actually yanny, yes. i happen to know space monkeys from neptune, and having met you, i can say for certain, you are no space monkey.
why do i need proof that god does not exist? if you can sit there, and claim he does, with no defendable proof (you have only conjecture) why do i need it?
thing is, god doesnt exist, thats just the way it is. god, far from the common misconception of fulfilling the simplest solution (god created all, simple right?) complicates things (omniscient, all powerful, timeless being? harder to believe than big bang, and whole new concepts to deal with)
if god did exist, then we would have killed him, or he would have killed us. hell, the romans killed jesus, if they could kill the sun that easily, they could take the father. :roll:
the reason he came is to die for our sins, he became mortal, so that he could die, and personally, i wouldnt try to start a fight with the guy that created our planet.
@F_alk:
You tell me, what made existence because surely it did not make itself. Everything requires cause, and I do not believe we can go infinitely back into a cause for a cause, because unless there was a first cause there would be no “Casual support” for every other cause.
I agree that an iterative approach is probably not the best. I disagree though on the “surely” that existance did not make itself. How can a cuase exist when no existance exists? Or else, who created the creator?
I don’t think that a first cause has to be there. If you allow eternal and extra-reality-existance for one, why not for a second, a third or something completely different?Therefore, the first cause can be a creator or something else we cannot understand. however, there IS a first cause and that leaves the possibility there is a creator or God.
Well, so what caused the first cause to act?
That would be the zeroth cause…I am just not a fan of mono-causal thinking. Usually things have more than one cause, or none.
I liked your agument on the christian god though.
Nothing is uncaused so that leaves two things:
an infinite regress of causes
or
a first cause
now, whatever that first cause may be, it is unexplainable and unfathomable. However, I find an infinite regress backwards as ridiculous, because everything inherently started from somewhere. For the universe to be the one exception to this rule would be an udder blow to the mass historical record, so I find it far more likely for their to be some unexplainable first cause than an infinite regress of causes without a first cause (because such a notion is ridiculous according to what I said and the prinicipal of sufficient reason.)
Now, does that answer your question? I am a man of probabilities. I believe it is more probable that there is no man caused global warming for example. I also believe it is more probable there was a first cause (which would be in accordance to the historical record) than no first cause (which would be the one and only exception.) Because I have faith in nothing, I go with probability. You show me how it is more probable there’s an infinite regress and then we will talk.
the reason he came is to die for our sins, he became mortal, so that he could die
…… :-?
right, because that is the simplest thing ever… :roll:
i wouldnt try to start a fight with the guy that created our planet
we need a showdown, jesus vs. Thor. personally, i dont think Jesus stands a chance. Thor wil lay the smack down on his ass. :wink:
my friend and i were talking, and we decided that God is like Superman (if this analogy has been drawn before, we were both unaware). For one thing, Superman is boring. I mean, he takes all the fun out of it. hes invincible, and chock full of all kinds of awesome powers. theres no humanity to him, no danger, not like with a marvel comic. but i digress. and to further confuse the issue, in each and every issue (or just about) a new way to defeat him is discovered. its absurd. hes supposed to only be vulnerable to kryptonite, yet they find more and more ways to almost kill him, before he saves the day, in a boring, Boy Scout/Apple Pie kind of way (dont get me wrong, i love apple pie).
God is the same way. hes all powerful, all knowing, blah blah blah. BORING! hes one dimensional. now, greek, norse, celtic, etc. mythologies all had complex gods. they were all deep and multidimensional, and fallible. hell, the norse gods were even destined to die (actually die, not some pansy Jesus resurrection way). he takes all the fun out of it. and yet despite all that, he is continually defied.
WRT my previous post, sorry for the random stupidity of it, its the result of caffeine and lack of sleep
Nothing is uncaused so that leaves two things:
an infinite regress of causes
or
a first cause
Why is nothing uncaused?
I know, in everyday live, everything (seems to have) has a cause.
If you go to quantum mechanics, the causality suddenly becomes a questionable thing: In the famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, they showed that wuantum mechanics is non-local and/or non-causal. “Effects” can be transmitted faster than the speed of light, meaning they happen before the cause.
So, that is what our nowadays physics allows. We have no idea what happens in singularities, and todays theories suggest strongly that our universe started from one. The question then is: what was the cause for (a) that singularity to come into being and (b) to let it expand into what we now know as space-time.
This leads to the more fundamental question: how can you talk of “before” when time doesn’t exist (like in “before the big bang”) ?
I do agree with your reasoning except for the point that “everything needs to have a cause”.
I will accept that for a moment, and i agree that the infinite regression is not logical. Then i come to the point ofa first cause. This one can’t be uncaused, as the “everything doesn’t allow for exceptions”. Then we either come back to the regression approach, or we have to make an exception from the above rule, saying “at least one thing is allowed to happen uncaused”. … And that is what i can agree: Not everything needs to have a cause.
Yanny - “no evidence” does not equal “proving something does not exist”.
Is there any evidence that I am not a space monkey from Neptune?
please don’t make me waste my time with this.
As for your contentions regarding early OT occurrances - there actually was in fact room for every species at the time to fit in the ark according to its dimensions. Further evidence of the ark has been found on mount Ararat.
The Ark did not exist. Its complete myth. Just think about it. The entire world is going to flood, right? Theres going to be a ship bigger than the titanic made of wood and filled with every animal on earth? Its a damn fabel! Theres a moral, thats how it supposed to read. nope - far too specific. Also it is referenced in other parts of the Bible. Also (as i said) evidence for the existance of the ark has been found on Mount Ararat (where the ark was said to have rested).
And how do you know how the story is supposed to read? You don’t buy into any part of the Bible, but you are an expert on it?
Also - The flood story is emulated in many Sumarian societies, and probably the Noah story probably owes its roots there.
Actually there are many “corraborating” stories in many other cultures with similar details. Perhaps these stories owe their roots to the actual event?
As for the Red Sea - how do you know this? Or the time spent in the desert?
Does the world just change because its a story in the bible? The Red Sea cannot be parted, and even if it was, its a 40 mile hike across the damn thing. Can a few hundred thousand former slaves really treck for generations in the harsh Egyptian desert? Nope.
obviously i could not part the Red Sea. This is considered to be a miracle generated by God (the creator of the world, who surely would be able to do something as simple as this.
As for the “harsh Egyptian desert” - what makes you an expert on the nature of the desert and of this time? In terms of food etc. God provided for the Jews at this time.
Almost all Christians believe in the whole Bible, however we follow the New Testament and the commands God issues here. Jews follow the OT, and most of them still believe in all of the events then.
You can’t selectively believe in just the New Testament, its incompatible. The Old Testament lays the foundation for the New Testament.
you answered a question that was not asked.
When you actually think about this religion (and others), I’m surprised anyone believes in them. Tell me, why did God not influence outside of the Middle East - European world for nearly two thousand years? Are the Asians and Native Americans just not important?
when i look at the lives that have been touched by Jesus, as well as his sacrifice and truths, i am surprised that more people do not believe in Him.
As for God’s influence outside of the middle East - what makes you so sure that he did not provide any influence there? Writings from the Middle East have survived the best, and this is the home of the earliest writings (thank you Phoenicia).
why do i need proof that god does not exist? if you can sit there, and claim he does, with no defendable proof (you have only conjecture) why do i need it?
There is soooo much more than conjecture. Countless people over the ages have had real experiences that have been life-changing as a result of their relationship with God/Jesus. Of course YOU can not measure this, therefore in your expert opinion, this is of no consequence. Sad.
thing is, god doesnt exist, thats just the way it is. god, far from the common misconception of fulfilling the simplest solution (god created all, simple right?) complicates things (omniscient, all powerful, timeless being? harder to believe than big bang, and whole new concepts to deal with)
if god did exist, then we would have killed him, or he would have killed us. hell, the romans killed jesus, if they could kill the sun that easily, they could take the father. :roll:
this is all such garbage. We are not looking for the “simplest solution” but rather answers that you do not have (nor does science).
As for the Romans killing Jesus - please do more research before coming up with this kind of crap.
CC, I am not tied to the laws of the OT (Gal. 3:23, Rom. 8:1)… Therefore that is why christians do not use it as a basis for a set pattern of living because part of it is “works”… Some of it Dietarily and Sanitarily is excellent and can be drawn from but as a whole… The old as you said is yes the Foundation for the new… But it is not the “law” of the new… And as you said the truths in the stories can be drawn…
GG
@Guerrilla:
CC, I am not tied to the laws of the OT (Gal. 3:23, Rom. 8:1)… Therefore that is why christians do not use it as a basis for a set pattern of living because part of it is “works”… Some of it Dietarily and Sanitarily is excellent and can be drawn from but as a whole… The old as you said is yes the Foundation for the new… But it is not the “law” of the new… And as you said the truths in the stories can be drawn…
GG
without too much thinking - yes, i believe i agree with most of this.
The thing is, Christians should believe that the OT is true, as not only is it “the foundation”, but the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled came from here.
Why is nothing uncaused?
because anything without cause requires faith to believe in and this is inherently the problem of atheism and theism.
Everything has reason and cause. The reason we are not flying into outerspace is because of gravity (the reason.) Everything works with reason and cause. However, you conveniently suggest the only expection to this rule is existence itself, and wouldn’t that be funny to say “everything that exists has a cause but existence…” that logically makes absolutely no sense.
Therefore, there must be a first cause/reason that explains it all, not an infinite regress. We can go infinitely into the future, but not the past.
I know, in everyday live, everything (seems to have) has a cause.
If you go to quantum mechanics, the causality suddenly becomes a questionable thing: In the famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, they showed that wuantum mechanics is non-local and/or non-causal. “Effects” can be transmitted faster than the speed of light, meaning they happen before the cause.
however, there’s a reason for being. For example, if there’s a scientific REASOn that stuff just suddenly exsited, than the intial cause demand is satisfied. However, there needs to be REASON and CAUSE. Einstein never said, “if I don’t understand this, it is because there’s no reason for it”, that’s ridiculous.
So, that is what our nowadays physics allows. We have no idea what happens in singularities, and todays theories suggest strongly that our universe started from one. The question then is: what was the cause for (a) that singularity to come into being and (b) to let it expand into what we now know as space-time.
This leads to the more fundamental question: how can you talk of “before” when time doesn’t exist (like in “before the big bang”) ?
You can’t, thats beyond our knowledge. However, our understanding of existence does necessitate cause and reason. All of this, everything, was not ALWAYS there. There must be a cause or reason for it, and that opens up the possibility of some sort of god.
I do agree with your reasoning except for the point that “everything needs to have a cause”.
I will accept that for a moment, and i agree that the infinite regression is not logical. Then i come to the point ofa first cause. This one can’t be uncaused, as the “everything doesn’t allow for exceptions”. Then we either come back to the regression approach, or we have to make an exception from the above rule, saying “at least one thing is allowed to happen uncaused”. … And that is what i can agree: Not everything needs to have a cause.
As I already said that our understanding allows us to know there must be a first cause, but now you say the first cause is the exception to the rule. that may be, but if the first cause was God with it’s infinite powers, it can logically be beyond the rules it sets.
However, this explanation to me is far too simple. I think the only explanation is that the initial cause or reason only makes sense if we have an above human understanding of this subject.
Some physicists believe that electrons don’t go real fast, they literally change position by going in and out of existence . Now, if this is true, I’m sure there is some sort of equation or understanding that makes this possible. If so, this can easily be applied to the first cause. Then we can always ask, “where do the laws of physics come from”, but again, it is our mortal understanding that is fallible. For all we know there can be math to explain math.
However, that could be false and the uncaused first cause can indeed be God. I don’t know, nor we never could. However, I find the infinite regress and illogical explanation for the existence of our universe, because it would be contrary to the mass historical record.
@cystic:
@Guerrilla:
CC, I am not tied to the laws of the OT (Gal. 3:23, Rom. 8:1)… Therefore that is why christians do not use it as a basis for a set pattern of living because part of it is “works”… Some of it Dietarily and Sanitarily is excellent and can be drawn from but as a whole… The old as you said is yes the Foundation for the new… But it is not the “law” of the new… And as you said the truths in the stories can be drawn…
GG
without too much thinking - yes, i believe i agree with most of this.
The thing is, Christians should believe that the OT is true, as not only is it “the foundation”, but the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled came from here.
They do believe it is true and real… and especially now a days we look at the prophecy in them! I don’t think you will find too many christians who don’t believe the prophecies are not “right” because they are OT…
GG
GG
Countless people over the ages have had real experiences that have been life-changing as a result of their relationship with God/Jesus.
really? REAL experiences you say? oh ok, that proves it then
therefore in your expert opinion, this is of no consequence
you being sure there is a god makes you a believer. ME being sure there isnt makes me and “expert” (said sarcastically of course). right, because YOURS is OBVIOUSLY the correct way
Sad.
sad that you cannot accept that you may be wrong (unlike me, because i am of course right :wink: )
this is all such garbage. We are not looking for the “simplest solution” but rather answers that you do not have (nor does science).
first, maybe you arent (though you have expressed in previous posts that it is the “simplest solution”) but other people are (i have a book, in which one primary argument for God is that it is the “simplest solution”
second, science isnt about all the answers, its about understanding as much as possible. its always growing, changing and expanding. id prefer to put stock in something that can be tested, shown, or experienced physically than in “faith”
As for the Romans killing Jesus - please do more research before coming up with this kind of crap.
JESUS tap dancing CHRIST. ITS A FRIGGIN JOKE!!!
mother of GOD i figured YOU would be able to figure that out. guess i was wrong. wow.
Locked, this is just going in circles and getting a little personal….
Oh btw:
And how do you know how the story is supposed to read? You don’t buy into any part of the Bible, but you are an expert on it?
I’m actually quite fascinated with the Bible. I’ve read the King James version through a few times, and done a lot of research on the creation and symbolism behind the book. So yes, when it comes to history I’m fairly well versed in the Bible.
