| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
jampa17 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
 Posted: December 03 2009 at 15:47 |
 Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^^^ if you're referring to the theory of Creationism (AKA The Book of Genesis), as far as I'm concerned it only consists of holes and inconsistencies. Dawkins does a great job at explaining them in great detail in The Greatest Show On Earth, there's absolutely no need for me to explain it over and over again here. But the two of us have already established in the other thread that you are not a skeptic - and doesn't the bible - among other things - teach that people should not strive for knowledge?
|
Tendentiously and hatefully sarcastic... it's true in some way, not in the one you wish... but I'll survive... living is knowledge as well man... not only "physical" evidence... Until you don't feel or taste the warm of God -I hope this do not sound like I'm priestching- and you don't denied it as a "massive hysteria" or "schizophrenia" you won't understand it...
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
 |
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 16:07 |
"the warm of God" ... but even Epignosis has already established that he is malevolent.  As David Hume put it: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence, then evil?
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 17:42 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
"the warm of God" ... but even Epignosis has already established that he is malevolent.
As David Hume put it:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence, then evil?
|
If you are God, you decide what is malevolent.
But you are not God...
|
|
|
|
Kestrel
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 18 2008
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Points: 512
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 18:05 |
|
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 19:44 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
"the warm of God" ... but even Epignosis has already established that he is malevolent.
As David Hume put it:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence, then evil?
|
I think that was Epicurus....
not sure though.
|
|
|
|
AmbianceMan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 30 2009
Location: Dayton, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 113
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 22:13 |
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
"the warm of God" ... but even Epignosis has already established that he is malevolent.
As David Hume put it:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence, then evil?
|
If you are God, you decide what is malevolent.
But you are not God...
|
This is a major point. We as humans tend to think that we know more than we do. Our mind compared to God is like comparing an electron to The Milky Way, and I'm sure it's even more of a divide than that. We can't even pretend we know why, what, or how when it comes to what he does or chooses not to do. Evil is not a product of God, it is a product of our feeble humanness. Sure, if God created us you could use the argument that he created evil, but it's not that easy. What about creating Satan? He didn't...Lucifer chose to turn his back. What's really going on is that he gives us free will to a point and we often choose evil. If we were simply created perfect then we would just be a bunch of automatons walking around with a pre-programmed brain. He leaves the choice up to us. But once me make one bad choice it's like burning a bridge with no way to repair it as far as he's concerned, except by seeking the truth.
But I digress before I get accused of preaching.
God pretty much tells us as much as we are able to comprehend up front without hiding anything. It's all in the book. It's a bloody book full of sinners, not a goody two-shoes pious work. It pretty much pleads with you to search out answers to your heart's content. Highly recommended!
Edited by AmbianceMan - December 03 2009 at 22:17
|
|
AmbianceMan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 30 2009
Location: Dayton, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 113
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 22:24 |
This provoked my earlier statement: Then why worship him? Why bother respecting him?
|
Because I believe he has dominion over everything, even time and space.
|
|
camilleanne
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 29 2009
Location: Philippines
Status: Offline
Points: 403
|
Posted: December 04 2009 at 00:36 |
|
Evolution(natural selection) is the best answer for me and the right one...^__^
|
|
The planet is fine the people are f**ked.
-George Carlin-
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 04 2009 at 02:24 |
AmbianceMan wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
"the warm of God" ... but even Epignosis has already established that he is malevolent.
As David Hume put it:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence, then evil?
|
If you are God, you decide what is malevolent.
But you are not God...
|
This is a major point. We as humans tend to think that we know more than we do. Our mind compared to God is like comparing an electron to The Milky Way, and I'm sure it's even more of a divide than that. We can't even pretend we know why, what, or how when it comes to what he does or chooses not to do. Evil is not a product of God, it is a product of our feeble humanness. Sure, if God created us you could use the argument that he created evil, but it's not that easy. What about creating Satan? He didn't...Lucifer chose to turn his back. What's really going on is that he gives us free will to a point and we often choose evil. If we were simply created perfect then we would just be a bunch of automatons walking around with a pre-programmed brain. He leaves the choice up to us. But once me make one bad choice it's like burning a bridge with no way to repair it as far as he's concerned, except by seeking the truth.
But I digress before I get accused of preaching.
God pretty much tells us as much as we are able to comprehend up front without hiding anything. It's all in the book. It's a bloody book full of sinners, not a goody two-shoes pious work. It pretty much pleads with you to search out answers to your heart's content. Highly recommended! |
I don't believe in Satan, I do believe that: The Devil does not exist and never did, Azazel is figment, Meririm is a fiction, Ba'al'zebub is a myth, Lucifer isn't real and wasn't made from light, Apollyon/Abbadon is an invention, Unicorns never lived, Dragons never breathed fire, Hell is a myth, Giants never walked the land(the Nephilim were probably Neanderthals) and that serpents and goats are just animals.
|
|
What?
|
|
halabalushindigus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 05 2009
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Points: 1438
|
Posted: December 04 2009 at 02:41 |
|
All of you children go to bed RIGHT NOW, and I MEAN IT!
|
|
assume the power 1586/14.3
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 04 2009 at 02:44 |
...it's 8:45 in the morning. 
|
|
What?
|
|
halabalushindigus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 05 2009
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Points: 1438
|
Posted: December 04 2009 at 02:54 |
Good morning Dean. The Evolution vs Creation point was delivered well in the book "Planet of The Apes
We ASSUME certain things, only to be fooled. My point is that We don't need to think about Creationism
We just have to try to be more and more intelligent and understanding. I love all you guys
|
|
assume the power 1586/14.3
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 04 2009 at 06:01 |
AmbianceMan wrote:
Even in the book of Job, it is laid out that the earth is a sphere and floats in space, and describes the hydrologic cycle..and that's the oldest book in the bible! This was thousands of years before everyone found out the earth was not flat. I enjoy thinking about these things actually...like trying to wrap my mind around the fact that there was a time when space did not even exist.
|
I see no sphere. The Book of Job refers to boundary line separating light and darkness on the surface of the ocean as a circle (ie 2 dimensional) ... the horizon ... the description fits a flat-earth just as well as a spherical one. I actually do not doubt that some people in the middle east in ancient times perceived the Earth as spherical - especially those who had seafaring traditions, I just think selecting that text as "proof" is dubious given the number of other texts that describe a flatter earth - most western views of a flat-earth come from the bible descriptions alone. The whole idea that people believed in a flat-earth until Columbus has been dismissed for some time now - in 240BCE the Greeks measured the circumference of the Earth using mathematics that assumed it was spherical. Of course that's still potentially 1500 years after Job (assuming the book of Job was contemporaneous with the man himself).
Similarly I think seeing the hydrologic cycle there is also wishful thinking - it says water is stored in the clouds, (yet they do not burst ... so they are like bladders), it does not say where the water in the clouds comes from, this process is not the hydrologic cyclic process since it requires divine intervention to gather the moisture and make it rain.
/edited for spelling
Edited by Dean - December 04 2009 at 06:25
|
|
What?
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: December 04 2009 at 06:15 |
Dean wrote:
AmbianceMan wrote:
Even in the book of Job, it is laid out that the earth is a sphere and floats in space, and describes the hydrologic cycle..and that's the oldest book in the bible! This was thousands of years before everyone found out the earth was not flat. I enjoy thinking about these things actually...like trying to wrap my mind around the fact that there was a time when space did not even exist.
|
I see no sphere. The Book of Job referes to boundary line seperating light and darkness on the surface of the ocean as a circle (ie 2 dimentional) ... the horizon ... the description fits a flat-earth just as well as a spherical one. I actually do not doubt that some people in the middle east in ancient times percieved the Earth as spherical - especially those who had seafaring traditions, I just think selecting that text as "proof" is dubious given the number of other texts that describe a flatter earth - most western views of a flat-earth come from the bible descriptions alone. The whole idea that people believed in a flat-earth until Columbus has been dismissed for some time now - in 240BCE the greeks measured the circumference of the Earth using mathematics that assumed it was spherical. Of course that's still potentially 1500 years after Job (assuming the book of Job was contemporaneous with the man himself).
Similarily I think seeing the hydrologic cycle there is also wishful thinking - it says water is stored in the clouds, (yet they do not burst ... so they are like bladders), it does not say where the water in the clouds comes from, this process is not the hydrologic cyclic process since it requires divine intervention to gather the moisture and make it rain.
|
Just a quick thought this morning...
I'm not sure why people get bent out of shape about the Bible describing natural phenomenon from the authors' limited scientific perspective.
Consider John, author of Revelation. If John did see a vision of the future, and he saw missiles, tanks, helicopters, or The Teletubbies, it would be reasonable to assume that he would describe those horrors as best he could using the first century language.
Similarly, I think when the Bible talks of demons, it is their language for describing what we call germs, bacteria, viruses, etc.
Not having the same level of sophistication to understand the world does not mean that the authors of the Bible were writing fiction when they recorded their observations, any more than I would if I observed something this morning I don't understand but science can one day explain perfectly well.
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 04 2009 at 06:33 |
|
^ So you're essentially de-mystifying the bible, claiming that most of the "miracles" described there were actually natural phenomena. Somehow I find that hard to believe - IMO many stories are simply pure fiction. Some may indeed have been misinterpretations of natural phenomena, but that doesn't change the fact that many religions based on the book are taking them literally ... ignoring every fact that proves them wrong.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 04 2009 at 06:37 |
Epignosis wrote:
Dean wrote:
AmbianceMan wrote:
Even in the book of Job, it is laid out that the earth is a sphere and floats in space, and describes the hydrologic cycle..and that's the oldest book in the bible! This was thousands of years before everyone found out the earth was not flat. I enjoy thinking about these things actually...like trying to wrap my mind around the fact that there was a time when space did not even exist.
|
I see no sphere. The Book of Job referes to boundary line seperating light and darkness on the surface of the ocean as a circle (ie 2 dimentional) ... the horizon ... the description fits a flat-earth just as well as a spherical one. I actually do not doubt that some people in the middle east in ancient times percieved the Earth as spherical - especially those who had seafaring traditions, I just think selecting that text as "proof" is dubious given the number of other texts that describe a flatter earth - most western views of a flat-earth come from the bible descriptions alone. The whole idea that people believed in a flat-earth until Columbus has been dismissed for some time now - in 240BCE the greeks measured the circumference of the Earth using mathematics that assumed it was spherical. Of course that's still potentially 1500 years after Job (assuming the book of Job was contemporaneous with the man himself).
Similarily I think seeing the hydrologic cycle there is also wishful thinking - it says water is stored in the clouds, (yet they do not burst ... so they are like bladders), it does not say where the water in the clouds comes from, this process is not the hydrologic cyclic process since it requires divine intervention to gather the moisture and make it rain.
|
Just a quick thought this morning...
I'm not sure why people get bent out of shape about the Bible describing natural phenomenon from the authors' limited scientific perspective.
Consider John, author of Revelation. If John did see a vision of the future, and he saw missiles, tanks, helicopters, or The Teletubbies, it would be reasonable to assume that he would describe those horrors as best he could using the first century language.
Similarly, I think when the Bible talks of demons, it is their language for describing what we call germs, bacteria, viruses, etc.
Not having the same level of sophistication to understand the world does not mean that the authors of the Bible were writing fiction when they recorded their observations, any more than I would if I observed something this morning I don't understand but science can one day explain perfectly well.
|
If I've come over as being bent out of shape then I apologise as I my intention was to simply point out that claims that relying on an interpretations that fits a preconception when other interpretations are possible are dubious. And I would make the same statement for any scientific claim where more than one interpretation/explanation was possible.
|
|
What?
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: December 04 2009 at 06:48 |
|
I've been arguing for that this whole time.
Again, Colin J. Humphreys (he is a science professor at Cambridge) wrote a book entitled, The Miracles of Exodus: A Scientist's Discovery of the Extraordinary Natural Causes of the Biblical Stories.
Also, you continue to misapply the term "literal." I still take the Bible literally, but I have to meet it on its terms, not mine, and that means trying to understand the text through an Ancient Near Eastern lens (rather than a 21st century one).
