I never said you couldn't criticize atheists. Go right ahead. Healthy criticism keeps rational people on their toes. A critical eye helps to see the truth.
What I was objecting to was the hypocrisy of accusing atheists of emotional manipulation. To be fair, I WAS generalizing a bit and not specifically talking about you, but theists and religion in general. I apologize if that doesn't apply to you.
As to twisting love, the christian take on what love is rather demeaning to me. Supposedly God loves you more than your own parents do, but I couldn't imagine my mother, whatever I'd done, deciding I had done something SO bad she was going to tie me up and throw me into an active volcano, for ANY measure of time, let alone eternity.
On the flip-side, Christians are bid to love EVERYONE. From their siblings to their immediate neighbors to their enemies. At first glance this is a pretty well-meaning ideal, much like communism. But LIKE communism, it's Utopian premise has a fatal flaw. I think that you strongly devalue and pervert what love is by making it something you supply to everyone. I think that love is something you reserve for the people you really CARE THE MOST about.
And let's not forget Jesus, who demands that you love him and his daddy more than your own family. And that sickens me. Love isn't something you can DEMAND.
[QUOTE]The issue is that he IS removing the God context. No man can take up his responsibilities because we are totally incapable of comprehending them. As a being that created the very difference between right and wrong, he is incapable of being or doing anything but right.[/QUOTE]
Not buying it. You have yet to demonstrate that god even exists as ANYTHING real, let alone that he's this thing we can't comprehend yet are expected to believe in anyway. Which is still unreasonable, by the way.
Thing is, the Universe isn't as simple as "good" and "evil". Those things don't exist, even if your god did. Because I fundamentally disagree with what he seems to consider moral, and whatever he thinks, it's still HIS subjective viewpoint. So maybe he's not "wrong," but he's not "right" either. Morality is not an objective thing.
[QUOTE]He uses emotional manipulation and a flawed straw man concept. God sacrificed himself for us so that we could spend eternity for little more than acceptance of his sacrifice, if that sounds merciless and cruel then I don't know what isn't. I will agree that many theists do this, but it's a generalisation to say we're all blinded by emotions and ignore the world around us.[/QUOTE]
Bullshit, god "sacrificed" himself! In what way did he "sacrifice"? He fucked around as a human for a little while, felt an ounce of the human experience and then went back to where he came from fresh as a daisy. What, exactly, did he "sacrifice?" I can't name a damn thing. It's not like he LOST something, which is sorta' implied in the word "sacrifice".
The Christian religion makes such a huge deal out of this, as if Jesus were a mortal who sacrificed his SOUL for the good of others. You know, something he couldn't just snap his fingers and take back. The way I see it, it's just a song and dance to make people feel guilty when some guy shrieks, "he died for your sins!"
[QUOTE]Kind of like how the primordial soup or inter species evolution have never been observed?[/QUOTE]
You mention primordial soup more than once here, so maybe you're not aware that there are numerous potential theories for abiogenesis, and nobody is expecting you to believe ANY of them, because the evidence hasn't been forthcoming either way. We don't know, and we admit that openly. I posit a natural origin for lifer and the Universe, because even if something else DID create us, what or who created IT? That's called the infinite regress.
[QUOTE]You should take me seriously because I'm not beating my chest and blurting out ignorance in an attempt to drown you out. I expect you to take me seriously because I take you seriously. I'm simply describing what I believe, why and offering supporting points, believe them or not I simply ask that you are open to discussion.[/QUOTE]
Always open to discussion, and I appreciate it if you're taking me seriously.
What I [I]can't [/I]take seriously is the presupposition for the existence of a god. This discussion has led us into talking about the nature of this being, but we're still dealing in hypotheticals, because I don't have a reason to believe this thing exists. I'm asking you, wow me, make of me a believer!
Holy shit you guys turned this into a real Mass Debate thread, come on.
