407 replies to this topic

[CodeCat]

Not overrule. Merely ignore until evidence is found.

[Flechette?]

It really depends if the historical eye-witness observed the parting of the Red Sea or the Reed Sea, the latter which could of under certain conditions could of been involved in a temporary withdrawal and subsequent resurgence of water. Unlike the Red Sea, it has since then dried up.

[CodeCat]

That confusion would only exist in English, not in any other language.

[Golan]

CodeCat, on 23 Apr 2009, 10:10, said:

Not overrule. Merely ignore until evidence is found.

Well, according to The Book, said evidence has already been found. After all, seeing that it can be categorized as a (semi) transcendent event, the problem of reproducibility should not be seen as counter evidence. Now, it's not like any of you does have an LHC in his garage to verify their results, do you?

Edited by Golan, 23 April 2009 - 11:58.

[CodeCat]

A book is not reproducable evidence.

[Golan]

First: Didn't say so.
Second: But neither are the publications that will be made by the LHC guys. Still I doubt that you are going to argue that those are false simply because you don't have those shiny CERN gadgets in your basement. Same applies to the Moses business... just because you don't have a god-sent messiah available doesn't imply that what's written in The Book is any less feasible. The guy was powered by God himself, after all.

Edited by Golan, 23 April 2009 - 12:45.

[Chyros]

Golan, on 23 Apr 2009, 9:47, said:

So only because you don't have a divine prophet in your lab staff you can overrule a historical eye-witness account?

A historical account on paper that is very very old and has been passed on and translated dozens upon dozens of times is, I dare say, hardly any evidence, if at all.

Golan, on 23 Apr 2009, 14:42, said:

Second: But neither are the publications that will be made by the LHC guys. Still I doubt that you are going to argue that those are false simply because you don't have those shiny CERN gadgets in your basement.

I could verify a lot of science right here in my lab. Just dive into the chemical storage, retrieve something, and do an experiment. Whatever you think, you cannot say I have no cause to believe science.

[Ghostrider]

Being Roman Catholic, religion at the very least provides me with set morals, which I believe are very well-defined morals. In addition, I must say that going to Church every Sunday is like a stress reliever, and gives me a chance to reflect on what I'm doing in life (i.e. what wrongs I have committed, what I'm currently doing, etc.).

I don't believe in forcing religion on anyone, but to me the Catholic religion makes a ton of sense. If at the end of my life it turns out I'm wrong, the most I'd have lost was some hours in church, but I'd still have gained participation in a friendly community, comfort, and a strong set of morals to live by.

[SorataZ]

This exact kind of discusion is what I did monday on an other forum. Surely it is ok to believe in religion, but you should not override science with it - science is proven facts or at least what seems most plausible on the actual standarts, religion is not. I am 95% atheistic and 5% fan of guardian angels, but I do not believe in an allmighty, allknowing and allloving god, because it is not plausible if you compare it with the world. I know this is old, bu think about the following:
Why does war exist? Why does evil anyhow exist? And why does He not help us against it? If God:
-is allmighty but not allloving, He would be sadistic.
-is allloving but not allmighty, He is impotent.
-is neither allmighty nor allloving, He is not worth being praised.
-is allmighty and allloving, why does He not do anything against the evil?

[Alias]

KamuiK, on 24 Apr 2009, 1:48, said:

-is allmighty and allloving, why does He not do anything against the evil?

It's called free choice.

[SorataZ]

Alias, on 23 Apr 2009, 17:49, said:

KamuiK, on 24 Apr 2009, 1:48, said:

-is allmighty and allloving, why does He not do anything against the evil?

It's called free choice.

Then He is not allmighty, if he cannot alter the mind.

[Alias]

KamuiK, on 24 Apr 2009, 1:57, said:

Alias, on 23 Apr 2009, 17:49, said:

KamuiK, on 24 Apr 2009, 1:48, said:

-is allmighty and allloving, why does He not do anything against the evil?

It's called free choice.

Then He is not allmighty, if he cannot alter the mind.

Says who?
Just because something isn't done, doesn't mean it can't be done.

[Golan]

God is true neutral, simple as that. Just because you can disprove or logically refute one interpretation doesn't rule out that one of the other 2781e49 is right.

Chyros, on 23 Apr 2009, 13:53, said:

Golan, on 23 Apr 2009, 9:47, said:

So only because you don't have a divine prophet in your lab staff you can overrule a historical eye-witness account?

A historical account on paper that is very very old and has been passed on and translated dozens upon dozens of times is, I dare say, hardly any evidence, if at all.

It is hardly any evidence to the contrary either.

Chyros, on 23 Apr 2009, 13:53, said:

Golan, on 23 Apr 2009, 14:42, said:

Second: But neither are the publications that will be made by the LHC guys. Still I doubt that you are going to argue that those are false simply because you don't have those shiny CERN gadgets in your basement.

I could verify a lot of science right here in my lab. Just dive into the chemical storage, retrieve something, and do an experiment. Whatever you think, you cannot say I have no cause to believe science.

You sir must be fucking kidding me. I'm talking about the LHC, not some random hocus-pocus of the chemistry faculty. Religion too can prove one or two bits...

Edited by Golan, 23 April 2009 - 16:23.

[Chyros]

Golan, on 23 Apr 2009, 18:22, said:

God is true neutral, simple as that.

I'd beg to differ. Deus favet fortibus. If he would exist.

