Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
None of the prophesies are specific enough to be validated. And even if a given prophesy came true in exact detail, you still don't know why it came true. You just have an unexplained event.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Which religion is the greatest threat to secularism?
- Thread starter Spiderman
- Start date
None of the prophesies are specific enough to be validated. And even if a given prophesy came true in exact detail, you still don't know why it came true. You just have an unexplained event.
Well, let us give you an example. Joel 3:1-2,"I will restore the fortunes of Judah/Jews and Jerusalem", I will gather all the nations, and bring them down to the valley of Judges"/Har-Magedon. The first part was completed in 1967, but was started by the Belfour Declaration in 1918, which gave permission for the Jews to settle Judea. It came true because the nations of mixed iron and clay, of Daniel 2:34 were initially "crushed" at an initial battle of Megiddo. The crushing of all the nations, of Daniel 2:35, is in the wings. The 2nd part was initiated by the Muslim, Barrack Hussein Obama, when he arranged for 120 countries to condemn Israel at a meeting in Paris in January of 2017, and will end with the nations capturing Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:1-3) before the LORD comes to fight, and the nations of Jeremiah 30:11 & Daniel 2:35 & 44-45 being destroyed. Don't say you were not warned. As for "false prophets" simply look to the self professed apostle Paul. He said "we shall be changed from corruptible to incorruptible", yet he dead in a grave supposedly outside of Rome. Killed supposedly by one of the Caesars (Nero), who he had called upon to save his life while visiting Jerusalem.
Islaam is not a religion, but it _is_ the greatest thread to secularism, certainly among the choices given.
Jollybear
Hey
A few ways we can test them. If they make a prediction, we can see if it comes to pass. If they say a certain policy will work, we can test it by doing it. We can also ask what there experience was with the spirit/god/angel, if its vague, thats not good, if its specific thats better. If its a feeling only, thats not good. If its an apparition or a audable voice thats better. Also, who was this spirit or angel or God? These are ways. There could be more ways too. Dreams or visions pertaining to events, that could be considered too. God gave a dream to pharough, joseph knew what it referred too and then acted accordingly and it saved the people from starvation. That story was in the bible.
How do you define sound? And whats your standard of evidence? Because there IS evidence. If there was NO evidence at all, i would not believe this stuff, but i do because there is evidence. May not be to the level of your satisfaction, but its there and lots of it.
Correct. This is the earth realm, and that is the spirit realm. But the key is to test those who claim to speak for them. Test and question.
As fare as im aware, many fields of science have debates within them. Yes, theres some agreements, but theres some debates. Thats also what religion has too, some agreements and some debates.
Right, but just because theres some disagreement dont mean there all wrong. Thats like saying because 2 scientists disagree on something that this equals there both wrong. That dont make sense. Your acting like if something is true and right then everyone would agree. I would challenge that and ask why? Everyone should agree, but i dont agree everyone WILL.
Correct, if the beliefs in there heads role over to there actions, then yes it matters then, i agree.
And again, divisive dont equel wrong. It equels disagreement. If something is true, it dont adamatically mean everyone will agree that its true.
He dont deny the knowledge to everyone. Just some. It depends on who he likes and dont like. God is not some kind of machine up in the sky. He has a personality just as humans do. We as humans, some of us atleast, absolutely refuse to comune with some people because we dont like them. It could be because we feel there proud, or phony, or dishonest, or stupid, or whatever. Well, its the same with God. And in the judao/christian religion, God consistently gives favor to those who are humble toward him. And that makes sense because any leader would favor humble people who are under there power.
There is a difference between a perfect theocratic dictatorship and a theocrasy of God. Ill explain.
Perfect theocratic dictatorship is where God dictates everyones beliefs, thoughts and actions. That means he takes away free will. Now we got robots roaming around. That creates a problem. I think the problem is obvious wouldnt you say?
A theocrasy of God is where God IS the king, but he does not magically omit free will. He reveals himself and his ways, but does not make anyone follow or agree.
Theres the difference.
God gives free will. But, God being King does not make him right, God being God makes him right. Why? Because a king alone does not posess all knowledge and wisdom, while God does.
Even a lesser God, like a spirit guide or angel would have more knowledge then humans, but less knowledge then thw supreme God.
Ok, your turn, torch is in your hands now. Go ahead, im listening.
Last edited:
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the detailed response. I appreciate your effort. I may not be able to respond in whole right now, have things going on here that are demanding my attention.
I was addressing theocracy as currently defined, which is simply a country ruled by a religious organization.
If there was a theocracy where a god was actually governing, that might be a whole different ball of wax. But the only theocracies that have ever existed were governed by men. There was no god present.
Since I don’t believe such a god actually exists, I don’t think such a government will ever exist, either.
Still, if that were to come to pass, I question whether I would be okay with it. Certainly, I would take issue with the god of the Bible, which has shown little regard for human life and well being. I don’t see a god that would destroy nearly all life on earth, ask a man to kill his son, support the practice of slavery, or direct his people to commit genocide and infanticide as an acceptable arbiter of what is good and what is bad.
I also question that anyone has free will in the absolute sense. Every decision we make is shaped by the entirey of past events and experiences of our lives as well as our genetic makeup. Often, most of what goes into arriving at a decision is subconscious and we are unaware of it,
Beyond that, there are numerous examples where the god of the Bible directly interfered with free will.
Got farther than I thought with a response, but sure if I reread your comments, I will find something that needs addressing.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
This is actually an example of the vagueness I was pointing out. Where are the names of the specific nations and the dates?