Take it to Mass Debate, not in videos.
is anyone else following this at all?
me neither
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36815248]Your imagination fails you then. You're informed by centuries of scientific understanding on how the world actually works. The people who came up with this stuff were decidedly not.[/QUOTE]
It's still just a figure of speech meant to describe creation, it isn't like it's getting into technical details. You can describe the general construction of a car without understanding it. The sky is described as a vault that separates water on Earth from water in the sky, lo and behold the clouds are made of water and when they condense it rains. Perhaps that's not hat they had in mind at the time, but they were just describing a thing, not instructing us on how it works.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]Bullshit. Only the SACRIFICIAL laws were abolished. Jesus specifically said at the Sermon on the Mount that he was there, not to abolish, but fulfill "The Law", and that not the slightest titter would be changed or removed.
But again, before you told me how "unchanging" God is, and now without hesitation you're admitting to me that he MUST have changed his mind. This is what we refer to as cognitive dissonance.[/QUOTE]
He's speaking of God's law, AKA the commandments, which talks about later in the sermon. By fulfilling them he makes the sins effective not only through action but through thought as well and of course later dies and brings the gift of grace so that we do not have to follow them to come to salvation.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]I don't doubt that these places exist/ed or that some of these people were real people. That much is not in contention. But just because [I]New York[/I] is a real place does not mean [I]Spider Man[/I] is real.
Oh, clearly. That must be why no two people who read it have the same take on what it's really saying.[/QUOTE]
I can understand that, a lot of the stories are hard to believe in the bible, all I can say is that there's plenty of accurate historical documentation in the bible. Also the reason why people try to make parts of the bible metaphorical is because it's hard to believe at times; creation, Noah's Arc, Jonah, the list goes on. The thing is that the bible states when it is speaking in metphor and when it's not, for all of these stories it isn't and I'm afraid that's all I can say.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]Oh yeah, he really gives mankind such a CHOICE over whether they want to be his best bud.
I'm sorry, but putting you at gunpoint and saying, "Here, you have free will! You can either be my best friend or I can shoot you with this gun!" does not sound like he really cares about having followers who actually CHOSE him. He seems to have a lot of overlap with people who probably wouldn't care under normal circumstances, but instead are coming to him for the promise of immortality or the paralyzing fear of being sent to Hell.
If he actually wanted what you SAY he wanted, then he's going about it in the worst possible way he could have chosen.[/QUOTE]
But that is free will, in our society people have the free will to commit a crime or to not commit a crime, sure there's punishment if they commit the crime but they still do it because they have free will. The relationship with God is different than a relationship with say a loved one though, you are expected to love him as a father, respect him like a king and fear him at the same time. As a being that created everything and us he deserves respect and love for making us free creative thinkers, in a small way like him. We must also fear him though as he ill not tolerate unholiness in his presence. It's simply the kind of relationship due to him given his nature.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]Ah, so we're talking about "The Fall" now. Sorry, I hear a lot of Christians who actually believe that shit about divine punishment. If you don't, I apologize.
Still, again, God must have KNOWN Adam and Eve would do what they supposedly did, right from the get-go, so in what sense was this NOT the original plan?
If he didn't want the snake to tempt them, the snake wouldn't have ever been able to do so, right? I can only conclude that this was always the plan, or it wouldn't have happened. Not unless God isn't as omniscient or in-control as people claim.[/QUOTE]
Well, it is part of the plan though, so we can choose to follow him or rebel against him. So that those do come into his presence fear him, love him and respect him.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]Because the Bible exactly tells you that you're a shameful sinful creature, willed into existence by an all-knowing all-loving perfect God so he can forgive you for not being perfect...
To accept this, as free humans, we must accept that it is right for us to kneel and worship. And to accept THAT, we must accept somewhere in our being, the idea that we are lesser, even [I]shameful[/I] creatures, who SHOULD beg their maker to forgive them for not being what they could not be.
The rules that God and Jesus put down make sin out of just about everything that isn't just so, right down to our own thoughts and biological imperatives, which he would claim to have instilled in us to begin with. The Bible is clear: the penalty for sin is death. From a simple lie to a simple doubt. And to absolve it, you must kneel before God.
Where is the God so perfect, he wouldn't [I]want [/I]us to kneel? Where is the God so perfect, he couldn't bear the [I]sight [/I]of us on our knees?[/QUOTE]
Sin was not instilled in us from the beginning, this is rather a result of disobeying God through our free will, regardless though it is what was intended so that we could in the end make the choise of folloing him instead of not knowing anything different.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]Ah. Well, I'm pretty sure trying to throw out the entire old testament is bullshit, but I'll accept that challenge. New Testament only, eh? Let's see... Jesus counts too right?
