God and personal liberty and power

[Essay]

Capra's god is a pantheistic God, and that is quit agreeable with my understanding of God. Now do you want to define the physics of my reaction to your post? There is something happening that is not just matter. Thought and spirit are not matter.

 

??? However, I have a big problem with believing in other people's experiences of God. ???

 

 

Hopefully, I am getting closer to explaining what God has to do with our liberty. Thank you for the arguments.

I don't know about Capra's God, or that he mentions that in the book, "Web of Life,"

...but I can see you think that by linking emergent phenomena to physics, I must have been offering that as proof for "only physics" as a final answer.

 

 

I'm sorry this came across that way. Physics does not preclude God, and if anything might do more to suggest God, imho; but that's another thread.

Stuart Kauffman has a good book on this topic: "Reinventing The Sacred"

http://www.edge.org/...an06_index.html

BEYOND REDUCTIONISM [11.13.06]

 

...helping us get past the limitations of our clumsy, patchwork, and inadequate definitions.

===

 

...

 

So earlier I wrote:

 

"A connection I see between this and the title is about being Humane and Just."

"While I applaud the Occupy message of being more humane, as in... 'stop screwing us over' so much...."

 

...and

"Whether it is religion, spirituality, enlightened self-interest, or secular humanism, it is something that helps society keep people focused on maintaining a viable population to support the continuity and continuance of their civilization.

One of the problems of free-market fundamentalism is that the focus on the longer-term future tends to get lost in the inhumane (wild) frenzy. ~imho"

 

"But however we define things, isn't this question of articulating the OWS movement mostly about humane-ness vs. selfishness; or short-term myopic perspectives vs. long-term broader perspectives?"

 

===

 

And I'd like to get back to duscussing this perspective:

 

Athena, your focus on:

"This is awareness of much more than myself and the present moment. It is includes awareness of cause and effect, past and future. If I do wrong, my great grandchildren will suffer. If I do right, maybe my great grandchildren will enjoy the benefits democracy, instead of the tyranny of which Tocqueville wrote."

 

...is the key, imho, (going back to the title/OP). Lets focus on that actual awareness (and the lack of it in some people) instead of the various sources of that awareness.

 

Whether the source is "defined" (by any individual) as coming from God or mammalian genetics or enlightened self interest, I don't particularly care. I may be right or wrong about defining it (for myself) as coming from God (contingent upon my definition of God) for everyone, but that doesn't matter for us here now. We need to be able to talk about the future of humanity and civilization without worrying about whether or not the motivation for our concern comes from God or enlightened self interest ~ humane-ness.

 

Or does it matter where that awareness and impetus to care comes from?

 

~

Edited January 16, 2012 by Essay

[Jad]

Everything is masked by religion, for example: money is god, hating the enemy (different religion) is righteous act for god... Leaders or bosses adapted to that particle strategy to complete their own goals manipulating others using their faith to do so, the church has done it, Hitler did it, Presidents, etc... This is not related to god in anyway, but it's a simple sneaky technique.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Lumos

[immortal]

This argument is crap. How does having faith is an nonexistent God give you any sort of power? It's only fake power.

 

I also found that both God-believers and non-believers behave pretty much the same in real life. So in all in all, believers and non-believers are not really that different.

 

Perhaps you should read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius on how he led a simple life even being in a palace. There ought to be a behaviourial difference between a man who believes in Providence and raises above others to do something good for the whole from individuals who don't believe in providence.

 

 

[Tres Juicy]

Perhaps you should read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius on how he led a simple life even being in a palace. There ought to be a behaviourial difference between a man who believes in Providence and raises above others to do something good for the whole from individuals who don't believe in providence.

 

 

 

 

Marcus Aurelius had a choice.

 

It's a bit different when you're not the emperor of Rome, most people must concern themselves with their own welfare.

 

Marcus Aurelius did not have that to worry about.

 

As for his liberty and power: I think he had plenty of both without the intervention of a god

[Athena]

Because the written word of god or gods is all we have, other than crazies who hear voices. Athena, do you understand that the government is what stopped things like witch burning? yes at the time religion was seen as the government, only when secular government gelded religion did such things stop. Hitler was very religious and thought he was doing gods will. you seem to have the idea that god can be what ever you want him to be and maybe for individuals that can be true but no one not even the ancient Greeks thought that way, they all owed allegiance to corporeal gods. Once the idea of god as a higher power comes into play then who decides what his will is? Who decides what god sees as moral? Does god stop by and say "oh by the way that witch burning thing has to stop" No... humans had to stop it, secular humans who did not believe that god had the authority to demand such immoral acts.