Well let us see. Daniel points out the kingdoms of "Babylon", as the "head of gold, "Persia", as the "breast of silver", and Greece, which would be the thighs of "Bronze". Rome would be the "legs of iron" who would "devour and crush" the others (Daniel 7:7), as can be asserted in your history books. Esau was called Edom because of his pot of red soup, the pottery holding his soup being the red clay potters use. Therefore you have a combination of iron/Rome/Germany, and Esau/Muslim caliphate, at the historic battle of Megiddo at the end of WWI, being crushed. The historic Balfour Declaration at the end of WWI, gave the Jews/Judah, access to Judea. The historic 6 day war, of 1967, whereas Judah smashed it's neighbors of Muslims/Edom/clay and their ally Rome/Russia/iron, gave Judah control of Jerusalem.
Jollybear
Hey
Absolutely
Thats understandable. No rush. Whenever you get the chance.
Right, and i had a hunch thats how you was defining it. And based on THAT definition of theocrasy, i CAN agree with you there wpuld be problems with it. For the sake of communication and not misunderstanding eachother. Ill state the problems i see with that definition of theocrasy.
If a religion simply encourages people to rule its country based on its unchanging laws/policies/interpretations, ect, just basically being regid, then it cannot respond to new and changing circumstances and issues.
However, if we define theocrasy the way i did, then the leaders or DEVINERS are RESPONSIBLE for SEEKING the will of God and being INTUNE with God for every new or changing situation. This makes things less regid.
You see, one who adheres to a religion is different from one who has an experience with the God of that said religion.
And thats the difference right there. A country just adhering to say the christian religion would not look the same as a country that is experiencing the God of the christian religion.
Both outlooks would be drastically different.
What about Moses? I believe God was talking to him.
I understand what your saying. And ive heard these issues before. However, i think some of these abjections are based on some misunderstandings. We could go through those one at a time, if you want.
Yea, thats one factor. But it is possible to go against the grain.
When you say interfere, do you mean like how a human government would interfere with a criminal by stopping him against his will? If so, thats not the same as taking away the will itself, or volition. Theres a difference between going against ones will and abolishing there will.
Ok, torch is yours now.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Absolutely
Thats understandable. No rush. Whenever you get the chance.
Right, and i had a hunch thats how you was defining it. And based on THAT definition of theocrasy, i CAN agree with you there wpuld be problems with it. For the sake of communication and not misunderstanding eachother. Ill state the problems i see with that definition of theocrasy.
If a religion simply encourages people to rule its country based on its unchanging laws/policies/interpretations, ect, just basically being regid, then it cannot respond to new and changing circumstances and issues.
However, if we define theocrasy the way i did, then the leaders or DEVINERS are RESPONSIBLE for SEEKING the will of God and being INTUNE with God for every new or changing situation. This makes things less regid.
You see, one who adheres to a religion is different from one who has an experience with the God of that said religion.
And thats the difference right there. A country just adhering to say the christian religion would not look the same as a country that is experiencing the God of the christian religion.
Both outlooks would be drastically different.
What about Moses? I believe God was talking to him.
I understand what your saying. And ive heard these issues before. However, i think some of these abjections are based on some misunderstandings. We could go through those one at a time, if you want.
Yea, thats one factor. But it is possible to go against the grain.
When you say interfere, do you mean like how a human government would interfere with a criminal by stopping him against his will? If so, thats not the same as taking away the will itself, or volition. Theres a difference between going against ones will and abolishing there will.
Ok, torch is yours now.
I do not think such a theocracy will ever exist, because I do not see conclusive evidence for the existence of a gog of any kind.
It is questionable even among bible scholars whether Moses existed. Certainly, archaeology does not support the great exodus out of Egypt. But I have no problem assumimg he did exist as a person. Whether he did or did not has no bearing on whether I believe in a supernatural being or miraculous events. Nothing about Moses can be confirmed outside the Bible. And I do not have any reason to consider the stories in the Bible as anything but mythology.
I am familiar with all the various apologetics that have been continually recycled for centuries and of the strong counters to those arguments. I also believe that if a god existed and wished his presence to be known, there would be no need for apologists in the first place.
Whether free will is completely and irrevocably taken away or temporarily abridged is irrelevant. In either case, the free will has been violated (assuming free will is possible in the first place).
If you have sound evidence for the existence of a deity that has not already been sufficiently countered, It would be interesting not only to me, but to the other apologists who have struggled for centuries with the same flawed arguments.
It bears noting that the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence needs to be. Hearsay and uncorroborated stories fall far short, as do unverifiable personal “experiences”.
Jollybear
Hey
Whats your standard of evidence? Ive noticed that atheists standard of evidence is no different then some religious peoples standard of evidence for evolution. Atheists want to see God directly, while some religious folk want to see evolution directly. Lol, its bazar how peoples standards are so incredably high.
But, whats your standard?
Jubal al laz, the real mount sinai in arabia is good evidence for the exodus. If you look that up alot of archeology markers match the biblical story.
Check out the "real mount sinai"
Ok, well, i think theres lots of reasons to believe its historical. We can dive into examples and discuss deeper if you want.
And why dont you find the apologetics convincing? Also, why would God want to let himself be known to everyone?
So, God does not reserve the right to punish?
What arguments specifically are flawed? Id like to get into specifics.
I see what your saying, but it appears to me that your extreme standard of evidence comes louded with many assumptions attached to it.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Jollybear
Hey
Most religious folks are okay with the normal scientific standards when it comes to evidence. Science does not say it is necessary to see God directly to confirm his existence. God can be inferred from the effects he produces. Examples would be design within the universe and nature. Information in DNA and peoples experiences of apparitions, audable voices and NDEs and ESPs.
Wait, why is Gods existence extrordinary? His existence can be a wonderful thing, but extrordinary? Even if it is extrordinary that dont equel unreal. Looking at the earth from space is extrordinary, but we know its still real. How our bodies work is extrordinary, but its real.
