1730 replies to this topic

[Dayzee]

Ok, there's a start. How did God create the universe? Where does he live?


God is all-powerful and omnipresent. He lives everywhere. He created the universe the same way an artist creates a masterpiece. I didn't see it happen, but the evidence that it did happen is all around me.

Good. How do you know that that is the case?


Because I believe the Bible to be true and not fictional. I believe it is a historical account of what actually took place.

What do you believe heaven is? Precisely, I mean.
And what do you believe goes there when you die?
Do you also believe in Hell? If so, same questions to that.

I believe in both Heaven and Hell, and that each person's soul goes to one or the other.

Really? I can explain lots more than my own experience. I can explain fusion in a star, something I've definitely never experienced. I can explain meiosis and mitosis, two things that I have never seen take place.
I don't need to have faith that you're not crazy. I can see that on this particular issue, your views are not in line with what reality presents, and that you are crazy.


On the contrary, meiosis and mitosis and other chromosomal functions are physical, observable things. I'd like to see you explain what a dream is to someone who has never had one and who doesn't speak your language. And not in the terms of brain waves, REM and the measurable stuff.

One more question, is there any evidence that could come to light and change your mind about the existence of god? Absolutely not. I have seen miraculous things that science can not explain, and felt the presence of God firsthand - it is not some idea I am simply comfortable with


Not at all.
I'm perfectly happy to accept that Jesus was the son of god, within the fictional framework of the Bible.
Just as any rational person would accept that Luke was the son of Anakin, within the fictional framework of Star Wars.

The problem comes, of course, when you start telling me the the Ewoks really did save the third moon of Endor. Really really.

Again, I don't believe the Bible to be a work of fiction.

[Sweeney]

Again, I don't believe the Bible to be a work of fiction.

Well gee, that was a well though-out and reasoned reply.

So we're clear, you think the entire Bible, old and new testaments, is precise, exact and literal truth?

[systray]

A model of reality where God is real used to work very well, but now does not.

Saying that is self-contradictory, though. With that statement, you are agreeing with the thought that at one point the story of Christianity was the truth of the Universe, and now it isn't? What does that say about your model of reality? It's just another stepping stone if that is the case, and once again our whole concept of what is and what isn't will change drastically. A new age Renaissance if you will. In that scenario, one model does not work better than another.

Edit: I should clarify: One model does work better than another in that case, actually. However, it is always the most recent model that works best, and you can't use "Because that's what the time period dictates" as a justification for anything. That is circumstantial evidence until we can time travel.

Edited by systray, 04 January 2011 - 08:16 AM.

[Dayzee]

A model of reality where God is real used to work very well, but now does not.

Why do you say it used to work, but no longer does? I'm curious.

[luvsmyncis]

Saying that is self-contradictory, though. With that statement, you are agreeing with the thought that at one point the story of Christianity was the truth of the Universe, and now it isn't? What does that say about your model of reality? It's just another stepping stone if that is the case, and once again our whole concept of what is and what isn't will change drastically. A new age Renaissance if you will. In that scenario, one model does not work better than another.

It used to be true that Pluto was a planet. It's lately been proven otherwise.

[Sweeney]

Saying that is self-contradictory, though. With that statement, you are agreeing with the thought that at one point the story of Christianity was the truth of the Universe, and now it isn't? What does that say about your model of reality? It's just another stepping stone if that is the case, and once again our whole concept of what is and what isn't will change drastically. A new age Renaissance if you will. In that scenario, one model does not work better than another.

No one is saying our current model of reality is perfect. That would be stupid.
I also never said that our current model of reality was truth. Don't put words into my mouth, please.

It is a fact that our current model of reality is better at explaining things than the "last one". Otherwise, it wouldn't have changed.
The god model is outdated. It persists, because it is selfish, and self-preserving, unlike the models generated by honest and open enquiry.