 

Your moral indignation at what is happening to your friend is not based in gods morals, it's is based on your morals, morals you have accumulated over time from being exposed to our culture. if you had been a part of a different culture then throwing babies into volcanoes would seem moral to you. Morals do not come from god, they come from us, and yes some people are psychopaths, but most people take on the morals of their society...

 

The concept of god is a very dangerous thing because it allows people to justify anything..... Just say god told me to do it and you are scott free....

 

 

Oh, oh, it is you Moontanman. Interesting how we read someone differently when we know that person. I say as I put my guns back into their holsters.

 

Actually government had its reasons for witch hunting, and I am shocked by what is going on today, because we have dropped the lessons of history, and are being as ignorant today. Especially with the drug laws and confiscating people's property. Given the history of the witch hunts, I didn't think this would happen again. There is a lot of information about secular witch hunters, and we seriously need to regain this lesson from the past.

 

 

</h3>

<h3 class="r">Christianity And The Witch Hunt Era (1/12) « Bible Apologetics

bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/christianity-and-the-witch-hunt-era-...Jan 8, 2011 – The European witch hunting era is one of the most appalling ..... despite this it gained great popularity among secular witch hunters and courts.

 

What stopped the witch hunts, is finally enough people with a degree of power, who knew good people who were taken as witches, were able to stop the witch hunts. This wasn't the case when the witch hunters picked on poor old women who no one liked. But when they started charging landed and well known people with witch craft, the friends and family of these people objected to what was happening. It was not disbelief in witches and demons, but having family and friends who knew so and so wasn't a witch, and if so and so isn't a witch than maybe something is wrong with the witch hunts.

 

The other source of information about God is the Greek and Roman classics. This is where humanism comes from and it is the foundation of our liberty. This is where the God of Nature comes from. You know that God of Nature Thomas Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration of Independence, and Cicero wrote about before him. Jefferson later went on to edit the bible so it is compatible with science and today we can buy copies of his edited bibles. There is no superstition associated with this God.

 

Think about this, before science there was philosophy. Especially the Greeks examined the important things. They questioned everything, from the elements to the meaning of being a good man, and the gods. They concluded reason is the controlling force of the universe, and even the gods are subject to reason. Eventually, the notion of many gods gives way to one controlling force of the universe, and this god is not known through mythology, but through science.

 

I honestly don't see what you are trying to say Athena, the concept of god only decreases personal liberty and power, how can you see it any other way? And saying something about the written word of god does not mean the Christian one, lots of other religious writings, books, books even bigger than the bible so just because some one says something about the written word of god doesn't mean the holy bible...

 

Why our liberty requires a God is so simple I am really surprised there is argument. I will try to explain this again.

 

A king ordered a man be killed and that no one could bury him. His sister buried him anyway. The king was furious and demanded to know why she went against his will, considering he was the highest authority in the land, and could order she be killed to.

 

Her argument is, even before there were kings, sisters buried their brothers. This is telling the king he is not the highest authority. There is a power greater than kings, and we call this power God. This is historical so, even before Christianity, and every where around the world. If we do not agree there is a greater power than the king's, we no longer have the liberty to go against the kings dictates, because without a God, the king is the highest authority/power, or our government is the highest power with the last word, and I seriously do not like what is happening to government power.

 

This is why I am opposing atheist. It is not about what others believe about God, but the right to defy human authority with the argument that there is a higher authority.

 

Marcus Aurelius had a choice.

 

It's a bit different when you're not the emperor of Rome, most people must concern themselves with their own welfare.

 

Marcus Aurelius did not have that to worry about.

 

As for his liberty and power: I think he had plenty of both without the intervention of a god

 

Deist do not believe in an intervening God. The problem with this thread is people are religion, and this is really off topic, because the subject is really about authority. Who has it and who does not.

 

Our democracy begins with this question, "To whom does God give his authority?" The defining answer is, "Everyone". Now if you say there is no God, you give the government authority and give up your liberty.

 

Moontanman, this notion of God is dangerous only to governing authority. Yes, it can justify anything, but the justifications are still subject to reason, and we all subject to reason.

 

In a way yes, but it would be more sensible in my opinion to have confidence in technology or the craftsmanship of the boat or the knowledge that allowed us to create a compass than a belief that as long as I'm pious/virtuous I'll be fine.

 

Are you suggesting that a pious person wouldn't need a sturdy boat, a compass and a decent knowledge of the sea in order to sail successfully?

 

No I am not suggesting that and if you read Cicero you would get the God of nature can not be manipulated. If you are make the mistake of going to close to the shore and take your ship up on the rocks, no God is going to save you. Your prayers, sacrifices and burning of candles make no difference. Another way of saying this is, mother nature doesn't care who lives and who dies. Now understand mother nature abstractly instead of concretely.