Are you meaning extrordinary because you have not experienced God? If thats why you say this, then just because something is not within your experience does not mean its not within someone elses experience. In this light, extrordinary would be just un ordinary. So, if how our bodies work is extrordinary, then the same standard of evidence for that should be for God. All levels of reality should have the same level or standard of evidence. Reality is reality. Whether it be God or how our bodies work or seeing the earth from space.
This assumes God is like a Jennie who is our slave and answers our every beck and call. So the results "should" not be positive if WE are Gods slaves, not God our slave.
And what if God cannot be pin down by our boxes we try to put him in?
True. But, we know he sometimes interferes because of anectdotal experiences.
True, within the conventional timeline. But if you look at a different time period, theres lots of evidence. The issue is chronology.
This article by a archeologist shows the evidence of slaves in egypt and the exodus at a different time period Searching for Moses - creation.com
Youv lumped all humans in this statement. He has not hidden himself from all humans. Just some. And he dont condemn all either. In my view/interpretation, he does not condemn those who perse have wrong or incorrect beliefs theve mentally assent to. Rather he condemns evil doers. But, even those he acceps if they change.
Yes, a version of the christian God. But, i have my own unique interpretation. Although i doubt im the only one that believes this interpretation.
Suppose theres a war between two countries and in this war, solders sacrifice there lives for the freedom of the country there defending. The war was caused by certain individuals in powers conflicts. But, the innocent solders sacrifice there lives to save the country. Despite its unfairness, its necessary.
Ok...in the case of Jesus: Jesus was not DRAFTED or forced to sacrifice his life. John 10:18 "No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of my own accord."
I dont interpret the bible to teach eternal torture. Gods punishment is a case by case. The punishment fits the crime. Some are anialated or destroyed at death. Thats eternal sleep. No torture. Some are held in a place called tartarus or hades (aka hell) but its temporary, more like a pergatory if ya will. But its not physical pain, its mental/emotional torment. People can be redeemed from this place. And some enter paradise (aka heaven). But there is no eternal torture. Theres a good biblical case to make for this view. Plus NDEs corroborate this.
Lets go back to that war analogy. The conflicts of the people in power are the ones that sell the country to war and the solders to death.
Adam/eve and the snake (devil) are the ones in power. God gives them freedom to use that power. They use it wrongly. They demonstrate great iresponsibility. All the people who come from there body are now sold us slaves to the snake. God allows this to teach man what happens when they use power irresponsibly. Those under there power pay the brunt of it. Jesus is the one who is the solder in the war to sacrifice himself to gain our freedom back.
Ok....how about ill throw it in through a question. How can something come from nothing, then that something over billions of years by pure chances become all the order and design we have now?
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Most religious folks are okay with the normal scientific standards when it comes to evidence. Science does not say it is necessary to see God directly to confirm his existence. God can be inferred from the effects he produces. Examples would be design within the universe and nature. Information in DNA and peoples experiences of apparitions, audable voices and NDEs and ESPs.
Wait, why is Gods existence extrordinary? His existence can be a wonderful thing, but extrordinary? Even if it is extrordinary that dont equel unreal. Looking at the earth from space is extrordinary, but we know its still real. How our bodies work is extrordinary, but its real.
Are you meaning extrordinary because you have not experienced God? If thats why you say this, then just because something is not within your experience does not mean its not within someone elses experience. In this light, extrordinary would be just un ordinary. So, if how our bodies work is extrordinary, then the same standard of evidence for that should be for God. All levels of reality should have the same level or standard of evidence. Reality is reality. Whether it be God or how our bodies work or seeing the earth from space.
This assumes God is like a Jennie who is our slave and answers our every beck and call. So the results "should" not be positive if WE are Gods slaves, not God our slave.
And what if God cannot be pin down by our boxes we try to put him in?
True. But, we know he sometimes interferes because of anectdotal experiences.
True, within the conventional timeline. But if you look at a different time period, theres lots of evidence. The issue is chronology.
This article by a archeologist shows the evidence of slaves in egypt and the exodus at a different time period Searching for Moses - creation.com
Youv lumped all humans in this statement. He has not hidden himself from all humans. Just some. And he dont condemn all either. In my view/interpretation, he does not condemn those who perse have wrong or incorrect beliefs theve mentally assent to. Rather he condemns evil doers. But, even those he acceps if they change.
Yes, a version of the christian God. But, i have my own unique interpretation. Although i doubt im the only one that believes this interpretation.
Suppose theres a war between two countries and in this war, solders sacrifice there lives for the freedom of the country there defending. The war was caused by certain individuals in powers conflicts. But, the innocent solders sacrifice there lives to save the country. Despite its unfairness, its necessary.
Ok...in the case of Jesus: Jesus was not DRAFTED or forced to sacrifice his life. John 10:18 "No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of my own accord."
I dont interpret the bible to teach eternal torture. Gods punishment is a case by case. The punishment fits the crime. Some are anialated or destroyed at death. Thats eternal sleep. No torture. Some are held in a place called tartarus or hades (aka hell) but its temporary, more like a pergatory if ya will. But its not physical pain, its mental/emotional torment. People can be redeemed from this place. And some enter paradise (aka heaven). But there is no eternal torture. Theres a good biblical case to make for this view. Plus NDEs corroborate this.
Lets go back to that war analogy. The conflicts of the people in power are the ones that sell the country to war and the solders to death.
Adam/eve and the snake (devil) are the ones in power. God gives them freedom to use that power. They use it wrongly. They demonstrate great iresponsibility. All the people who come from there body are now sold us slaves to the snake. God allows this to teach man what happens when they use power irresponsibly. Those under there power pay the brunt of it. Jesus is the one who is the solder in the war to sacrifice himself to gain our freedom back.
Ok....how about ill throw it in through a question. How can something come from nothing, then that something over billions of years by pure chances become all the order and design we have now?
I will take time to track down the qualifications of the people in the article when I have a chance and comment directly on the article then. Thanks for,the link.