Just because our current model is not perfect, doesn't mean it is equally useless as other discarded models. The Newtonian model of gravity was wrong, and has been superceded, but it was still useful, and it is still less wrong than the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendage theory.

Edit: I should clarify: One model does work better than another in that case, actually. However, it is always the most recent model that works best, and you can't use "Because that's what the time period dictates" as a justification for anything. That is circumstantial evidence until we can time travel.

That's nonsense. "Because that's what the time period dictates" was never an argument I've used.

Why do you say it used to work, but no longer does? I'm curious.

It's not that it doesn't work. Clearly it does. You're an apparently functioning member of society.

The fact is, though, that it is not as good at explaining reality as a model that does not rely on God as an explanation for anything.

[Dayzee]

Well gee, that was a well though-out and reasoned reply.

So we're clear, you think the entire Bible, old and new testaments, is precise, exact and literal truth?

Nice sarcasm. Prove it's fictional. Can you name even one author of any one book of the Bible without first Googling it? Did you know that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are 4 accounts of the same story, probably all included in the bible to prove their validity? I'm not here to convert you. But I can tell you I've actually READ the Bible, and therefore made an informed decision about what I choose to believe. Did you at least read it before deciding to dismiss it?

[Sweeney]

Nice sarcasm. Prove it's fictional. Can you name even one author of any one book of the Bible without first Googling it? Did you know that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are 4 accounts of the same story, probably all included in the bible to prove their validity? I'm not here to convert you. But I can tell you I've actually READ the Bible, and therefore made an informed decision about what I choose to believe. Did you at least read it before deciding to dismiss it?

Of course I've read the bible. I skipped some the boring genealogy, but hey. Who needs that?

Feel like answering my question, now?

[Dayzee]

The god model is outdated. It persists, because it is selfish, and self-preserving, unlike the models generated by honest and open enquiry.

You clearly understand nothing. The "God-model" as you called it, is completely non-selfish. That's the whole point.

Yes, I believe it is the EXACT and LITERAL truth.

[Sweeney]

You clearly understand nothing. The "God-model" as you called it, is completely non-selfish. That's the whole point.

Yes, I believe it is the EXACT and LITERAL truth.

*sigh*
The God model itself is selfish, not the behaviour it engenders. Please make sure that you've understood my point, before accusing me of that same lack.
It has stood, relatively unchanged (though split), for several thousand years. Not because it is right, but because it is resilient.

Can I ask how long ago you believe the world was created? And if you believe in evolution?
Given your literalism, I assume six thousand years, and no. But it's best to be perfectly clear.

[systray]

That's nonsense. "Because that's what the time period dictates" was never an argument I've used.

That's exactly what argument you're using if you're saying that our model currently answers questions better than the last model, though. You have to take things in context. Our current model is based on, as you have previously stated, scientific evidence and empirical studies that were done recently - and by recently I mean since about the time of the Renaissance. These studies (and the ability to conduct them) have only been available to us for a limited time.

From this, the most logical assumption would be that within the next 500 years (should humanity make it that long) we will be able to conduct studies that will all but nullify the current model we have (again). Again, taking things in context, that would mean our current model (present day) is no more right or wrong than the previous model (God, religion, whatever). The point being that our reality is hard to prove, and you can't fault people for believing one way or the other, because at one time every belief will have been "right" based on what evidence you have been given throughout your life.

And trust me, one lifetime is not enough evidence to be "right"

Edit: That doesn't quite sound right reading it over. You can fault people for believing one way or the other, but your justification will be (and has to be) "because that's what the time period dictates" if the model is ever-changing.

Edited by systray, 04 January 2011 - 08:36 AM.

[Sweeney]

That's exactly what argument you're using if you're saying that our model currently answers questions better than the last model, though. You have to take things in context. Our current model is based on, as you have previously stated, scientific evidence and empirical studies that were done recently - and by recently I mean since about the time of the Renaissance. These studies (and the ability to conduct them) have only been available to us for a limited time.