 

HEY, THAT IS THE PROBLEM! YOU ALL ARE THINKING CONCRETELY, INSTEAD OF ABSTRACTLY. THIS IS THE WORST PROBLEM WITH EDUCATION FOR TECHNOLOGY. THE TRULY IMPORTANT THINKING IS ABSTRACT AND THE PEOPLE HERE ARE NOT THINKING ABSTRACTLY. CONCRETE THINKING IS LOWER LEVEL THINKING, AND WHAT EDUCATION FOR TECHNOLOGY HAS TAUGHT PEOPLE TO DO. NO WONDER THIS DISCUSSION IS AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY.

 

 

How does my argument depend on superstition? You asked for an instance where god has harmed us, I said earthquakes.

 

After all, isn't belief in god just the ultimate superstition?

 

Your arguments are based on a false God, and superstition, and no this is not the only way to understand God. Study nature!

 

 

Thanks everyone. You have taken me to a new level of understanding.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Athena

[Tres Juicy]

Our democracy begins with this question, "To whom does God give his authority?" The defining answer is, "Everyone". Now if you say there is no God, you give the government authority and give up your liberty.

 

I disagree. In a democracy the government ultimately answers to the people.

 

 

Moontanman, this notion of God is dangerous only to governing authority. Yes, it can justify anything, but the justifications are still subject to reason, and we all subject to reason.

 

Again, we have the crusades, Hitler and the Jews... etc... - Justification in the name of god can skew the boundries of reason beyond the ridiculous

 

Your arguments are based on a false God, and superstition, and no this is not the only way to understand God. Study nature!

 

The study of nature is called science and what it tells us is contrary to what religion tells us, they can't both be right and if religion is right why would god lead us down the garden path with science?

 

Why would he give us huge intellect and an enquiring nature only to build a world around us that points us constantly in the wrong direction with science?

 

Why would he tell us one thing and then stack all the evidence against it?

[Athena]

What else is there?

 

Your own mind.

 

[/b]I disagree. In a democracy the government ultimately answers to the people.

 

 

If this were still true, I would not be writing this thread. Perhaps we should start a thread to argue this point? It has not been true since we adopted the German model of bureaucracy, and educated everyone for technology, like we train dogs.

 

Again, we have the crusades, Hitler and the Jews... etc... - Justification in the name of god can skew the boundries of reason beyond the ridiculous

 

What in heavens does crusades, and Hitler and Jews have to do with this discussion? Except that the Germans made the state the highest authority, and did not put God above the state. How about discussing human sacrifices that have been done to please the gods, around the world? The God of Abraham religions, as well as the beliefs that lead to human sacrifices are examples of bad reasoning. So?

 

The study of nature is called science and what it tells us is contrary to what religion tells us, they can't both be right and if religion is right why would god lead us down the garden path with science?

 

Science comes out of philosophy. Athens was the Mother of Western Civilizations, Father of our sciences, and the parents of democracy. Science is contrary to the God of Abraham religions and so I am, but science is not contrary to God. Actually, through science what we are learning of God is awesome!

 

Why would he give us huge intellect and an enquiring nature only to build a world around us that points us constantly in the wrong direction with science?

 

Universal laws point us in the wrong direction? What do you mean?

 

Why would he tell us one thing and then stack all the evidence against it?

 

 

What are you talking about? By he do you mean God? Huh, how do you think God talks to us?

 

 

Socrates was ordered to stop questioning the gods with youth or to drink the poison Hemlock. We should know, this occurred after Sparta defeated Athens in war, and radically changed Athens. However, no more radically than the US has been changed since replacing liberal education with education for technology.

 

Germany was the modern world Sparta and the US the modern world Athens. History has repeated itself, except this time, Athens won the war. The US based its education on Athens, and was manifesting the democracy of Athens and defended this in two world wars. Following the second world war, the US replaced its liberal education with Germany's education for technology, and it has replaced its democracy, with the Military Industrial Complex that it defended its democracy against. Anyway- Here is Socrates charged with destroying religion and he says....