This method takes more effort and work, but I believe that is what must be done to understand any ancient historical narrative, not just the Bible.
If an ancient Hebrew person saw a volcanic eruption for the first time, he would be limited in how he describes it (especially since Hebrew has a very limited range of words to begin with)...see Exodus 20:18 for exactly this.
Trying to make sense of his description is not taking the account allegorically- it's simply doing one's homework to understand what was described with the limited tools given him.
Check out Humphrey's work. It's a fascinating read and one of my favorite pieces of nonfiction.
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 04 2009 at 06:50 |
|
^ big parts of the bible have been confirmed to be pure works of fiction though ... but be that as it may, even those parts that are not, if they contain no miracles, what's left then to base a religion upon?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 04 2009 at 06:51 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ So you're essentially de-mystifying the bible, claiming that most of the "miracles" described there were actually natural phenomena. Somehow I find that hard to believe - IMO many stories are simply pure fiction. Some may indeed have been misinterpretations of natural phenomena, but that doesn't change the fact that many religions based on the book are taking them literally ... ignoring every fact that proves them wrong. |
I'm with Rob (and Jay) on this one, you are fixated on this and it's not that important. Discrediting bits of an 800,000 word set of books changes nothing of the underlying text and its message. The miracles and magic in the bible can be looked at however you like - Like Rob (and Ivan I may add) I prefer a rational explanation based upon 4000 year old Bronze age cultural interpretation viewed from thier perspective not ours.
You could see it as nothing more than special effects thrown in to keep peoples attention if that helps - or do you really think John McClane can kill a helicopter with a car? 
|
|
What?
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: December 04 2009 at 06:55 |
Dean wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Dean wrote:
AmbianceMan wrote:
Even in the book of Job, it is laid out that the earth is a sphere and floats in space, and describes the hydrologic cycle..and that's the oldest book in the bible! This was thousands of years before everyone found out the earth was not flat. I enjoy thinking about these things actually...like trying to wrap my mind around the fact that there was a time when space did not even exist.
|
I see no sphere. The Book of Job referes to boundary line seperating light and darkness on the surface of the ocean as a circle (ie 2 dimentional) ... the horizon ... the description fits a flat-earth just as well as a spherical one. I actually do not doubt that some people in the middle east in ancient times percieved the Earth as spherical - especially those who had seafaring traditions, I just think selecting that text as "proof" is dubious given the number of other texts that describe a flatter earth - most western views of a flat-earth come from the bible descriptions alone. The whole idea that people believed in a flat-earth until Columbus has been dismissed for some time now - in 240BCE the greeks measured the circumference of the Earth using mathematics that assumed it was spherical. Of course that's still potentially 1500 years after Job (assuming the book of Job was contemporaneous with the man himself).
Similarily I think seeing the hydrologic cycle there is also wishful thinking - it says water is stored in the clouds, (yet they do not burst ... so they are like bladders), it does not say where the water in the clouds comes from, this process is not the hydrologic cyclic process since it requires divine intervention to gather the moisture and make it rain.
|
Just a quick thought this morning...
I'm not sure why people get bent out of shape about the Bible describing natural phenomenon from the authors' limited scientific perspective.
Consider John, author of Revelation. If John did see a vision of the future, and he saw missiles, tanks, helicopters, or The Teletubbies, it would be reasonable to assume that he would describe those horrors as best he could using the first century language.
Similarly, I think when the Bible talks of demons, it is their language for describing what we call germs, bacteria, viruses, etc.
Not having the same level of sophistication to understand the world does not mean that the authors of the Bible were writing fiction when they recorded their observations, any more than I would if I observed something this morning I don't understand but science can one day explain perfectly well.
|
If I've come over as being bent out of shape then I apologise as I my intention was to simply point out that claims that relying on an interpretations that fits a preconception when other interpretations are possible are dubious. And I would make the same statement for any scientific claim where more than one interpretation/explanation was possible. |
Oh, I didn't think that of you at all Dean...you just provided me with a good segue, that's all.  I suppose I shouldn't have hit "quote." 
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Evolution vs. Creationism