Matthew 12:30
[code]Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.[/code]
And...
Mark 9:38-40
[code]But Jesus said, "Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us.[/code][/QUOTE]
No, the old testament is perfectly legitimate when it comes to God's actions, but the difference is that people had to follow the law(that being God's law) to the letter back then and if they didn't the and failed to sacrifice for the sin then the consequences would take a far more real and brutal manifestation than today.
As for the quotes I don't see how they contradict each other exactly, they both seem to say that who ever is not with God is against him.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]Ah, so you're with the "Hell is separation from God" crowd.
And that'd be fine, except that the Bible CONSTANTLY refers to burning?
[code]Matthew 13:42: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
Matt 25:41: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."
Mark 9:43-48: And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched."
Luke 16:24: "And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame." (This is a plea described as coming from an inhabitant of Hell.)[/code]
And bear in mind! Hell is a New Testament thing! There isn't much focus or even MENTION of the afterlife in the Old Testament. Back when all that was written, the Jewish religion was a very life-focused doctrine.
And even if you argue that Hell isn't a burning eternity NOW, it is clear as DAY in Revelations that the sinners will be thrown into the Lake of Fire for the rest of eternity.
I understand what you believe, and I commend you for not wanting to believe the "unworthy" face torment after death, but it's all there in black and white.[/QUOTE]
Hell is actually described as several things; a bottemless pit, a place of torment, a place of sorrows, a place of everlasting destruction, a place of unsatisfied desires and also a lake of fire(although the fire part is mentioned a lot more). Like I said though, hell is inhabited by beings that wish to see the destruction of any creation of God and God himself, it's only natural that they should take advantage of the souls that are present. Hell is foremost a prison, but it's the prisoners that make it what it is described as. I don't like the idea that people are sent to an eternal hell and neither does God, but once they have ascended to an eternal soul there's no other places to go except heaven or hell.
Also I don't mean to say that God is restricted from hell as that would contradict his omnipresence and the crucifixion of Christ. It's more like God will not make a relationship with those in hell due to their eternal unholiness.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]I see you're elaborating upon this, so I'm splitting this up.[/QUOTE]
Firstly on the subject of creation I'd like to state that I was inaccurate in my statement that the Earth was 60'000 years old, the bible gives no clue as to the age of the earth as it as present before the 6 days of creation. it is only after the six days of creation that the 60'000 years began.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]Okay. Not sure how this is evidence for a god. These are just things we don't know yet. But it's pretty safe to conclude that life started as single cells. Apart from the fact that we are all composed of them, we have all but WITNESSED single-cell organisms turning multi-cell in the lab. That's not even to mention fossilized cyanobacteria in rock 3.5 billion years old. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet.[/QUOTE]
It is evidence that life cannot created by circumstantial events, though I suppose if you believe we will eventually find evidence for it there's little I can say in that regard. As for the evolution of single celled organisms to multi celled, are you referring to the algae that are supposedly different stages of evolution from unicellular to multicellular? This is yet again correlation of living species and fossil records, similar to other collections of evidence for evolution.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]Like I said, we don't with any certainty know the mechanism that caused abiogenesis. There are a lot of fascinating theories on this matter, but not enough evidence either way to decide which rings with the most truth.
Given life isn't exactly common in the Universe, I'd say it's to be expected that the mechanism would be an unlikely one, and the odds severely against. But then again, they call them [I]astronomical[/I] odds for a reason. Have enough monkeys typing on a computer for a long enough time and they'll eventually compose the full works of Shakespeare by accident. There have even been computer simulations of this exact saying, and recently the ongoing simulation actually came DAMN close to doing it. That's within the few decades we've HAD computers. Imagine a UNIVERSE of possibility and BILLIONS of years to work with.
The way I see it, if it's even remotely possible, it's probably happened SOMEWHERE. In essence, life was inevitable. It just happened to happen here. It just takes a source of energy, repetition and variation.[/QUOTE]
I understand for laying out strings of random characters that they should eventually spell out a message, but when the very mechanism that creates something cancels it out no time span will allow for chance to produce anything because nothing will be made in the end. Although if you believe that we will eventually find out how life occurred I cannot so much against that.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]As to DNA similarities, cross reference them with our taxonomic classifications for the various species. We started putting certain animals in groups with others of similar traits long before we could read DNA. Lo and behold, those percentages of proximity make a lot of sense.
And the fact that we share DNA with other things like bananas doesn't surprise me either. If all life comes from a couple initial species of bacteria, I'd expect we'd have connections with most, if not ALL life forms. Do remember, those cells all follow a pretty similar build. Most of the 50% shared between Ray Comfort and his banana are probably more to do with their cells than their form. Don't quote me on that though, I'm no geneticist and no biologist.[/QUOTE]
It just seems odd that when it comes to apes, cats and family members and what not, that we should see the similarities or at least be able to observe them through further investigation of the inner workings of the body. When it comes to humans and bananas, the similarities seem so difficult to find even though we share 50% with them(from hat I've read the similarities can only be found within the make up of the DNA).
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]Here's the problem with that:
Creationists will go down the line of transitional forms between humans and our ape ancestors, saying, "that's an ape, that's a human," ignoring the link, up until somewhere near the middle. In which case, the creationists get into an argument and can't make up their minds if the fossil is ape or human. Does this not sound indicative of the truth of the matter they're so determinedly avoiding? Personally, it amuses me.
Really, I should have looked at this entire long set of paragraphs and stopped you there, but I decided to address you instead.
Here is where I would have stopped you though:
Even if you proved evolution wrong tomorrow, threw out the entire theory and upended all of biological science, you have made the God Hypothesis NO more valid or likely. God is not the default alternative to evolution. I responded to your claims against the science, but I can't pretend you haven't essentially wasted your time trying to poke holes in the science, when the ACTUAL task was to prove the Biblical account. Which you haven't done.[/QUOTE]
Well it is true that in nature there is a lot of variation and the fact that the only evidence for interspecies evolution is through fossil records and observing already separate species is worth noting at least. In some cases certain fossils that have been discredited have been found to be mixes, so applying the title of ape or man is pretty useless. Since evolution exists within species, is it not possible that these are more primitive versions of the species we have today?
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]Hey now, I never said you couldn't criticize atheists. Go right ahead. Healthy criticism keeps rational people on their toes. A critical eye helps to see the truth.
What I was objecting to was the hypocrisy of accusing atheists of emotional manipulation. To be fair, I WAS generalizing a bit and not specifically talking about you, but theists and religion in general. I apologize if that doesn't apply to you.[/QUOTE]
Alright, I can certainly understand you opinion towards religion in general as in many cases, also in Christianity, emotions are used to sway people in their opinions or actions. Though the bible teaches to put such people under heavy scrutiny and to test their beliefs. Like I said though, generally that is not widespread practice judging by the trend of "revival" and things like people rolling around on the floor laughing because "they have the holy spirit in them" or shouting out tongues during a service, these things are not only unbiblical they're silly.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]As to twisting love, the christian take on what love is rather demeaning to me. Supposedly God loves you more than your own parents do, but I couldn't imagine my mother, whatever I'd done, deciding I had done something SO bad she was going to tie me up and throw me into an active volcano, for ANY measure of time, let alone eternity.
On the flip-side, Christians are bid to love EVERYONE. From their siblings to their immediate neighbors to their enemies. At first glance this is a pretty well-meaning ideal, much like communism. But LIKE communism, it's Utopian premise has a fatal flaw. I think that you strongly devalue and pervert what love is by making it something you supply to everyone. I think that love is something you reserve for the people you really CARE THE MOST about.
And let's not forget Jesus, who demands that you love him and his daddy more than your own family. And that sickens me. Love isn't something you can DEMAND.[/QUOTE]
Well your mother is not a holy being that will not tolerate sin in her presence, she no more expects you to be sinless than she expects herself to be sinless. God on the other hand will not allow it and cannot form a full relationship with anyone who is less than holy(including Christians of course). As for throwing people into hell for eternity, it's not like god makes you live eternally so that you can be in hell for eternity, it's simply a fact of the soul that it is eternal.
Love in a Christian sense is described s being patient, kind, truthful and eternal not arrogant, rude, stubborn, resentful, irritable or rejoicing in wrong-doing. Now even I'm not like that to everyone, but the world would be a lot better if people treated each other with that kind of love. Of course that's not realistic given the fact that you can't love someone you've never seen or talked to before(well usually not) and that's one of the examples of our sinful nature, we just can't supply love to everyone. In any case I believe there to be different kinds of love, of course a father doesn't love a daughter exactly like his wife or like some random stranger on the street. Really what the definition for love offers is a basic structure as to what it should be.
Also yes, it is hard to love someone who you have never seen or talked to directly, but as the creator of everything, including us, and the one who offered as a chance to enter salvation for a such a small act as accepting the gospel message, he is due a certain amount of love, respect and fear. It makes sense that he should demand love above all other things because love above all things for anything else would be idolatry, therefore a sin and intolerable on God's behalf.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]Not buying it. You have yet to demonstrate that god even exists as ANYTHING real, let alone that he's this thing we can't comprehend yet are expected to believe in anyway. Which is still unreasonable, by the way.[/QUOTE]
To get down to it belief in God requires faith, just as any belief about the universe does, it's perfectly reasonable that we should be expected to believe in him because as creative thinkers, we are capable of abstract thought and do not only see the world around us as reality.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]Thing is, the Universe isn't as simple as "good" and "evil". Those things don't exist, even if your god did. Because I fundamentally disagree with what he seems to consider moral, and whatever he thinks, it's still HIS subjective viewpoint. So maybe he's not "wrong," but he's not "right" either. Morality is not an objective thing.[/QUOTE]
The universe is partially Good and evil, the issue with good and evil in this world is that the get mixed together so often and so intricately, that is again referenced towards the fallen world and how it deviates from its original design. God created what is right and wrong, if a being created right and wrong it would of course side with what was right, same case for God. We all disagree in some way with what he considers moral because we are all sinners, that isn't to say we are incapable of morality without God as we are all have good AND evil inside of us.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]Bullshit, god "sacrificed" himself! In what way did he "sacrifice"? He fucked around as a human for a little while, felt an ounce of the human experience and then went back to where he came from fresh as a daisy. What, exactly, did he "sacrifice?" I can't name a damn thing. It's not like he LOST something, which is sorta' implied in the word "sacrifice".
The Christian religion makes such a huge deal out of this, as if Jesus were a mortal who sacrificed his SOUL for the good of others. You know, something he couldn't just snap his fingers and take back. The way I see it, it's just a song and dance to make people feel guilty when some guy shrieks, "he died for your sins!"[/QUOTE]
Well, his human experience didn't end at death, When Christ died he went to hell and then broke free of it's bonds as a symbol that he could do it. He went to hell and freed himself from it so that he could try and keep others from going to hell. Of course God could snap his fingers and send everything back to how it was(in fact he could skip the snapping part altogether), but instead he chose to experience what it is to be human and to go to hell for our sakes.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]You mention primordial soup more than once here, so maybe you're not aware that there are numerous potential theories for abiogenesis, and nobody is expecting you to believe ANY of them, because the evidence hasn't been forthcoming either way. We don't know, and we admit that openly. I posit a natural origin for lifer and the Universe, because even if something else DID create us, what or who created IT? That's called the infinite regress.[/QUOTE]
Well in the context of Christianity, if God created everything than nothing could have created him, therefore making him eternal in his existence which fits into the concept of an eternal spirit. Like I said though, any solid belief in the universe requires a certain amount of faith.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36805430]Always open to discussion, and I appreciate it if you're taking me seriously.
What I [I]can't [/I]take seriously is the presupposition for the existence of a god. This discussion has led us into talking about the nature of this being, but we're still dealing in hypotheticals, because I don't have a reason to believe this thing exists. I'm asking you, wow me, make of me a believer![/QUOTE]
The only person that can make you a believer is yourself, as much as I try to show reasons for intelligent design I can't prove that God did it because it requires faith to do it. That's why to validate Christianity one must find out through science and history. Things that I have a very limited knowledge in.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