 

Therefore you must not expect me, gentlemen, to behave toward you in a way which I consider neither reputable, nor moral, nor consistent with MY RELIGIOUS DUTY, and above all you must not expect it, when I stand charged with IMPIETY (being "irreligious") by Meletus here. Surely it is obvious that if I tried to persuade you and prevail upon you by my entreaties to GO AGAINST YOUR SOLEMN OATH, I should be teaching you contempt for religion, and by my very defense I should be accusing myself of having no religious belief. But THAT IS VERY FAR FROM THE TRUTH. I have more sincere belief than any of my accusers and I leave it to you and TO GOD to judge me, as it shall be best for me and for yourselves. [Apology 35c to 35d]

 

For Socrates, and me, God is as real as gravity, because of what I experience and my logic, but He is not the God of Abraham. This is the God of Nature, of which Cicero and Jefferson wrote, and science books and philosophy help us understand how this God works. However, because we can not directly directly God, we can not know God. When people start telling you they know God, they know God not.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Athena

[Essay]

For Socrates, and me, God is as real as gravity, because of what I experience and my logic, but He is not the God of Abraham. This is the God of Nature, of which Cicero and Jefferson wrote, and science books and philosophy help us understand how this God works.

 

 

Sorta like...?

 

God is just another word for how we understand and make sense of our being.

 

~

[Tres Juicy]

What in heavens does crusades, and Hitler and Jews have to do with this discussion?

 

My question was in response to your statement that religion prevents things like witch hunts

 

Universal laws point us in the wrong direction? What do you mean?

 

Well the bible say the world is 6000 years old science says 4.5 billion... etc....

 

Germany was the modern world Sparta and the US the modern world Athens. History has repeated itself, except this time, Athens won the war. The US based its education on Athens, and was manifesting the democracy of Athens and defended this in two world wars. Following the second world war, the US replaced its liberal education with Germany's education for technology, and it has replaced its democracy, with the Military Industrial Complex that it defended its democracy against. Anyway- Here is Socrates charged with destroying religion and he says....

 

 

I don't see how this comparison works?

 

 

Also, what do you mean by "Education for technology"?

[ThePromise]

This argument is crap. How does having faith is an nonexistent God give you any sort of power? It's only fake power.

 

I also found that both God-believers and non-believers behave pretty much the same in real life. So in all in all, believers and non-believers are not really that different.

 

Religion is man made.. What God says is not. Science is man made, and science alters its view with the next theory that comes along.

 

 

Now what i would like to make clear with this whole CREATION of earth.. Is that it CLEARLY does not say EVERYTHING was created in 6 days. It sais "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. THEN God said..."

 

 

So first of all, i think scientists should get their facts straight before dealing with what THE BIBLE says.. and what 'Religion thinks'

 

Can you PROVE to me , that God does not exist? I can prove to you that he does. So please give me something to work with, because this whole self importance of personal liberty and power really just doesn't do it for me.

 

[/b]My question was in response to your statement that religion prevents things like witch hunts

 

 

 

Well the bible say the world is 6000 years old science says 4.5 billion... etc....

 

No where, in the bible does it state that the world is 6000 years old. Science says that the world is 14 billion years old, Great! ?

 

 

I don't see how this comparison works?

 

It simply doesn't work because your terms of intelligence are bound by the knowledge of an athiest scientist.

Also, what do you mean by "Education for technology"?

 

[/b]I disagree. In a democracy the government ultimately answers to the people.

 

 

 

Again, we have the crusades, Hitler and the Jews... etc... - Justification in the name of god can skew the boundries of reason beyond the ridiculous

 

Correct. Though the teachings of scripture do not incur destruction and burning people at a stake etc..

 

The study of nature is called science and what it tells us is contrary to what religion tells us, they can't both be right and if religion is right why would god lead us down the garden path with science?

 

What does religion tell you? ... What does the Bible say?

 

Why would he give us huge intellect and an enquiring nature only to build a world around us that points us constantly in the wrong direction with science?

 

 

Why is a good question. It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the honour of kings to search it out. Once again, what does religion say .. where is the BASIS of this 'truth' they give you - because well if its not directly from the bible and (ORIGINAL TEXTS THERE IN) then how is their 'truth' justified. Its not.

 

 

Why would he tell us one thing and then stack all the evidence against it?

 

 

And think you should have a closer look at what 'he' says.

 

[Moontanman]

Religion is man made.. What God says is not. Science is man made, and science alters its view with the next theory that comes along.

 

Yeah, new evidence means new theories for sure...

 

Now what i would like to make clear with this whole CREATION of earth.. Is that it CLEARLY does not say EVERYTHING was created in 6 days. It sais "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. THEN God said..."

 

Quote mining God, how refreshing...

 

 

So first of all, i think scientists should get their facts straight before dealing with what THE BIBLE says.. and what 'Religion thinks'

 

I agree, set them straight...

 

Can you PROVE to me , that God does not exist? I can prove to you that he does. So please give me something to work with, because this whole self importance of personal liberty and power really just doesn't do it for me.

 

 

I would love to hear your proof that god exists... I certainly cannot prove he does not...