From this, the most logical assumption would be that within the next 500 years (should humanity make it that long) we will be able to conduct studies that will all but nullify the current model we have (again). Again, taking things in context, that would mean our current model (present day) is no more right or wrong than the previous model (God, religion, whatever). The point being that our reality is hard to prove, and you can't fault people for believing one way or the other, because at one time every belief will have been "right" based on what evidence you have been given throughout your life.

And trust me, one lifetime is not enough evidence to be "right"

Right or wrong is not, in this case, a binary choice. It is possible for things to be more right than others. Or, if you prefer, more useful.

The current scientific model is better, it isn't perfect.
Cultural reletavism has nothing to do with it.

To maintain belief in an outdated model, simply because the newer one isn't as good as the one that will come after it, is absurd.

Edit: That doesn't quite sound right reading it over. You can fault people for believing one way or the other, but your justification will be (and has to be) "because that's what the time period dictates" if the model is ever-changing.

No!
Because that's what the evidence dictates.

Obviously, as time passes, more evidence will accumulate, but that's not the salient point. It is an aside.

[Dayzee]

*sigh*
The God model itself is selfish, not the behaviour it engenders. Please make sure that you've understood my point, before accusing me of that same lack.
It has stood, relatively unchanged (though split), for several thousand years. Not because it is right, but because it is resilient.

Can I ask how long ago you believe the world was created? And if you believe in evolution?
Given your literalism, I assume six thousand years, and no. But it's best to be perfectly clear.

The God' model isn't selfish, it is unchanging because God is unchanging, a basic premise of christianity.

I do believe in evolution, to a degree. I think all species have evolved over time, but I believe initially they were created. Horses may have once been the size of foxes with 3 toes. Notice that we don't have horses like that any more. I do not believe we were once apes, and if we did evolve from apes, why would apes still be present? There is no missing link so stop hoping for one. Of course I believe the earth is older than 6 thousand years. When I said I believe in the Bible's literal translation, I meant I believe it to be a accurate historical accounting and not a bunch of made up stories. But it is also full of parables and symbolism. I believe they are things in the world we aren't meant to understand. Maybe that's why we can only use about 10% of our brains

Curiously, how do you explain miracles? Something that happens that offers no scientific explanation. How do you think they happen?

[systray]

Right or wrong is not, in this case, a binary choice. It is possible for things to be more right than others. Or, if you prefer, more useful.

The current scientific model is better, it isn't perfect.
Cultural reletavism has nothing to do with it.

To maintain belief in an outdated model, simply because the newer one isn't as good as the one that will come after it, is absurd.

It's very hard to defend a point that I don't personally agree with haha. In this case I have to give in, it is absolutely absurd to not be willing to change your beliefs even though the evidence around you is changing. Grant me this, if some miracle evidence of God and Jesus was to fall from the sky, it would again be possible for that story to be more "right". (I know that's an irrelevant point as far as this discussion goes, just roll with it)

No!
Because that's what the evidence dictates.

Obviously, as time passes, more evidence will accumulate, but that's not the salient point. It is an aside.

I can't agree with you here. The evidence is based on the time period, and the belief is based on the evidence. Therefore, the belief is based on the time period.

[luvsmyncis]

The God' model isn't selfish, it is unchanging because God is unchanging, a basic premise of christianity.

Unchanging God? The wrathful God of the old testament is most certainly different from the kinder, more gentle and forgiving God of the new testament. Before Jesus came along, we were all doomed to pay for our sins. Now we can repent and be forgiven, if we only believe. Sounds like the big man upstairs had a change of heart. I guess when you have a kid, you get a little softer.

[Sweeney]

The God' model isn't selfish, it is unchanging because God is unchanging, a basic premise of christianity.