[BeefJeRKy]

To all the talk about Moses parting the Red Sea, has it occured to anyone that Moses was also a warlord who conquered the lands of Canaan? So maybe it was meant that his small group of boats were able to break through the Pharaoh's own efforts?

[Golan]

Chyros, on 23 Apr 2009, 19:13, said:

Golan, on 23 Apr 2009, 18:22, said:

God is true neutral, simple as that.

I'd beg to differ. Deus favet fortibus.

Yeah, that's why my country is still known as the Third Reich today.

But true enough, saying that god only favors those who will win anyways is a safe bet.

Edited by Golan, 23 April 2009 - 19:49.

[CodeCat]

Define win.

[WNxMastrefubu]

KamuiK, on 23 Apr 2009, 11:57, said:

Alias, on 23 Apr 2009, 17:49, said:

KamuiK, on 24 Apr 2009, 1:48, said:

-is allmighty and allloving, why does He not do anything against the evil?

It's called free choice.

Then He is not allmighty, if he cannot alter the mind.

if your sons keep hitting and cutting eachother you would not let them continue and use "free will as an exuse". you would stop them. assuming ofcourse you love your child. eh?

[ultimentra]

God doesn't do anything against evil because without evil there is no good. Without ying there is no yang. Also, God given that he does in fact exist as I believe, I would think that he has a sense of humor. If I were an all powerful being with the power of omnipresence I would love seeing the stupid stuff humans do and laugh at them. Lets not get into there being evidence of christ, because that is very touchy subject on what could be considered evidence. Definitions with topics related to this can be dynamic, as is the world.

[amazin]

moses did not conquer canaan, joshua was the leader at the time (moses died before they entered the promised land, and made joshua the leader, as god told him to).

And why would god create humans that dont have free will? there would be no reward in seeing them do anything, but if humans have free will, and choose to follow god, that is probably much more rewarding

[CommanderJB]

ultimentra, on 24 Apr 2009, 9:39, said:

God doesn't do anything against evil because without evil there is no good. Without ying there is no yang.

No offence, but that hardly works. By the same argument, we should have good so we can have evil! If god was omnipotent then there would be no need for evil, and all could be good - whether or not there is anything to give it contrast does not change its nature.
Also, with respect to the 'free will' card, if you sent your son to die because you thought it'd be nice for everyone down yonder to get a chance to know you, would you really say 'well you can go off and die so maybe a tiny fraction of those people can get up here, while billions who never had a chance to know me can just go off to the hot place' when, if you were truly omnipotent, you had the choice of saving every single one of them, including your son? Saying 'it's free will' doesn't change it for those who have no choice or do not appreciate the issue involved - do you really think that anyone wouldn't convert to Christianity if they were given a clear modern demonstration of god's love and a demonstration of hell as such things are apparently portrayed? - and it's nonsensical enough to suggest that he's fine with people he loves ending up in eternal torment when he could save them, no matter whether they wish for it enough. As people have said, would you let someone you love effectively kill themselves when the alternative is giving them a happy life, even if they *at first* don't appear to want it? At least give 'em a trial version of heaven or something so they can make up their mind and repent first...

Put simply, in order for the free will argument to be valid, you have to give everyone the chance to make an informed decision, and if god thinks that the Bible is enough for that in the modern world, then it just goes to show that we really aren't made in his image after all.

Edited by CommanderJB, 24 April 2009 - 01:53.

[BeefJeRKy]

ultimentra, on 23 Apr 2009, 19:39, said:

God doesn't do anything against evil because without evil there is no good. Without ying there is no yang. Also, God given that he does in fact exist as I believe, I would think that he has a sense of humor. If I were an all powerful being with the power of omnipresence I would love seeing the stupid stuff humans do and laugh at them. Lets not get into there being evidence of christ, because that is very touchy subject on what could be considered evidence. Definitions with topics related to this can be dynamic, as is the world.

There is no doubt that Christ was a real person but there is a debate whether he was the son of God or not.

[Chyros]

ultimentra, on 24 Apr 2009, 1:39, said:

God doesn't do anything against evil because without evil there is no good. Without ying there is no yang.

Uhhh, how was it in the garden of Eden then, before Eve took that fruit thingy? The bible itself denies the exact thing you're saying.

[SorataZ]

Random fact:
Eve wasnt the first wife of Adam either. Lilith was the first wife of Adam, but much more intelligent than him and was annoyed by his stupidity and his incompetence about seeing how good God was actually. God then banned her and later created Eve from a rip of Adam. The sense!?
Also, as I already stated, and many after me, the 'free will' hardly contributes to an allloving God. If he would actually love everyone, he would have neither created an *eternal* hell (not fair from a point of justice) nor would he let people die because a few (like the short french guy or this all-known austrian painter) command armies to sole destruction.

[Golan]

CodeCat, on 23 Apr 2009, 21:57, said:

Define win.

An outcome that you like.

WNxMastrefubu, on 23 Apr 2009, 22:49, said:

KamuiK, on 23 Apr 2009, 11:57, said:

Alias, on 23 Apr 2009, 17:49, said:

KamuiK, on 24 Apr 2009, 1:48, said:

-is allmighty and allloving, why does He not do anything against the evil?

It's called free choice.

Then He is not allmighty, if he cannot alter the mind.

if your sons keep hitting and cutting eachother you would not let them continue and use "free will as an exuse". you would stop them. assuming ofcourse you love your child. eh?

a) What makes you think that God would apply your own moral standards?
b) Why the hell should she see humanity as her children?