[iNow]

Can you PROVE to me , that God does not exist? I can prove to you that he does.

I'm with Moontanman on this. First, define god, then offer your evidence. This should be entertaining. Then, FWIW one cannot prove nonexistence, so there's always that.

[Moontanman]

If he comes back I think his post should get it's own thread, Athena has worked pretty hard on this one, no need to derail it... probably a one hit wonder anyway...

[ThePromise]

Yeah, new evidence means new theories for sure...

 

And theres nothing wrong with that.

 

Quote mining God, how refreshing...

 

Considering the understanding of some being.. 'that the world is only 6 thousand years old and everything was created in 6 days' which is common both in a sprinkler of holy water and in scientists that just seem to skip past all the bits and read what they want to read.. It must be understood that, the world and the heavens were made and were without form and void. It didn't all suddenly occur in 6 days .. now theres no contradiction there.

 

 

I agree, set them straight...

 

 

Well its a shame, because religion is interpretted by people around the world with all logical reasoning as being what God teaches or says himself - which dismerrits God because its simply not conclusive..and these are just watermarks for their OWN 'traditional' doctorines which they hold strong. However the conclusion is made that God doesn't exist because what god of 'all knowledge' would tell everyone that the earth is 6000 years old. Doesn't make sense does it.

 

 

I would love to hear your proof that god exists... I certainly cannot prove he does not...

 

 

Great! So this will take some time to get through and i would love to show you.. I do have to get up for work early tomorrow morning so i will endevour to write you back on this topic as soon as i get home. Looking forward to it.

 

 

If he comes back I think his post should get it's own thread, Athena has worked pretty hard on this one, no need to derail it... probably a one hit wonder anyway...

 

Replying or Answering .. Personal liberty to make your own choice? Sure. Power? Well i'll leave that up to you when im done.

[Tres Juicy]

I think this has gone a bit off topic now. Maybe it should be split?

[Athena]

I'm with Moontanman on this. First, define god, then offer your evidence. This should be entertaining. Then, FWIW one cannot prove nonexistence, so there's always that.

 

Did anyone get what I said about concrete thinking and abstract thinking? Anyone?

 

Here is a definition of the word abstract.

 

 

</h2>

<h2 class="me">ab·stract

   [adj. ab-strakt, ab-strakt; n. ab-strakt; v. ab-strakt for 10–13, ab-strakt for 14] Show IPA adjective 1. thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea. 2. expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance, as justice, poverty, and speed. 3. theoretical; not applied or practical: abstract science. 4. difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract speculations.

 

You all are insisting on a concrete definition of God and that just doesn't work. The worst problem our nation has at the moment is education for technology, which teachings everyone to think concrete, instead of abstractly. This causes morality to crash and jeapordizes liberty.

 

Instead of asking what is God, try asking how does God work, and see if you can get your brain functioning abstractly, which is a higher level of thinking. You can know the higher power, if you do not use higher level thinking.

[iNow]

Instead of asking what is God, try asking how does God work, and see if you can get your brain functioning abstractly, which is a higher level of thinking.

I disagree. I know you're more of a deist and think of god as a synonym for the universe, but until one either defines and/or empirically demonstrates god then there's no need to ask "how" this entity works. Your point here when I read it is equivalent to asking how unicorns fly, how leprechauns always find their pot of gold, or how Harry Potter's wand always makes that nifty lighted glow that scares away the dementors.

 

I also find myself disagreeing with your point about our education being technology based and lacking help for abstract thinking. Broad sweeping generalizations like that are very rarely accurate, and in reality it quite depends on the individual teachers to whom you've been exposed. You're treating as a systemic problem one that is actually created by the individual.

 

Anyway, I really find this whole thread a bit silly anyway, so I will just let you carry on asking why we would gain more power seeing Zeus as our authority than seeing government or individual choice as the source of that power.

 

 

You can know the higher power, if you do not use higher level thinking.

Thanks for confirming. I've long suspected as much. This won't be the first time someone has suggested that I must abandon my intelligence or critical thinking abilities in order to know god.

[John Cuthber]

" This causes morality to crash "

No it doesn't.

[Moontanman]

Replying or Answering .. Personal liberty to make your own choice? Sure. Power? Well i'll leave that up to you when im done.

 

 

Dude, learn to use the quote button, while I don't agree with Athena, this is her thread and she is getting her point across so I think we need a new thread for your ideas...

 

 

Moontanman, on 21 January 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

Yeah, new evidence means new theories for sure...

 

And theres nothing wrong with that.

 

Then why did you reply derisively?

 

Quote mining God, how refreshing...