I do believe in evolution, to a degree. I think all species have evolved over time, but I believe initially they were created. Horses may have once been the size of foxes with 3 toes. Notice that we don't have horses like that any more. I do not believe we were once apes, and if we did evolve from apes, why would apes still be present? There is no missing link so stop hoping for one. Of course I believe the earth is older than 6 thousand years. When I said I believe in the Bible's literal translation, I meant I believe it to be a accurate historical accounting and not a bunch of made up stories. But it is also full of parables and symbolism. I believe they are things in the world we aren't meant to understand. Maybe that's why we can only use about 10% of our brains

Curiously, how do you explain miracles? Something that happens that offers no scientific explanation. How do you think they happen?

"God is unchanging". There's a meaningless statement.
I assume you mean the essence of God is unchanging, yes? In which case, I would ask how you know that?

I like that you clearly have no understanding of human evolution, too, and yet you dismiss it. Humans are apes. We didn't evolve from gorillas, or bonobo monkeys, or chimpanzees. We all had a common ancestor, just as at one point, we had a common ancestor with mice. And with fish, spiders, bats, ladybirds and cats.

How do you decide which parts of the bible are allegorical, and which are literal? Because it sounds to me as if you simply choose the bits that fit with your preconcieved notions of reality.

Give me a specific "miracle". Then you can explain how God did it, and then I will explain how it probably really happened.
I have to be honest with you, though, I will consider invoking magic as a bit of a cop out.

[luvsmyncis]

 

Give me a specific "miracle". Then you can explain how God did it, and then I will explain how it probably really happened.
I have to be honest with you, though, I will consider invoking magic as a bit of a cop out.

I suppose the Virgin Mary that appeared on the tortilla for my breakfast taco this morning was just "coincidence" and not a sign some stronger power approves of beans and cheese?
Jesus H Christ, it was delicious.

Edit: OMG, this just gave me the greatest idea for a Jesus toaster. No one steal it. It's totally going to be the new Snuggie.

[Sweeney]

It's very hard to defend a point that I don't personally agree with haha. In this case I have to give in, it is absolutely absurd to not be willing to change your beliefs even though the evidence around you is changing. Grant me this, if some miracle evidence of God and Jesus was to fall from the sky, it would again be possible for that story to be more "right". (I know that's an irrelevant point as far as this discussion goes, just roll with it)

I can't agree with you here. The evidence is based on the time period, and the belief is based on the evidence. Therefore, the belief is based on the time period.

I will grant you that point. To do otherwise would be dishonest.

The evidence is not based on the time period, though. The only relation that it has is that that's when it was discovered. As time passes, more things come to light. That is a consequence of the passage of time.
The passage of time doesn't cause new discoveries to be made, it merely allows them to happen.

Let me try for a metaphor.
Imagine a volcanic eruption, beneath the sea, which creates a new, small, barren island. Seeds invade the island, and grow into trees, which bear fruit.
The eruption, time in the example, doesn't cause the fruit. It simply allows an opportunity for the fruit to grow.

It's correlation, not causation.

[systray]

The evidence is not based on the time period, though. The only relation that it has is that that's when it was discovered. As time passes, more things come to light. That is a consequence of the passage of time.
The passage of time doesn't cause new discoveries to be made, it merely allows them to happen.

Let me try for a metaphor.
Imagine a volcanic eruption, beneath the sea, which creates a new, small, barren island. Seeds invade the island, and grow into trees, which bear fruit.
The eruption, time in the example, doesn't cause the fruit. It simply allows an opportunity for the fruit to grow.

It's correlation, not causation.

In a lot of circumstances, you are right, correlation does not equal causation. I'm again going to have to disagree with you here though. The passing of time implies that mistakes were made and things were proven wrong. Things can only be proven wrong using direct observational evidence, which can only be done over time.

The volcanic eruption NEEDS to happen for the seeds to grow in that example. Time NEEDS to pass for observational evidence to be worthwhile. Think about how many people were hanged and stoned and shot to death during the Renaissance for trying to incorporate new beliefs. They had to wait for the island to grow before they could plant the seeds.

[Sweeney]

In a lot of circumstances, you are right, correlation does not equal causation. I'm again going to have to disagree with you here though. The passing of time implies that mistakes were made and things were proven wrong. Things can only be proven wrong using direct observational evidence, which can only be done over time.

The volcanic eruption NEEDS to happen for the seeds to grow in that example. Time NEEDS to pass for observational evidence to be worthwhile. Think about how many people were hanged and stoned and shot to death during the Renaissance for trying to incorporate new beliefs. They had to wait for the island to grow before they could plant the seeds.

You're right that time needs to pass in order to accumulate evidence. You're wrong in saying that the passage of time is the cause of new evidence.
I need to have a wall, in order to draw on it, but having a wall doesn't cause me to draw on it.

It's interesting that you bring up the rennaisance, because the fact is that the evidence was there. It was hidden, and concealed, and that prevented the change in prevailing belief. You could say that the time period affects how evidence is disseminated, and even percieved. That I will grant you.

But the accumulation of evidence itself is not dependent on the time period, only that time passes.

[Dayzee]

"God is unchanging". There's a meaningless statement.
I assume you mean the essence of God is unchanging, yes? In which case, I would ask how you know that?

I like that you clearly have no understanding of human evolution, too, and yet you dismiss it. Humans are apes. We didn't evolve from gorillas, or bonobo monkeys, or chimpanzees. We all had a common ancestor, just as at one point, we had a common ancestor with mice. And with fish, spiders, bats, ladybirds and cats.

How do you decide which parts of the bible are allegorical, and which are literal? Because it sounds to me as if you simply choose the bits that fit with your preconcieved notions of reality.

Give me a specific "miracle". Then you can explain how God did it, and then I will explain how it probably really happened.
I have to be honest with you, though, I will consider invoking magic as a bit of a cop out.

You cannot prove that we all had a common ancestor, try as you might. Just as you can't prove the Big Bang theory. You can offer it as a reasonable explanation, but there is no PROOF. As for your explanation of miracles, I'm not interested. When teams of doctors cannot explain how my friend's son was instantly healed of an inoperable brain tumor, I don't know how you can. You must have some ego.

This is no longer friendly debate, but has become you trying to convince anyone reading this thread that your "model", and only yours, is the only acceptable one to consider.

Perhaps you might consider for a moment that all those God-believing, crazy Jesus freaks like me are actually somehow right - there IS a heaven and hell and it's for all eternity. What then? Guess you're pretty much screwed. My faith and belief cost me nothing, but if I'm right and God is real, it allows me to gain everything. I have more peace and joy in this life because of it so it benefits me greatly. You can call me crazy and old-school all you want. I'll guess that you've become all sarcasic and aggressive because people like me have something that you don't so you desperately try to disprove it. My friend, you can have it to. You won't find it in your science books, tho. You find it in your heart and in the quiet stillness when God comes and speaks to you and you feel, unmistakably, his presence. There is nothing else like it. I hope you find it - sincerely.

Blessings!

Edited by dayzee100, 04 January 2011 - 09:15 AM.

[systray]

You're right that time needs to pass in order to accumulate evidence. You're wrong in saying that the passage of time is the cause of new evidence.
I need to have a wall, in order to draw on it, but having a wall doesn't cause me to draw on it.

It's interesting that you bring up the rennaisance, because the fact is that the evidence was there. It was hidden, and concealed, and that prevented the change in prevailing belief. You could say that the time period affects how evidence is disseminated, and even percieved. That I will grant you.

But the accumulation of evidence itself is not dependent on the time period, only that time passes.

Alright, it may not cause new evidence to come to light, but the passing of time does cause people to yearn for such evidence and like you said the time period does affect how said evidence is processed. I'll rephrase my original statement though. The time period may not dictate the belief system, but it is definitely one of (if not THE) best measuring tools. Go back way before even organized religion, what the hell did cavemen believe in? (if anything) You don't know for sure (unless you've seen some very detailed cave paintings that I haven't). The best way to gauge their beliefs is to look at the time period then and look at what they knew.

[Sweeney]

You cannot prove that we all had a common ancestor, try as you might. Just as you can't prove the Big Bang theory. You can offer it as a reasonable explanation, but there is no PROOF. As for your explanation of miracles, I'm not interested. When teams of doctors cannot explain how my friend's son was instantly healed of an inoperable brain tumor, I don't know how you can. You must have some ego.

Nope. Can't prove it.
But then, I can't prove that the sun is a giant ball of plasma. Or that light travels as both a wave and a particle.
I can only provide evidence for these deductions, and wait until someone disproves them. That is how science works, after all.

There is vast amounts of evidence for common descent, and a respectable body of evidence for the Big Bang Theory (which, by the way, probably isn't what you think it is), and not a single shred of evidence against them.

If you're not interested in my explanation of miracles, then why on earth did you ask for it?

This is no longer friendly debate, but has become you trying to convince anyone reading this thread that your "model", and only yours, is the only acceptable one to consider.

This has never been a debate. This has been me asking you to back up your position, and you failing.

Perhaps you might consider for a moment that all those God-believing, crazy Jesus freaks like me are actually somehow right - there IS a heaven and hell and it's for all eternity. What then? Guess you're pretty much screwed. My faith and belief cost me nothing, but if I'm right and God is real, it allows me to gain everything. I have more peace and joy in this life because of it so it benefits me greatly. You can call me crazy and old-school all you want. I'll guess that you've become all sarcasic and aggressive because people like me have something that you don't so you desperately try to disprove it. My friend, you can have it to. You won't find it in your science books, tho. You find it in your heart and in the quiet stillness when God comes and speaks to you and you feel, unmistakably, his presence. There is nothing else like it. I hope you find it - sincerely.

Blessings!

Pascal's Wager is a little old and tired, don't you think? You might want to read up on it, and see why it's fallacious. Or I can explain it, if you like. Just ask

Sorry... but did you just tell me that you have more peace and joy in your life, because I'm fundamentally deficient, right after accsing me of having a giant ego? Maybe you're right, of course, but then I prefer to base my life on what I can deduce to be true, rather than a comforting bedtime story.

Alright, it may not cause new evidence to come to light, but the passing of time does cause people to yearn for such evidence and like you said the time period does affect how said evidence is processed. I'll rephrase my original statement though. The time period may not dictate the belief system, but it is definitely one of (if not THE) best measuring tools. Go back way before even organized religion, what the hell did cavemen believe in? (if anything) You don't know for sure (unless you've seen some very detailed cave paintings that I haven't). The best way to gauge their beliefs is to look at the time period then and look at what they knew.

I think I can agree with that ^^

[systray]

but if I'm right and God is real, it allows me to gain everything. I have more peace and joy in this life because of it so it benefits me greatly.
Blessings!

That is a ridiculously self-righteous belief. Damn all the heathens who didn't put all their eggs in one basket?

Also, dayzee, does your post in the chatbox on the main page apply to Sweeney? Calling someone not-so-nice because they believe something different from you and tried to discuss the nuances of both belief systems with you is very narrow-minded.

Edited by systray, 04 January 2011 - 09:28 AM.

[luvsmyncis]

 

Sorry... but did you just tell me that you have more peace and joy in your life, because I'm fundamentally deficient, right after accusing me of having a giant ego? 

She totally did. It made me facepalm. I thought to myself, "What would Jesus do?" and I figure if Haysoos were here right now, he'd also feel compelled to facepalm.

Sweeney: 5
TeamJesus: 0

It is apparent that no one who believes in the Sheppard of Man can explain themselves without heated, belligerent passion and eventually ending the discussion by condemning the science nerds to eternal damnation.