Do you have any links to scientific studies other than on a creationist website?
Well, I’m not a cosmologist or a physicist, so I don’t really know what existed before the big bang. I also don’t know that there was “nothing” at some point. Neither do you know these things.
If you insist on using your own personal interpretation, then everyone else is free to do so as well. In fact, that is not far from what has happened. Why would such a god who really wanted to communicate do so by having things passed around orally from person to person for hundreds of years, then have part of his message written down in a language that almost became dead and most people don’t understand, then later add more stuff in different languages which would change over the centuries with usage, have them manually copied multiple times, translated, copied again, then have many of the stories gathered together in a book and others left out?
That is incredibly haphazard. An omniscient being would understand this is a problem.
I don’t buy the adam and eve story, don’t see any evidence of a supernatural evil being, and certainly don’t believe snakes (or donkeys) talk. I don’t think someone can actually walk on water, multiply a few fish and loaves of bread, or rise from the brave after three days. I also do not believe virgins give birth, unless ;perhaps they have been inseminated with sperm using clinical methods.
The reason that the god proposition is extraordinary is it postulates a supernatural being that can speak universes into existence, knows the end of time from the beginning, and is all powerful. All this and no was to test for the god or falsify the claims.
Here’s an analogy......
If you told me you had a car in your garage, I would probably take you at your word, because the claim is mundane and has no effect on me one way or the other. I could slways ask to see the car if I wanted to be dead sure.
But what if you came up to me and said you had a pink fire breathing dragon in your garage? Should I take that claim at face value? No.....it’s nature is extraordinary. Noone has ever demonstrated the existence of such a creature, there are no photos, no pink dragon scales to examine, there is no cage at the local zoo with one in it. Going further, what if when I asked to see the dragon, you said it was invisible, unknowable, and existed outside of the known universe? Further, it creates universes. The claim of a god is actually more extraordinary. The god also supposedly had a son who altered the laws of physics to do miracles and whom he had killed for someone else’s transgressions. Further, the god blamed humans thousands of generations removed from the transgressors for what they supposedly did, even though they would not even exist for thousands of years afterwards.
If we can all have our own personal interpretations, I can leave you with yours, and I can go with interpreting the Bible as mythology.
My apologies for the red type. Haven’t figured out the quote system yet.
Jollybear
Hey
Fair enough.
Heres a wiki one. New Chronology (Rohl) - Wikipedia
But, just because its on a creation site dont make it wrong, it dont even make it unscientific. The article was written by an archeologist. Just because he believes the bible is right does not disqualify him. Every persons position has to be dealt with on its own merits, not on what website its on.
The wiki article mentions an egyptologist who believes in a revision of chronology.
Even if you wer a cosmologist or physiciat, even then you could not fully know ether.
But, as for "knowing" im not so much approuching all this with claims of knowledge, but rather philosophical, logical and a metaphysical level.
So, that said, im more so asking you what you believe happened at the beginning, not what you "know" happened?
Do you believe there was a beginning or do you believe the universe was always existent?
When i said i have my interpretations of the bible, i was merely trying to concise my communication. But, yes, everyone is "free" to interpret. But, thats not what i was trying to communicate. The interpretations i gave you wer not interpretations done haphazardly or arbitrarily. They wer given concisely but wer based on reason and study. Which, of course, anyone can say that, and so, if you want, i can go deeper into why i interpret how i do.
Not all of the writtings wer circulated orally for hundreds of years before being written down. Some of them wer written down really quickly. Plus before the dead sea scroll discovery people had to believe or not believe the OT was preserved right. Then the scrolls wer discovered and showed a comparison that revealed great preservation.
But, as for God wanting to communicate, he still gives freedom to people when he communicates. When that happens theres gonna be problems like where a messenger gets killed or a letter or scroll gets burned.
Most people dont need to understand the original language. The scholars do. They make whats called hebrew and greek lexicons. So, we the lay people can look at it, see how the hebrew or greek words can be translated and see there definitions.
I think this is to generalized. On a big scale, its making a mountain out of a mole hill since the bible is a large piece of liturature over the course of alot of time. And add to the point i already made, that God gave freedom, you will naturally get some haphazardness go on. But, it dont mean its unreliable.
You dont believe donkeys talk? You mean to tell me you never had a cat or dog talk to you before? What planet are people livin on. What are you smokin?
.....Im kidding. But, it seams so far we are discussing multiple subjects within the bible that if we dive into all of them, our posts will get too big. Or, each subject will suffer from lack of detail. So, that said, ill leave the donkey be, for now anyway.
Well the resurrection of Jesus issue is worthy to discuss. In your view why would the apostles die for what they knew was a lie (Jesus resurrection)? Or did they not know? Whats your view?
Think of it like this: if God could not speak universes into existence, THEN THAT would be more extrordinary because that would mean the creation has power over its creator. No matter what you believe, either one is extrordinary. Whether you believe something came from nothing and that something became everything over billions of years by pure chance designing all we see or you believe the universe was just always here or you believe God made it. All three of those views are extrordinary for different reasons. Extrordinary therefore cannot mean something is false.
I dont think God and the fire breathin dragon is a good comparison. Although i do understand your point. God would transcend creation, that means he could not be a dragon for a dragon has arms, tail, head, ect. Those are "created" things. God would be pure conscious, intelligent energy.
Remember though, his Son said "no one takes my life, i give it of my own accord"?
Remember though that God was teaching what happens when power is used irresponsibly. He gave freedom and with freedom comes either good or evil decisions and both come with there own consequences.
Plus, the human race was not blamed for adams sin, the human race was effected by his sin. Plus, the human race did not need to be blamed for adams sin, they committed enough of there own, lol.
Its not about personal interpretations. Like my point above about it. Its not about what i WANT the bible to say or be, its about properly figuring out what it truely says.