 

Considering the understanding of some being.. 'that the world is only 6 thousand years old and everything was created in 6 days' which is common both in a sprinkler of holy water and in scientists that just seem to skip past all the bits and read what they want to read.. It must be understood that, the world and the heavens were made and were without form and void. It didn't all suddenly occur in 6 days .. now theres no contradiction there.

 

Dude, have you ever read Genesis? It does indeed say the earth and everything else was made in six days, read it then come back to me and tell how it didn't say six days...

 

 

Well its a shame, because religion is interpretted by people around the world with all logical reasoning as being what God teaches or says himself - which dismerrits God because its simply not conclusive..and these are just watermarks for their OWN 'traditional' doctorines which they hold strong. However the conclusion is made that God doesn't exist because what god of 'all knowledge' would tell everyone that the earth is 6000 years old. Doesn't make sense does it.

 

No it doesn't make sense, neither does Noah's ark... but it is what the bible says...

 

 

Great! So this will take some time to get through and i would love to show you.. I do have to get up for work early tomorrow morning so i will endevour to write you back on this topic as soon as i get home. Looking forward to it.

 

As do I...

[Tres Juicy]

Did anyone get what I said about concrete thinking and abstract thinking? Anyone?

 

I think people here have proven themselves to be more than capable of abstract though.

 

I really don't think that's the issue

You all are insisting on a concrete definition of God and that just doesn't work. The worst problem our nation has at the moment is education for technology, which teachings everyone to think concrete, instead of abstractly. This causes morality to crash and jeapordizes liberty.

 

Don't you think we need to define what it is we're talking about here?

 

Again, you speak of "education for technology" - What is that??

Edited January 22, 2012 by Tres Juicy

[ThePromise]

Dude, learn to use the quote button, while I don't agree with Athena, this is her thread and she is getting her point across so I think we need a new thread for your ideas...

 

Is this better?

 

 

Then why did you reply derisively?

 

Its a statement of fact. Derisive? You who mock the word of God?

 

Dude, have you ever read Genesis? It does indeed say the earth and everything else was made in six days, read it then come back to me and tell how it didn't say six days...

 

Yes i have. How sure are you about that?

 

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Not on day one, In the beginning) "The earth was without form and void; and darkness over surfaces. (By the way the bible wasn't originally English)

 

God created the heavens and the earth though there was darkness and void and God according to the bible had not called the light Day and the darkness Night? AND THEN it says SO THE EVENING AND THE MORNING WERE THE FIRST DAY. In hebrew u·iei - and he is becoming. orb - evening. u·iei - and he is becoming. bqr - morning. ium achd - day one.

 

Genesis 1 verse 5 " God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

 

Read on! ".. and the evening and the morning were the second day" etc. Please explain your logic.

 

No it doesn't make sense, neither does Noah's ark... but it is what the bible says...

 

 

It doesnt make sense? Alright so, would you like to tell me how big in diametre and in cubic feet Noahs ark was.. And could you be as kind as to tell me how long Noah had to get these animals together? These are all things you will find in the bible!

 

Now onto the proof of Gods existence.. Does anyone know what Theo-matics is? And would they care to explain?

 

Also does anyone know anything about the prophesies of this book the Bible?

 

d on theo-matics .. Could one explain to me the chances of resulting in victory after a 6 day period being out numbered 100 soldiers to your 1. What are the chances.. 100 to 1 .. spin the wheel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tres Juicy]

Dude, learn to use the quote button, while I don't agree with Athena, this is her thread and she is getting her point across so I think we need a new thread for your ideas...

 

Is this better?

 

No, you need to use [/quote*] at the end (without *)

 

No it doesn't make sense, neither does Noah's ark... but it is what the bible says...

 

 

It doesnt make sense? Alright so, would you like to tell me how big in diametre and in cubic feet Noahs ark was.. And could you be as kind as to tell me how long Noah had to get these animals together? These are all things you will find in the bible!

 

 

There are currently somewhere in the region of 5,000,000 species of animal alive today (conservative estimate), even if Noah had his entire life to collect them all he would fail.

 

As for the size of the ark - even with modern ship building techniques we could not get near the size needed to fit all those animals on board - Noah would have needed a fleet of ships

 

Not only that but whilst the animals were onboard, what would they eat? Alot of them would have had predator/prey relationships and Noah only has 2 of each. The herbivores are also screwed because god did not say "by the way Noah, better take 2 of each plant as well", as you know most plant species will not survive submerged in water for very long at all.

 

Also the bible says that after the flood one of the first things Noah does is make a sacrifice to god.

 

Since he only has 2 of each animal, which species did he wipe out here?

 

To summerize, the bible says a lot of crazy stuff which is trivially falsified

 

As for theomatics - again triviallly falsified

http://www.apollowebworks.com/atheism/theomatics.html

Edited January 23, 2012 by Tres Juicy

[ThePromise]

No, you need to use [/quote*] at the end (without *)

 

 

 

There are currently somewhere in the region of 5,000,000 species of animal alive today (conservative estimate), even if Noah had his entire life to collect them all he would fail.

 

Correct, well lets just say around 6.5 million on land. Well who said he did this all by himself .. and more so, if Noah only took on board pairs of "kinds" as the word is used in Genesis 1. God created these "kinds" with potential for rich genetic diversity. For instance, at the time of Christ there existed only two types of dogs. All the diversity we see in the modern breeds of dogs came from these two.

 

As for the size of the ark - even with modern ship building techniques we could not get near the size needed to fit all those animals on board - Noah would have needed a fleet of ships

 

http://www.noahsark-naxuan.com/images/oblique.jpg

- Well there it is just for reference, discovered near Mount Ararat.. where the bible suggested.

 

Considering the terms, Clean and unclean, the offspring of that early period and the rest that scientists put together themselves.. All the scientific evidence shows that the ark could easily have contained all of the animals that were used to repopulate the earth after the flood.

 

Not only that but whilst the animals were onboard, what would they eat? Alot of them would have had predator/prey relationships and Noah only has 2 of each. The herbivores are also screwed because god did not say "by the way Noah, better take 2 of each plant as well", as you know most plant species will not survive submerged in water for very long at all.

 

Noah was told to bring food onboard for himself and for the animals .Genesis 6:21

 

 

Also the bible says that after the flood one of the first things Noah does is make a sacrifice to god.

 

Correct

 

Since he only has 2 of each animal, which species did he wipe out here?

 

Maybe one of the unlcean birds of which 7 different species that were brought on board. And im not sure 100% because it doesn't say. And what was sacrificed isn't important. Whats important is that, Noah acted out of faith .. Did what was suggested in order to preserve mankind, and did.. even though he was scoffed at.

 

To summerize, the bible says a lot of crazy stuff which is trivially falsified

 

Maybe crazy to some.. Personally i don't think Noahs ark was carried through Turkey to rest at Mount Ararat just so they could write it in a book because the name of the mountain sounded cool.. ?

 

And you should have a look at Jerry Lucas and Del Washburn' 'Theomatics.' And 'Number In Scriptire' by E.W. Bullinger.

 

Edited January 23, 2012 by ThePromise

[Tres Juicy]

There are currently somewhere in the region of 5,000,000 species of animal alive today (conservative estimate), even if Noah had his entire life to collect them all he would fail.

 

Correct, well lets just say around 6.5 million on land. Well who said he did this all by himself .. and more so, if Noah only took on board pairs of "kinds" as the word is used in Genesis 1. God created these "kinds" with potential for rich genetic diversity. For instance, at the time of Christ there existed only two types of dogs. All the diversity we see in the modern breeds of dogs came from these two.

 

You yourself said Noah was "scoffed at", how much help do you think he could have realistically obtained?

 

Even if we use your figure of 6.5 million land animals and he manages to find 9 people to help him - each person then still needs to collect 13,000,00 animals.

 

Implausible even if god had given a rather flexible timescale for this mamoth undertaking - don't you think?

 

Some of these animals would have been hard to find, hard to control or simply huge and dangerous

 

 

- even with modern ship building techniques we could not get near the size needed to fit all those animals on board - Noah would have needed a fleet of ships

 

http://www.noahsark-...ges/oblique.jpg - Well there it is just for reference, discovered near Mount Ararat.. where the bible suggested.

 

This proves nothing - a vaguely ship-shaped mark on a mountain.

 

Just out of interest, measure it and see if you could find a way to cram 13 million animals in there and bear in my that it had to float, so do it without stacking the animals 100 feet high

 

Considering the terms, Clean and unclean, the offspring of that early period and the rest that scientists put together themselves.. All the scientific evidence shows that the ark could easily have contained all of the animals that were used to repopulate the earth after the flood.

 

Show me scientific evidence then. I have never seen anything like what you are suggesting here and I doubt I ever will.

 

I'm guessing you can't back this up

 

 

Not only that but whilst the animals were onboard, what would they eat? Alot of them would have had predator/prey relationships and Noah only has 2 of each. The herbivores are also screwed because god did not say "by the way Noah, better take 2 of each plant as well", as you know most plant species will not survive submerged in water for very long at all.

 

Noah was told to bring food onboard for himself and for the animals .Genesis 6:21

 

Ok, but what about plants?? And the logistical nightmare thats would arise keeping everything from eating everything else and yourself

 

 

Also the bible says that after the flood one of the first things Noah does is make a sacrifice to god.