Thats fine.
Firemorphic
Activist Membrane
I 100%, unabashedly agree. It is, firstly, the threat to all the religions (and others) listed, then secondly, is a threat to secularism (and within secularism itself too) in all of it's forms, is a destructive and evil force.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Fair enough.
Heres a wiki one. New Chronology (Rohl) - Wikipedia
But, just because its on a creation site dont make it wrong, it dont even make it unscientific. The article was written by an archeologist. Just because he believes the bible is right does not disqualify him. Every persons position has to be dealt with on its own merits, not on what website its on.
The wiki article mentions an egyptologist who believes in a revision of chronology.
Even if you wer a cosmologist or physiciat, even then you could not fully know ether.
But, as for "knowing" im not so much approuching all this with claims of knowledge, but rather philosophical, logical and a metaphysical level.
So, that said, im more so asking you what you believe happened at the beginning, not what you "know" happened?
Do you believe there was a beginning or do you believe the universe was always existent?
When i said i have my interpretations of the bible, i was merely trying to concise my communication. But, yes, everyone is "free" to interpret. But, thats not what i was trying to communicate. The interpretations i gave you wer not interpretations done haphazardly or arbitrarily. They wer given concisely but wer based on reason and study. Which, of course, anyone can say that, and so, if you want, i can go deeper into why i interpret how i do.
Not all of the writtings wer circulated orally for hundreds of years before being written down. Some of them wer written down really quickly. Plus before the dead sea scroll discovery people had to believe or not believe the OT was preserved right. Then the scrolls wer discovered and showed a comparison that revealed great preservation.
But, as for God wanting to communicate, he still gives freedom to people when he communicates. When that happens theres gonna be problems like where a messenger gets killed or a letter or scroll gets burned.
Most people dont need to understand the original language. The scholars do. They make whats called hebrew and greek lexicons. So, we the lay people can look at it, see how the hebrew or greek words can be translated and see there definitions.
I think this is to generalized. On a big scale, its making a mountain out of a mole hill since the bible is a large piece of liturature over the course of alot of time. And add to the point i already made, that God gave freedom, you will naturally get some haphazardness go on. But, it dont mean its unreliable.
You dont believe donkeys talk? You mean to tell me you never had a cat or dog talk to you before? What planet are people livin on. What are you smokin?
But, it seams so far we are discussing multiple subjects within the bible that if we dive into all of them, our posts will get too big. Or, each subject will suffer from lack of detail. So, that said, ill leave the donkey be, for now anyway.
Well the resurrection of Jesus issue is worthy to discuss. In your view why would the apostles die for what they knew was a lie (Jesus resurrection)? Or did they not know? Whats your view?
Think of it like this: if God could not speak universes into existence, THEN THAT would be more extrordinary because that would mean the creation has power over its creator. No matter what you believe, either one is extrordinary. Whether you believe something came from nothing and that something became everything over billions of years by pure chance designing all we see or you believe the universe was just always here or you believe God made it. All three of those views are extrordinary for different reasons. Extrordinary therefore cannot mean something is false.
I dont think God and the fire breathin dragon is a good comparison. Although i do understand your point. God would transcend creation, that means he could not be a dragon for a dragon has arms, tail, head, ect. Those are "created" things. God would be pure conscious, intelligent energy.
Remember though, his Son said "no one takes my life, i give it of my own accord"?
Remember though that God was teaching what happens when power is used irresponsibly. He gave freedom and with freedom comes either good or evil decisions and both come with there own consequences.
Plus, the human race was not blamed for adams sin, the human race was effected by his sin. Plus, the human race did not need to be blamed for adams sin, they committed enough of there own, lol.
Its not about personal interpretations. Like my point above about it. Its not about what i WANT the bible to say or be, its about properly figuring out what it truely says.
Thats fine.
No, just because something is on a creationist website does not mean it is necessarily wrong or unscientific. But it lessens the probability of it being so. And when pondering things such as archaeology, cosmology, and physics, I always go with the consensus, and not with the outliers, such as Rhol. Could he be correct? Sure, the possibility exists. But at this point, the likelihood seems quite low. The Wiki article you linked to provide some of the reasons the academic community thinks Rohl's timeline is not accurate. Since I do not have a sound education in such a subject, I will have to wait until consensus agrees with him.
Which points to one of the primary issues with websites supporting creationism. They do not go with the consensus but cherry-pick people or ideas that seem to conform to what they want to believe and ignore broad swaths of research which contradict what they want to be true without providing sound reasons why the research of the broad academic community should be ignored. In the case of Rohl, he has yet to demonstrate to the academic community at large that his ideas are sound, therefore a lay person should not accept it as factual, but rather hypothetical.
Again, with regard to the history of the universe, I can only go with the conclusions of the scientists who have spent their lives in the field and have done the work to support their theories.
The Big Bang model is currently the best one. However, it only deals with a certain amount of cosmological history and the math breaks down just before the expansion. I see no reason to speculate beyond that time. There have been two or perhaps more hypotheses put forward, but all are untestable and unfalsifiable at this point in time. I could list a dozen or a hundred dreamed up scenarios and list them if I gave enough time to it, but what is the point? It would be just wild speculation from a person who has no background in the subject. Unjustified speculation on my part would add nothing to the conversation.
"I don't know" is a perfectly logical answer. But if it makes you feel more comfortable, when the scientific community has a theory rather than a hypothesis about what preceded the point called the singularity, I will go with their judgement on the matter.
Yes, my characterization of the history of the stories collected in the bible was a broad generalization. But the point is valid. Your god is a horrible communicator if he is forced to depend upon the foibles of human language.
If your god gives people the freedom to incorrectly copy his messages to hope they can somehow sort it out thousands of years later, again.....poor communication skills.
There is no need for me to delve into your own personal way of interpreting things. There are scholars who devote their entire career to that effort and there is confusion among those academics to this day. I am not qualified to dispute their interpretations, or yours.
The reason I am not interested in even attempting to do so is that at the core of this conversation, the first thing that needs to be supported is the existence of your god. There is nothing in the Bible that would do so. Therefore, it matters not to me which interpretation you want to use any of the events in the Bible.
Also, my story about the dragon in the garage is valid to demonstrate the point of why extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have failed to adequately describe the god you believe in, but if it fits the common notion of the Christian god in general, then it is more fantastical than a dragon.
When you state that it would be extraordinary if God could not speak universes into existence it would mean that the creation has power over the creator, you are begging the question. You are assuming at the outset that there is a God in existence and you are assuming that is how universes are created. When you have sound evidence that the god actually exists and demonstrate that the proposed god can indeed create a universe in such a manner, then you will have something.
Yes, I agree with you, the conversation has gone down too many rabbit holes.
So let's start over at the god part. Define in the most precise manner you can what your god is, and then provide the very best evidence you have for the existence of your god. It should not be hearsay or speculation, and it should not be merely philosophical in nature. For instance, in what ways does your god interact with our reality that we can measure and test for?
I'm asking you to bring it all down to a scientific methodology. Provide your hypothesis for a god, then suggest the scientific methodology we can use to test your hypothesis.
This will keep us from the rabbit hole problem. If you cannot provide sound scientifically validated evidence for the actual existence of your god, all the other rabbit holes disappear.
Jollybear
Hey
Why does it being on a creationist site lesson the probability of it being true?
So majority and might make right?
This is argumentum ad populum.
Has not consensus through history changed? It has.
Is the likelyhood low because of consensus?
It could also be said that rohl pin points assumptions and problems in the current consensus.
It could also be said that mythicists ignore problems in there own views and in this case there own chronologies.
Waiting on consensus is not the answer.
There "theories" are no different then "faith".
Plus, alot of different scientists believe God created the universe.
It would ad valuable input to the conversation.
Because you see, when you strip away ALL the lingo and all the nois information and strip away all the euphemisms, all thats left are these views >
Either 1: the universe has always existed.
Or 2: the universe was made from nothing by pure chance over much time.
Or 3: God created the universe.
How is "i dont know" logical when you assert to atheism? Agnosticism is more consistent with "i dont know".
But, in anycase, im not asking you what you know, but what you believe.
Also, does "i dont know" mean your not decided on what you believe? Or does it mean you are decided on your belief, but you just dont know if said belief is true?
That does not make me feel better. Consensus is not the answer. Consensus is not evidence. Its not even a rational reason for a decided belief.
I cant agree because my point about God giving freedom is equally a valid point. Plus the OT and NT attestation has stood up to time. Very little in percentage has changed in the texts and manuscrips despite scribes copying it for a long time. And the changes that have occured from manuscrips are miniscule.
God can communicate, but what the writters do with it is on them. Also what we do with it is on us. Plus, very little has changed. And amongs scholars, they have figured out how much has changed, given that they log and compare manuscrips. Its minuscule.
I think you should have more confidence in your abilities. You dont need qualifications or PhDs to look at research or evidence. Now that said, im not saying theres no value to scholars, there is, all forms of work are good. But, that work is not the same as evidence. Evidence is all at our own fingertips and critical minds.
But, you even brought up a good point, that scholars disagree among themselves. Isnt that reason to not appeal to consensus?
I dont agree that nothing in the bible can be used in support of Gods existence. Jesus resurrection i think is a good one that can be used.
I think interpretation matters because if someone has a wrong interpretation and then another comes along and shows falicious logical problems in those interpretations, then that person could easily say the bible is wrong. But, what if the bible is not wrong, ehat if its that fallacious interpretation is wrong?
The eternal torture in hell was already an example we went over.
The way i described God, being a concious, intelligent being of infinate energy is nothing compared to a dragon which has a head, tail, neck, which are created things.
Its not about proof. I got no direct proof. Its about the most logical explanation.
Either the universe was always here or the universe came from nothing by pure chance over much time, or God created it.
Which one sounds more logical for you?
Yes.
Your standard is too high. Plus, even if God appeared to everyone, do you think everyone would agree? Some would still say its a mass halucination. And some would still resist God.
But, the best evidence is anectdotal experiences (NDEs, OBEs, ESPs and apparitions)
The next piece is design that ripples through all nature. Design infers a desighner.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Why does it being on a creationist site lesson the probability of it being true?
So majority and might make right?
there is no might here. when considering subjects such as archaeology, any one of the thousands working in the field know much more about the subject than either one of us could ever hope to know. If you go to a thoussnd mechanics and 999 tell you you need brake pads and 1 tells you that you do not, are you most likely going to get the brake pads or just keep driving?
This is argumentum ad populum.
Not quite. this is consensus among experts in the field, not a poll of the population at large.
Thereis a differnce.
Has not consensus through history changed? It has.
Yes, consensus has and will chsnge when the evidence supports the change. That is one of the strengths of the scientific method. When your favorite archaeologist can provide sufficient evidence to change the views of his peers, he can also change the consensus. Until then, I will go with the current consensus.
your disdain for the consensus is merely rooted in the fact that it does not support what you wish to believe, not in sound scientific research.
Is the likelyhood low because of consensus?
The likelyhood is low because nearly everyone in that field of study does not think the current evidence supports his hypothesis.
It could also be said that rohl pin points assumptions and problems in the current consensus.
When he has provided peer reviewed work that demonstrates thos assumptions are incorrect, he will change the consensus. He has not demonstrate the ability to do so at this time. Further, if you read the entire Wiki article, you will see that his own hypothesis is rife with assumptions and does damage to other evidence.