 

Correct

 

Since he only has 2 of each animal, which species did he wipe out here?

 

Maybe one of the unlcean birds of which 7 different species that were brought on board. And im not sure 100% because it doesn't say. And what was sacrificed isn't important. Whats important is that, Noah acted out of faith .. Did what was suggested in order to preserve mankind, and did.. even though he was scoffed at.

 

Only seven species of birds survived? How would you then explain the current genetic diversity we see in modern birds?

 

Not only that, surely if god wanted them preserved he'd be furious that you just killed one the second you came off the ark?!

 

 

To summerize, the bible says a lot of crazy stuff which is trivially falsified

 

Maybe crazy to some.. Personally i don't think Noahs ark was carried through Turkey to rest at Mount Ararat just so they could write it in a book because the name of the mountain sounded cool.. ?

 

And you should have a look at Jerry Lucas and Del Washburn' 'Theomatics.' And 'Number In Scriptire' by E.W. Bullinger.

 

I refer you to the link I posted

 

 

 

"Finally, I would like to make note of another very important statement on this last page: "It is absolutely, completely, and totally impossible to mathematically disprove theomatics." This is a straight declaration that theomatics is not falsifiable, which by definition means it is not a science. Not only that, but it has no predictive power. You arbitrarily pick which numbers are important to you, then you crop out phrases that look good, but there's no way to tell ahead of time exactly what phrases you'll find. Therefore, theomatics is completely useless. "

 

You can't present phrenology or palm reading in a scientific debate because they are psuedoscience's and have no value, numerology falls into the category of psuedoscience as well I'm afraid...

Edited January 23, 2012 by Tres Juicy

[ThePromise]

You yourself said Noah was "scoffed at", how much help do you think he could have realistically obtained?

 

Even if we use your figure of 6.5 million land animals and he manages to find 9 people to help him - each person then still needs to collect 13,000,00 animals.

 

Implausible even if god had given a rather flexible timescale for this mamoth undertaking - don't you think?

 

Some of these animals would have been hard to find, hard to control or simply huge and dangerous

 

 

 

Do you think that there would have been 6.5 million land animals back then over 100 thousand years ago.. more? less? And i would like to find this out myself. It might take me a couple of days to acquire. Though i firmly believe that this can be logically calculated. I do know however that animals do have a sense about weather .. it does say that God brought these animals to Noah. Anything is possible.

 

This proves nothing - a vaguely ship-shaped mark on a mountain.

 

Just out of interest, measure it and see if you could find a way to cram 13 million animals in there and bear in my that it had to float, so do it without stacking the animals 100 feet high

 

This same ship that has been sighted by many.. (minus a few bumps and scratches) is near to the exact measurement the bible foretells. Check it out.

 

Show me scientific evidence then. I have never seen anything like what you are suggesting here and I doubt I ever will.

 

Alright

I'm guessing you can't back this up

 

We'l See.

 

 

 

 

Ok, but what about plants?? And the logistical nightmare thats would arise keeping everything from eating everything else and yourself

 

 

 

What about seeds for plantation.. fermentation.. with diversification.

 

 

 

 

 

Only seven species of birds survived? How would you then explain the current genetic diversity we see in modern birds?

 

Not only that, surely if god wanted them preserved he'd be furious that you just killed one the second you came off the ark?!

 

 

Breeding one specie with another would create a different specie.. breed that one with another.. 7 .. how many different combinations are possible.

Surely.. Maybe.. Im not God! There are plenty of different sacrifices that could have been made.

 

 

 

I refer you to the link I posted

 

I read your link .. These words are simple.. picked at random..sentences which hold a value of division, multiplication etc. Not divine authority.

 

"Finally, I would like to make note of another very important statement on this last page: "It is absolutely, completely, and totally impossible to mathematically disprove theomatics." This is a straight declaration that theomatics is not falsifiable, which by definition means it is not a science. Not only that, but it has no predictive power. You arbitrarily pick which numbers are important to you, then you crop out phrases that look good, but there's no way to tell ahead of time exactly what phrases you'll find. Therefore, theomatics is completely useless. "

 

So because science only goes so far.. does that mean you cannot extend your knowledge? Correct it has no predictive power.. but the chances of it being as prominent in the bible as it is with such clarification are a billion to 1. Just like existence, Infinity, Space, Time, The perfect balance of earth and nature etc.. HOW is a good question. Why, is also worthy of questioning.

You can't present phrenology or palm reading in a scientific debate because they are psuedoscience's and have no value, numerology falls into the category of psuedoscience as well I'm afraid...