It could also be said that mythicists ignore problems in there own views and in this case there own chronologies.
Waiting on consensus is not the answer.
Cherry-picking outliers to try and justify a pre-existing belief is not the answer. Listening to the consensus of thought of the experts in a complex and technical field is, in fact, the best answer, if those are the two choices.
There "theories" are no different then "faith".
A scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world based upon a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such theories are not guesses but reliable accounts of the real world.
Faith? Faith is the excuse people give when they do not have the facts to support their beliefs.
Plus, alot of different scientists believe God created the universe.
They are in the minority, and in the fields of cosmology and phisics, almost non-existent. And none of them have ever published a peer reviewed paper that comes to the conclusion that “god did it”. They compartmentalize their religious beliefs to avoid cognitive dissonance.
It would ad valuable input to the conversation.
Because you see, when you strip away ALL the lingo and all the nois information and strip away all the euphemisms, all thats left are these views >
Either 1: the universe has always existed.
Or 2: the universe was made from nothing by pure chance over much time.
Or 3: God created the universe.
And why do those have to be the only possible answers? Because you can’t think of any others?
Since we know that the universe did have a beginning.....and I have already said that I support the Big Bang concept as an explanation, I think you are confusing the beginning of the universe with the question of has something always existed. Those are two different questions.
It is possible that something has always existed, or it is possible that everything came into being with the beginning of our universe because of quantum fluctuations. I have no idea which, if either, is correct.
Obviously, since god is assumed to be eternal, theists already assume it is possible for something to exist without beginning. I prefer not to add the extra layer since all of that is currently unknowable and likely always will be.
How is "i dont know" logical when you assert to atheism? Agnosticism is more consistent with "i dont know".
We are currently discussing cosmology and physics, not religious belief. My atheism concerns one subject only.......whether I hold a belief in a deity. I do not believe in deities because I have not seen sufficient evidence to support the assertion. Cosmology plays no part in my lack of belief. It is not only logical, but intellectually honest to say I don’t know when I don’t know.
But, in anycase, im not asking you what you know, but what you believe.
I believe rhe best answer ro how the universe in which we exist is the Big Bang theory, as I have already stated twice. What occured before that, if anything, I have no Idea.
Also, does "i dont know" mean your not decided on what you believe? Or does it mean you are decided on your belief, but you just dont know if said belief is true?
Once again, I believe the Big Bang theory is the best explanation so far, given the evidence we have to date.
As to what happened before that event, I DO NOT KNOW, and I do not have any “beliefs” regarding anything prior to that event.
That does not make me feel better. Consensus is not the answer. Consensus is not evidence. Its not even a rational reason for a decided belief.
I ever said consensus was evidence. But a consensus of scientists on the subject which they are trained in and base upon a multitude of overlaping and intertwined peices of evidence is the soundest footing I could hope to be on. it rises head and shoulders a ove religious dogma.
I cant agree because my point about God giving freedom is equally a valid point. Plus the OT and NT attestation has stood up to time. Very little in percentage has changed in the texts and manuscrips despite scribes copying it for a long time. And the changes that have occured from manuscrips are miniscule.
You have yet to define your god and provide the necessary evidence for it’s existence, so the point is lost on someone who doesn’t think it exists. It isn’t even an argument.
I don’t care if everything in the stories thrown together in the Bible is exactly the same as the first time they were told, or everything has changed, or anything in between. The Bible has as much validity to me as a Harry Potter novel.
God can communicate, but what the writters do with it is on them. Also what we do with it is on us. Plus, very little has changed. And amongs scholars, they have figured out how much has changed, given that they log and compare manuscrips. Its minuscule.
The fact that things have changed, and that it is still open to personal interpretation is damning in itself. But as stated above, I do,not hold the stories as particularly authoritative, anyway, so it does not matter much to me.
I think you should have more confidence in your abilities. You dont need qualifications or PhDs to look at research or evidence. Now that said, im not saying theres no value to scholars, there is, all forms of work are good. But, that work is not the same as evidence. Evidence is all at our own fingertips and critical minds.
Sure, but who will have a better grasp of such things as ancient history, cosmology, and physics? Someone who holds a doctorate in the subject and has spent his working career working in the field, or an armchair quarterback?
But, you even brought up a good point, that scholars disagree among themselves. Isnt that reason to not appeal to consensus?
No, it is not a good reason.
I dont agree that nothing in the bible can be used in support of Gods existence. Jesus resurrection i think is a good one that can be used.
There are no firsthand accounts of the supposed event. And even if there were, that is not sufficient to believe it occured. We have plenty of people today who will swear they were taken aboard an alien spacecraft and experimented on. I do not believe those people either. And they are first hand accounts and I could at least talk directly with those people if I wished.
I think interpretation matters because if someone has a wrong interpretation and then another comes along and shows falicious logical problems in those interpretations, then that person could easily say the bible is wrong. But, what if the bible is not wrong, ehat if its that fallacious interpretation is wrong?
For me, the fact that an all knowing, all powerful god can't explain things in a way that does not require endless interpretation and speculation is a dead give away that the text in question has nothing to do with a god and everything to do with human origin.
The eternal torture in hell was already an example we went over.
The way i described God, being a concious, intelligent being of infinate energy is nothing compared to a dragon which has a head, tail, neck, which are created things.
Only the description is different. the inability to provide good evidence is the same. It is easier to believe in the dragon because I do,not claim it is all knowing, all poweful, lives outside space and time, is eternal, creates universes, or cares if Jews eat bacon.
Its not about proof. I got no direct proof. Its about the most logical explanation.
Logic cannot be founded purely upon unsubstantiated claims.
Either the universe was always here or the universe came from nothing by pure chance over much time, or God created it.
already asked and answered above. I will go with the Big Bang theory until there is evidence of greater weight that points in another direction.
Which one sounds more logical for you?
The theory that takes into account all of the evidence and does no damage to any of it gets my vote.
So, again......the Big Bang.......
Yes.
Your standard is too high. Plus, even if God appeared to everyone, do you think everyone would agree? Some would still say its a mass halucination. And some would still resist God.
An all knowing god would know precisely what each individual would need to believe and an all powerful god would have the ability to provide that evidence.
No, your standard is lacking.
But, the best evidence is anectdotal experiences (NDEs, OBEs, ESPs and apparitions)
Anecdotal evidence is one of the worst kinds of evidence. In the case of extraordinay claims, it is next to worthless. Should I believe in Big Foot, Loch Ness Monster, Fairies, Grey men from space? All anecdotal.
There is virtually no sound scientific evidence for the things you list above.
The next piece is design that ripples through all nature. Design infers a designer.
I am aware of the old watchmaker argument. It fails in a number of ways.You need to demonstrate that something is designed, not just assert it. Part of that is to demonstrate that a designer actuslly exists, snd you have yet to meet that burden..
Your posts are becoming unusually lengthy and it is difficult to respond in a thorough manner.
Please begin again as I requested and instead of trying to respond to all,of these points again, just provide what you think is the best science based evidence for the existemce of your preferred deity.
If all you have is the Bible stories and anecdotal evidence, this conversation will be fruitless.
Jollybear
Hey
Mechanics and archeology are different because with machanics theres no assumptions, either brakes need to be fixed or they dont. Either the brakes are bad or there not. And the knowledge on how to fix them is there.
With archeology, there is wide vast amounts of land, desert, and thousands of years of time either burrying places, stuff, and artifacts being destroyed and nothing comes with a tage saying "this artifact or place is from this time period or from these people.
Theres so many assumptions. Very little knowledge, unlike mechanics.
Thats true, but again, the consensus of the "experts" back in the day was that the earth was flat. So, consensus means little. But, not everyone believed back then the earth was flat. So, minority can be right.
The so called "evidence" back in the day was the earth was flat and only "millions" of years old, vs billions.
So, this "evidence" that keeps changing is therefore not REAL evidence.
The only hope of possibly finding the REAL evidence is through critical thinking and questioning everything.
I wonder WHY they think that? Isnt that whats most important, the why? Also, how do you know MOST dont agree with his revision of chronology? Was there a poll done?
At some period im going to make a thread on peer review because i think its put on too a high a padestal.
The current consensus despite peer review still has assumptions.
I dont think either of those are the answer. The actual evidence and discussing it is the answer. Duscussing it because the so called evidence tends to change.
But, dont atheists have a pre existing belief too?
And design can be that.
So people believe out of a vacume, they have no reasons?
And how do you know all that?
Isaac newton
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God "pantokrator," or Universal Ruler."
Its not about what i can think. There just is not any others. I have thought about it, i have read lots. Those 3 are the only options. Of course those 3 have variations, but when its broken down to its core, theres just 3 options.
Well, we already "know" something cannot come from pure nothingness because if it could wed see that. Plus its not logical. From nothing, nothing comes.
So, the big bang, could not have come from nothing. So, something always had to have existed.
If this something was a sea of infinate energy without concious intelligence, then how would this sea of energy create all the design and order? Furthermore, WHEN would this sea create it since the sea of energy would be eternal, it would then take eternity for it to create the begining bang, and since it take forever, it would then never happen, since it be forever to take place.
So, it looks like we need this sea of energy to have intelligence and conciousness. It needs intelligence in order to create time. Time gets it out of eternity in order to BEGIN creating. Then it needs its intelligence to design and create order and matter.
So, time, space and matter has to be made simultaneously. If matter was made without time/space, then WHEN would it be made? And WHERE would it be made? If time/space was made before matter, what would it look like?
So, it seams to be more logical to say this sea of energy is intelligent and conscious.
But you have also not seen evidence AGAINST the existence of God either. Yet you dont believe in God. So, whats the core root reason for your lack of belief? Is it really due to the God not being proven? Because hes not disproven thats for sure.
How dont you have any beliefs before the big bang event when you tell me you dont believe any deity created it? That sounds like a belief to me.
I think your missing too things here.
1: science has many departments. So, a biologist knows just as much about cosmology as you or i could.
Plus, theres different departments just within the biology field itself.
So, this does not help us either. Real evidence, data, discussing it, thats what matters.
Also, real science has no dogma. But, within the field, there is the very real dogma of naturalism/materialism.
That dogma is just as real and biased as any religious dogma is.
There is good reason to believe the accounts. If theres claims of witnesses to the resurrection and these people are persecuted and wont recant under death. That looks like they told the truth.
Also my mom saw an alien ship. I believe her. I really truly dont believe she lied to me.
Does no damage to any of it? How do you know it does no damage to any of it? Thats claiming theres no problems within the theory. Are you sure about that?
Yes, he has the ability, but he dont provide it because it depreciates the journey , the process.
Why is anectdotal the worst kind? I think its the BEST kind.
To say theres no sound scientific evidence for anectdotal NDE and ESP experiences, you mean EMPIRICAL. In that case theres no emperical scientific evidence my last dream i remembered was a snake bit me on the heel. But, its true, that was my dream. So, i have empirical evidence for myself because it was MY experience.
And you know dreams are real because you have them. But, NDEs and ESPs are different to you because of your lack of experience in that area.
But you see, a lack of experience dont equel others have not had it. And as fare as im aware, claims of big foot are not in the thousands while NDEs and ESPs are. NDEs more so then ESPs.
If you see the words "hello, im God" written in the sand on a beach, would you need to find the person who did it before you could believe SOMEONE wrote it? Or would you believe wind, water, crabs, birds all moving together over time caused the markings to move in just the right spots in order to make "hello, im God" appear?
Last edited: