Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[bombermick]

A historical Jesus almost certainly existed. You won't find many serious scholars who disagree.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

In years to come there'll be people questioning if Joe Pesci existed.

As for Jesus, well his story may have been rooted in the existence of a real person, but if you're one of these clowns who believe he died for our sins, walked on water, turned water into wine and all the other hocus pocus, please refrain from sharing your fairytales with the rest of us.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I think it's hilarious that pointing out that people reference Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris has somehow become a lazy proxy for an actual rebuttal.

Smart men.

In before ad hominem attacks...

"Not a theologian"

"Drunkard"

"Racist"

Etc...

 

[Sydney Bloods]

*I ignore them because they limit what they use as evidence, omitting valid forms of evidence like chains of narrations for example. They don't have the full picture.

* Also, their belief does not comply with what the intellectual reasoning says. The mind itself affirms the existence of God. We know that every act of hitting has to have a hitter, and every building has to have a builder. This Universe also has to have a Creator. Why? Because everything in this Universe is needy. Matters in this Universe occupy space, location, shape, and need another to have specified this for them. They also have a beginning and time lapses on them. The Creator is attributed with Will - this is the attribute with which the Creator specifies the creation with one attribute over the other, and time versus time.
Hence, we live now because the Creator Willed for us to live in this time as opposed to the 1500s.
The Creator however is not attributed with the attributes of the creation. So, the Creator is not a body, does not have time lapsing on Him, is not a body, does not have a shape. Why? These are attributes of a created thing. Having these specific attributes entails that the being needs another to have specified it with such limits and characteristics. Also, we believe that God does not change. --> These are two big point where Islam and the other Religions separate. Muslims do not attribute God with the attributes of the creation, whereas no other Religion does this. Hence, their reasoning can be refuted by this.

If they claim that God is in the heavens AND that God created everything, you can say to them that they claim that God changed from not being in the heavens (because he created the heavens - it did not exist before) to being in the heavens. We know that in this life, change occurs when one being overpowers the other, like the ball rolling because of the wind. The wind has overpowered the ball, causing it to move from its location. Hence, they indirectly say that God has a Creator that has control over Him, causing them to contradict themselves.

We believe that He created everything - including the sky, space, time, water, nature, the human etc. If He created time, we know that time does not lapse on Him. Hence, God does not have a beginning and is Eternal. The one who is Eternal does not need a creator to bring Him from the state of non-existence into existence.

*Another thing is that there are certain things that they cannot explain. Among them is why a certain thing is a certain way, like why insulin is the hormone that controls the removal of glucose from the blood and why the rock was not the one that nourished us instead of what we call food today. Science may be able to explain the physical reason as to why this is the case (such as the conformation of the insulin hormone and the rock not being suitable for the intestinal tract), but they cannot explain the true reason as to why it is. Someone must have specified that hormone to do the job that it does.


Scientists out of all have the most access to physical systems present in the world, such as the gastrointestinal tract and the cardiovascular and central nervous systems. They know that if one little thing goes wrong, it can lead to drastic problems, and I have studied many developmental disorders from them. This is more evidence that someone created these systems, because they work in a specific way.

* So, according to scientists, this world came by chance and everything in it came by chance. Ironically, they deny the idea of a sound chain of narrations, yet accept something much more unlikely - which is the idea of this world coming about by chance, and then living species coming by chance, and then four legged creatures coming by chance, and then intellectual human beings coming by chance that are able to reason and deduce conclusions logically. This is a big contradiction on their part. The accept something that is more unlikely than what they reject.
My above reasoning shows that I believe it is impossible that this world came about by chance, for everything that has a shape, occupies space and has a beginning needs another to have brought them into existence and specified them with these characteristics.

None of what you said is evidence. its conjecture based off of your own opinion.
Suggesting a building has a builder therefore a tree must have a builder is the opposite of logical thinking.

Science uses actually evidence knowing the once again clearly flawed memory of humans not mention agendas and what not.

you carry on about a chain of narration as if it is evidence it is not, its a is a story nothing more. there's story's handed down to this day of wolves being wed to the moon. and giant snakes carving rivers. it is the height of arrogance to suggest that on story is more correct to another.

none are based on evidence none are recording of events they are stories, interpretations made to explain things the people of the time do not understand.

Nothing you have said makes any sense, insulin you accept the scientific reason yet claim there's a true hidden deeper meaning, this is confirmation bias. You can't fathom your "god" not existing and so like all religions you take a step back you half accept the answer then try and find something behind it.

you keep saying "we know" YOU DONT. YOU BELIEVE! if you actually KNEW! you could demonstrate it and yet you can't. Because you have no evidence.

it matters not how many times you repeat yourself. Saying it doesn't make it true and this is where all religious crap breaks down. for all your bluster all your doing is repeating what you have been told. you've learned nothing, demonstrated nothing.

all you have is conjecture oh "the nervous system is complex therefore it has to have a creator". actually listen to what you just wrote. That's nonsense. that's not evidence let alone further evidence. that is your opinion, based off your already existing belief in your diety

Again you bring up chance, That is frustratingly primitive thinking. evolution is not chance the creation of the earth the sun.
it's physics immutable laws. that explain everything.

the world was not created by chance, it occurred by the natural function of the universe. matter clumped together etc, etc.
evolution is not chance.

hell let's look at "chance" is flipping a coin chance? no, is rolling a dice chance? no.
the only "chance is your bet what you are guessing at.

once you flip a coin, roll a dice, it's not up to chance. Physics say's it will land a certain way. the chance is merely because human observation is limited and with our eyes we can't tell what the outcome is going to be.

But as demonstrated by a simple computer which rocketed the gambling world, those outcomes are set in stone. all you need to do is no the variables understand and track all the factors involved and you have and outcome.

as demonstrated by those uni students with a calculator in a shoe. suddenly great big mystery of the roulette wheel was solved. Chance just wasn't.
and thats because chance isn't real. nothing occurs by chance. everything occurs by the rules and laws of the universe.

evolution is no different. what you see as chance is merely your own, limited understanding of evolution. applying your flawed thinking onto the model when you yourself admit its not something you've studied other than a cursory outline is a disservice not just to science but yourself.

Once again just stop and actually try and understand something to learn about something that there is actually evidence for.

Mutations in cellular reproduction occur all the time for many reasons most are environmental.
Now those mutations which have a negative impact result in adverse outcomes as such they don't spread without dooming the species they reach an evolutionary dead end.
those with a neutral outcome enter the gene pool but don't sway things one way or another.
those that produce an advantage however!
they produce more and so on.

and that is evolution in a nutshell. no chance, no randomness it is merely that we have yet to scratch the surface of all all the variable's involved in evolution.

we can see this today, in a many things but let's cut down all the complicated stuff like wolves to dog's or even modern day race horse.
Let's look at elephants.
Today elephants are finally making a comeback after being hunted the shitout of by man.
Why? because the more and more elephants are being born with shorter tusk's.

So why is this occurring? its quite simple previously larger tusks provided more advantages than smaller ones elephants in fact up until recently only female asian elephants were "tuskless" (actually a tusk is just a very long tooth the females still had them but they didn't protrude out) such was the advantage of having tusks.

However poaching caused so much damage to populations that having a larger tusk became more likely to get an elephant killed, suddenly the advantage of having larger tusks became more of a liability then having them.

Previously a "taskless" male was so disadvantaged that the odd's of the them reproducing was extremely low hence. no "tuskless" males. But as noted female asian elephants were "tuskless" so they have the ability to pass on that gene. As poaching took hold the multitude of dead large tusked elephants meant the "tuskless" guys were now able to get their groove on a whole lot more.

and today we are seeing more and more short tusk and "tuskless" males because the smaller the tusk the less worth while it is it hunt a big animal that can kill you particularly when getting caught can also result in summary execution in some areas.

This is as close as we will ever likely get to see in our short life spans of evolution, a previously backward trait likely to get the animal killed that was dying out in asia and had died out in africa Suddenly "exploding" due to a shift in the environment. the push factor is avoid tusks.

and this is important because evolution doesn't choose the best design, it chooses the best fit at the time, which is why many of the things in our bodies are well rather crap models. a tuskless elephant is actually a disadvantaged elephant. their poorer fighters poorer diggers and poorer forages. but their better at not getting killed by a human and with no other animals threatening the species and plenty of food, the 303 is the biggest problem they face.
and so the "tuskless" are starting to outbreed the dead tusks.

look at humans as an example where an actual advantage isn't actually the best fit. Redhead's, yes believe it or not the redhead actually has a few evolutionary advantages to other humans healthwise they can adapt to sudden shifts in temperature better than other people, more resistant to anaesthetics and they can produce their own vitamin D something no other human can do and yet they make up only a fraction of the population.

so why is this? well despite whatever myths you've heard about redheads decreasing population wise in fact is slowly increasing, the reason redhead number are low is because their advantage isn't large enough to offset the great disadvantage to being a ranga. and no it's not the sun (or being soulless) it's because the Gene isn't easily passed on, both parents have to have the gene in order for the kid to be a ginge.

as a result being vitamin D deficient being susceptible to anaesthetic toxins and dying from temperature shifts is a better fit than needing two parents with the vampire gene. however i suppose if the human population outside of scotland was struck down with a horrible plague that might change.

 

[expires]

evolution is not chance the creation of the earth the sun.
it's physics immutable laws. that explain everything.

Mr or Mrs Bloods, do you happen to know what these immutable laws of physics are?

 

[Lebbo73]

In years to come there'll be people questioning if Joe Pesci existed.

As for Jesus, well his story may have been rooted in the existence of a real person, but if you're one of these clowns who believe he died for our sins, walked on water, turned water into wine and all the other hocus pocus, please refrain from sharing your fairytales with the rest of us.

Firstly, most people on this forum probably don't even know who Joe Pesci is.
Secondly, just because you do not believe in Jesus, don't you think it is the wrong thread to come on and say what you did!

 

[skilts]

You are easily amused.

Richard Dawkins has always held back from discussing Jesus Christ too deeply because the historical evidence for his existence is all but absolute. The most I have heard him discuss it is when he admitted that Jesus 'probably' existed.

Anyone who knows a thing about Jesus Christ's teachings know that the alleged miracles he performed are irrelevant of his main teachings.

I am just pointing out that the majority of people who proudly thump their chest as atheists, really, when it comes down to it, have very little idea about god and Jesus Christ.

Im calling most of the non-believers out on it in this forum. Deal with it.

It should present no difficulty then, for you to enlighten us with what you KNOW about god. Not what you believe, but what you KNOW. After you inform us of this, you should tell us what it is that makes you such a special being that you have privileged access to such irrefutable KNOWLEDGE.

Is the bolded bit in your post a threat directed at members of this forum? If so, other than boring us to death with your ego-maniacal fantasies, what sanction are you proposing?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Firstly, most people on this forum probably don't even know who Joe Pesci is.
Secondly, just because you do not believe in Jesus, don't you think it is the wrong thread to come on and say what you did!

Nah, I don't.

Jesus is Santa Claus for adults.

 

[skilts]

when it comes down to it, have very little idea about god

As I said earlier mate, I'm agnostic.

You accuse others of knowing little about god. In the next breath, you assert that you have no knowledge of it yourself. Do you see any incongruity in this?

 

[The rabbi]

In years to come there'll be people questioning if Joe Pesci existed.

Joe Pesci did not exist.
He is an amalgamation of various actors from an Italian descent clumped together in one person.

 

[Roylion]

What I know is that someone called Jesus existed in ancient times, and that this person was a very charismatic moral teacher.

There were plenty of religious figures called Jesus around the first century AD. An individual called Jesus, that the Gospels were based on may well have existed. But the Gospels are not necessarily historical accounts. What 'Jesus' are they referring to? Are they repeating earlier myths? Are they talking about another Jesus, or did they amalgamate the deeds of a number of different Jesus, such as ben Pandira or ben Stada?

Christianity’s, genesis, development and growth does not necessarily depend on the existence of one individual who lived and died from AD 1-33. On the contrary there may be an amalgamation of a number of belief systems from a number of Jewish sects and based on a number of individuals, such as:

Jesus ben Pandira. A supposed wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 B.C.), one of the most ruthless of the Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophesy and agitation which upset the king. Scholars have speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect. He's also interesting in that his father has been identified by some scholars as a Roman soldier. However in 106 BC though Judea wasn't under the control of the Romans or even within the Roman sphere of influence. One scholar has identified the name Pandira as having an Egyptian origin and is written 'Pa-neter-ra', translated as the 'Son of Ra'. Perhaps this is the origin of the stories that the Holy Family spent some time in Egypt after fleeing from Herod.

Jesus ben Ananias. Beginning in AD 62, this Jesus caused disquiet in Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of ‘Woe to the city’. Arrested and flogged by the Romans, he was released as nothing more dangerous than a mad man. He died during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock hurled by a Roman catapult. Josephus records the woes pronounced on the city by Jesus ben-Ananias leading up to that war, and the 'cleansing of the Temple' by the revolutionary Simon ben-Giora (see below for more details him) who expelled the brigand Zealots from the holy place just before the fall of the city.

Jesus ben Saphat. In the insurrection of AD 68 that wrought havoc in Galilee, this Jesus had led the rebels in Tiberias. When the city was about to fall to Vespasian’s legionaries he fled north to Tarichea on the Sea of Galilee.

Jesus ben Gamala. During AD 68/69 this Jesus was a leader of the ‘peace party’ in the civil war wrecking Judaea. From the walls of Jerusalem he had remonstrated with the besieging Idumeans (led by ‘James and John, sons of Susa’). When the Idumeans breached the walls he was put to death and his body thrown to the dogs and carrion birds.

Jesus ben Thebuth. A priest who, in the final capitulation of the upper city of Jerusalem in AD 69, saved his own skin by surrendering the treasures of the Temple, which included two holy candlesticks, goblets of pure gold, sacred curtains and robes of the high priests. The booty figured prominently in the Triumph held for Vespasian and his son Titus.

Simon bar-Giora - a messianic pretender. The bandits of Joseph of Giscala occupied the temple (which became a "den of thieves"). They were implacable enemies of the priests, who were seen as lapdogs of the hated Romans. So the priests struck a bargain with Simon bar-Giora to enter the temple to expel their rival revolutionaries. Simon and his troops make a triumphal entry into the city, were hailed as deliverers, and proceeded to "cleanse the temple" of the robbers who infest it. Sound similar? But the Roman siege eventually forced Simon to try and tunnel out to safety. Giving up on the plan, he tunneled up, bursting out of the earth in full regalia before stunned Romans, who then take him to Rome and execute him as King of the Jews.

Jesus Ben Stada. He was a Judean agitator who gave the Romans a headache in the early years of the second century AD, close to 200 years after Pandira. He met his end in the town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at the hands of a Roman crucifixion crew, in fact he is descrbed as being 'hung on a tree', on the eve of a Passover. The rabbis who constructed the Babylonian Talmud believed that it was ben Stada who was elevated by the Christians to that of a godhead, but still confuse him with ben Pandira, who is also mentioned in the Talmud.

Athronges (about 4-2 BC). A shepherd, after proclaiming himself a messiah, Athronges led the rebellion against Archelaus and the Romans. After a protracted struggle Athronges and his brothers were defeated.

And on top of all these then there was also other messianic pretenders / self styled prophets / Kings of the Jews in the first century AD including:
- Carabbas
- Theudas the Galilean
- Judas the Galilean
- Jesus bar-Abbas (possibly the Barabbas of the Gospels)
- Elymas bar-Jesus
- Jesus Justus (claimed by one scholar to be the son of Jesus Christ)
- the martyred Samaritan Messiah.

Jesus was baptised by John The Baptist and crucified. That much we can be sure off based on historic ancient texts and other historical evidence.

Such as?

The miracles and other supernatural abilities that Jesus is alleged to have possessed is obviously unverifiable, but it is largely irrelevant to his teachings.

Yes. Whoever Jesus was, he was most certainly not divine. Like every human before and after him, he died and his remains are almost certainly now dust.

Jesus' commands, such as "Love your neighbor as yourself" weren't really new or radical either.

The command "Love your neighbor as yourself" supposedly made by Jesus was not a radical idea in the first century.

It's basically straight out of Leviticus, which any historical Jesus would likely have know well. Leviticus 19:18 says "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD." Leviticus reached its final form sometime between 530 BC and 323 BC. So the idea was at least 300 years old before "Jesus" mentioned it.

As well as this, the ancient Egyptian story of The Eloquent Peasant which dates to about 2040–1650 BC says: "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you."

Various Greek philosophers also mentioned the idea. Just a couple of examples.

• "Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." - Pittacus – (c. 640–568 BC)
• "Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others." – Isocrates (436–338 BC)

Judaism in the first century AD had both Egyptian and Hellenistic influences. It's not beyond the realms of possibility to postulate that Jesus and/or the early Christians would have come across this main idea from existing writings and adopted them as their own.

When asked to sum up the entire Torah concisely, Hillel, an elder contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth answered:

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

Long before Jesus came on the scene, Confucius (551–479 BC) himself said "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself."

Many atheists in real life, and on here, constantly say god isn't real, and that is fair enough, but they also produce these crazed ramblings that Jesus Christ never existed, and, on the basis of the evidence, that is what they are, crazed ramblings - similar to the 7 day creation stories people repeat.

There's a reasonable case to suggest that the Jesus Christ as described in the Gospels is largely a fabrication.

when the evidence points to the exact opposite - that a historical Jesus existed.

Could you list this evidence?

Whether or not he was the son of god, and whether or not he performed mircales is a totally different discussion.

I see no evidence for either.

 

[Hollow Knight]

You are easily amused.

Richard Dawkins has always held back from discussing Jesus Christ too deeply because the historical evidence for his existence is all but absolute. The most I have heard him discuss it is when he admitted that Jesus 'probably' existed.

Anyone who knows a thing about Jesus Christ's teachings know that the alleged miracles he performed are irrelevant of his main teachings.

I am just pointing out that the majority of people who proudly thump their chest as atheists, really, when it comes down to it, have very little idea about god and Jesus Christ.

Im calling most of the non-believers out on it in this forum. Deal with it.

Cool, if you have to somehow create a strawman argument about the historical accuracy of the man Jesus as some platform for attacking people who don't believe in God, go for it.

Just know that everyone is laughing and saying "wtf".

 

[Roylion]

Richard Dawkins rarely discusses the issue of Jesus Christ, because he knows that Jesus Christ, the historical figure, not necessarily the man of miracles, almost certainly existed and the 'evidence' is overwhelming.

Richard Dawkins is a biologist, not a historian.

Dr. Richard Carrier is however an historian and has recently released "On the Historicity of Jesus (Why we Might Have Reason for Doubt)" proposing an origin of Christianity without a historical Jesus. With a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University, Carrier specialises in the intellectual history of Greece and Rome, particularly the history of science and the origins of Christianity.

 

[little graham]

Christian dreamtime stories are like themselves, young,insecure shallow and temperamental.

 

[Tichmond Rigers]

What you read is the Quran, assembled by the Caliph Uthman. Most other variants that were in existence were destroyed.

I stopped at this point to draw attention to something. You do not believe that the Qur'aan that we read now can be confirmed to be the authentic one from the Prophet's time, you do not believe that the Hadeeth that has been passed down for many generations is authentic, yet you believe in reports that other variants of the Qur'aan that were in existence at the time of the Caliph Uthman were destroyed except for the one we read today. I don't see the "empirical" evidence that you used to arrive at your claim.

To address your point, yes. At the time of ^Uthmaan, there was not one standard copy that people copied from, so people wrote their muSHafs differently and because of that, along with the various recitations of the Qur'aan, confusion started to arise. So, Uthman ordered for some muSHafs to be written so that they would contain all of the recitations, and so that they would be the standard. Hence, they burned all the other copies and made copies from those muSHafs, and until today, every muSHaf follows the "Uthmaaniyy script".

It is important to know that Abu Bakr was the first compiler, and the "Uthmaaniyy script" was copied from that.

There is a few things you need to keep in mind about when this book was compiled:

1. Many people had checked and confirmed that these verses were the ones that were revealed to the Prophet,
2. The way they documented it is known
3. The entire story is documented.

Many people checked over this copy hence why it is confirmed that this is the authentic one. The fact that they did this does not mean that the original is now unconfirmed. It was done in order to preserve the real Qur'aan, because verses of the Qur'aan that we read today were confirmed and checked by many. Remember, the Prophet (peace be upon him) had many companions, and these companions collectively were able to confirm and compile the entire Qur'aan in its original form, and were able to come together to produce the one book. And this is exactly what they did.

* I am still interested to know why you believed this information without "seeing" what you say are the different versions of the Qur'aan. The only way you must have received this information would be through chains of narrations. It proves that you actually do believe that narrations can be a form of evidence, but select what you want to select only to support your argument and not based on the narration's authenticity.

 

[Tichmond Rigers]

None of what you said is evidence. its conjecture based off of your own opinion.
Suggesting a building has a builder therefore a tree must have a builder is the opposite of logical thinking.

Science uses actually evidence knowing the once again clearly flawed memory of humans not mention agendas and what not.

There is no building, watch, car, writing or its like in this world without someone having done it. We do not have an example of where this is not the case. So, scientists therefore deny that the trees, soil and this entire world has a creator. They deny this without evidence. It would be unreasonable if I suggested that the car, building or watch did not have anyone who made it that way. In fact, many people would laugh at this absurd claim. Likewise, it is absurd to claim that this entire world has no creator. This is intellectually sound.

you keep saying "we know" YOU DONT. YOU BELIEVE! if you actually KNEW! you could demonstrate it and yet you can't. Because you have no evidence.

I have given you intellectual evidence. Here we go again with science denying a form of valid evidence if it does not suit their claims.

Mutations in cellular reproduction occur all the time for many reasons most are environmental.
Now those mutations which have a negative impact result in adverse outcomes as such they don't spread without dooming the species they reach an evolutionary dead end.
those with a neutral outcome enter the gene pool but don't sway things one way or another.
those that produce an advantage however!
they produce more and so on.

hell let's look at "chance" is flipping a coin chance? no, is rolling a dice chance? no.
the only "chance is your bet what you are guessing at.

once you flip a coin, roll a dice, it's not up to chance. Physics say's it will land a certain way. the chance is merely because human observation is limited and with our eyes we can't tell what the outcome is going to be.

So you are saying pretty much that there is a pattern, and that we just cannot observe this pattern or are limited in knowing this pattern. Patterns are a sign of something being in order. As your example states, if you flip a 3 gram coin in a certain way and with a certain power in a certain place with a certain amount of wind, it will land on "head" every time. This pattern has to have someone who created it that way. By saying that there is no creator for this, you are pretty much saying that the coin flips like this in this certain way following that particular pattern BY CHANCE. It was possible for you to have flipped the 3 g coin in that certain way with that certain power in that certain place with that certain amount of wind with the result being the coin landing on "tails" every time, because the amount of rotations that results from those conditions could have been different. But that is not the case. We merely got accustomed to the laws that we observe today, but it could have been different.

I am not saying that scientists say the flip of coin happens "by chance" in this example. I am saying that they claim that the pattern that the coin follows in this condition happened "by chance". You need to know what I mean when I am talking about chance. In this way, they say that everything in this world came about by chance, and that living creatures came about by chance, and that upright beings with the ability to intellectually reason came about by chance. They observe the way that things work, but they say that they work in their observed way purely by chance, because it could have been different. And relying on this sort of chance shows that this theory is absolutely unreasonable and baseless.

Seeing something occur and passing it on does not rely on this sort of chance, so is sound if it was narrated such that the narrators could not all have come together to conspire in order to fool the people around them - such as us being able to confirm the existence of a present-day country that we have never been to

 

[RobbieGray17]

it is absurd to claim that this entire world has no creator. This is intellectually sound.

Ok, so Did god create the 'Earth' in its present form? Is it absurd at all to suggest that god didn't create the earth? There is a very plausible theory on the creation of the earth and likewise for every other planet. So god or a god or gods may have given rise to the creation of the earth over an extended period of time, but didn't directly create earth.

 

[Tichmond Rigers]

Ok, so Did god create the 'Earth' in its present form? Is it absurd at all to suggest that god didn't create the earth? There is a very plausible theory on the creation of the earth and likewise for every other planet. So god or a god or gods may have given rise to the creation of the earth over an extended period of time, but didn't directly create earth.

No change occurs except that there is a creator for that change. It is not the case that God created the Earth, but did not create the changes that occurs to it. God created the Earth and owns it, what is in it as well as the changes that occur in it. This also goes for the entire Universe

 

[Hollow Knight]

The argument from design isn't "intellectually sound". It is built on a flawed premise.

I.e. "this object I perceive to be complex has a designer, therefore all objects I perceive to be complex have a creator".

Even a lot of the intelligent design set have abandoned this argument because it made them easy kill.

 

[bombermick]

Tichmond Rigers - You say that a creation without a creator makes no sense, but as a ''science student'' you should know much of science defies common sense. Quantam mechanics fails the common sense case spectaculary.

As for Jesus been a made up figure, it's too much of a stretch. How does a movement start without someone to inspire it?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Mr or Mrs Bloods, do you happen to know what these immutable laws of physics are?

I know quite a few of the laws surrounding classical mechanics, when it comes to Quantum mechanics i do struggle to wrap my head around a lot of them.

If you want a full list of all the laws of physics we will be here for quite some time.
If on the other hand you're trying to say the laws of physics do in fact change i'd say you're mistaken physics is constant it does not alter, our understand of physics changes as we gather more information but physics itself is unalterable nothing can violate it.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

There is no building, watch, car, writing or its like in this world without someone having done it. We do not have an example of where this is not the case. So, scientists therefore deny that the trees, soil and this entire world has a creator. They deny this without evidence. It would be unreasonable if I suggested that the car, building or watch did not have anyone who made it that way. In fact, many people would laugh at this absurd claim. Likewise, it is absurd to claim that this entire world has no creator. This is intellectually sound.

I have given you intellectual evidence. Here we go again with science denying a form of valid evidence if it does not suit their claims.


So you are saying pretty much that there is a pattern, and that we just cannot observe this pattern or are limited in knowing this pattern. Patterns are a sign of something being in order. As your example states, if you flip a 3 gram coin in a certain way and with a certain power in a certain place with a certain amount of wind, it will land on "head" every time. This pattern has to have someone who created it that way. By saying that there is no creator for this, you are pretty much saying that the coin flips like this in this certain way following that particular pattern BY CHANCE. It was possible for you to have flipped the 3 g coin in that certain way with that certain power in that certain place with that certain amount of wind with the result being the coin landing on "tails" every time, because the amount of rotations that results from those conditions could have been different. But that is not the case. We merely got accustomed to the laws that we observe today, but it could have been different.

I am not saying that scientists say the flip of coin happens "by chance" in this example. I am saying that they claim that the pattern that the coin follows in this condition happened "by chance". You need to know what I mean when I am talking about chance. In this way, they say that everything in this world came about by chance, and that living creatures came about by chance, and that upright beings with the ability to intellectually reason came about by chance. They observe the way that things work, but they say that they work in their observed way purely by chance, because it could have been different. And relying on this sort of chance shows that this theory is absolutely unreasonable and baseless.

Seeing something occur and passing it on does not rely on this sort of chance, so is sound if it was narrated such that the narrators could not all have come together to conspire in order to fool the people around them - such as us being able to confirm the existence of a present-day country that we have never been to

Patterns occur in nature all the time this comment is useless. demonstrate for me that patterns cannot naturally occur?
a coin will land on on either a head or a tail based on the coin how it is flipped velocity height angle, wind conditions, surface area, weight, weight distribution, etc, etc.

but this does not say anything came about "chance" chance is a human construct it does not occur in nature. just like how suns form due to gravity and condensing gases, evolution also happens as a result of the surrounding conditions. there's no chance. If the conditions required for life exist life will most likely occur. It's no different than the forming of a hailstone certain conditions lead to hail being created there's nothing mysterious or intelligent behind it required. We just don't know what the required conditions for life are with a degree of certainty.

the suggestion that "someone had to do this" is bullshit and you know it. Present the evidence of this someone? you can't go back to your Bachelor of Science course and think this through.

what your doing is trying to do is assign Propositional calculus to the the universe essentially using the evidence of absence as the solution to your absense of evidence.

however this does not fit, lets for a moment even try and apply your "reasoning" here.

you assert, that things made by people have a creator, things that man did not make exist, therefore everything in the universe has to have a creator.
but that does not fit the model at all:

If p and q are true; therefore p is true.

It Just doesn't fit and the reason for that is the complete absence of evidence. because the model requires verifiable evidence to begin with.

an example of the arguement when used correctly would be the well known:
rain only falls from clouds.
It is raining
therefore there must be clouds.

In this case we don't have to see the clouds because the fact that it is raining is proof enough.
But we know for a fact there must be a cloud because we have time and again conducted experiments and produced evidence that in fact that rain comes from clouds.

to suggest that a creator exists for things that man did not make you must first produce actual evidence, a shitty book of people who claimed so is not evidence. its the opinion of the writer only.

here's what you have said:

pattern has to have someone who created it that way

so demonstrate it! stop your bullshit and demonstrate scientifically why a pattern can not occur under natural circumstances?

what you've done right there is lie, if you passed biology you know for fact patterns occur in nature all the time. If you have actual evidence that shows that none of these patterns are naturally occurring and are all down to some wizardry.

you should know the infamous original motto of the royal society "Nullius in Verba" and the meaning behind it, apply it.

 

[expires]

I know quite a few of the laws surrounding classical mechanics, when it comes to Quantum mechanics i do struggle to wrap my head around a lot of them.

If you want a full list of all the laws of physics we will be here for quite some time.
If on the other hand you're trying to say the laws of physics do in fact change i'd say you're mistaken physics is constant it does not alter, our understand of physics changes as we gather more information but physics itself is unalterable nothing can violate it.

Start with the classical mechanics ones if you like. Aristotle was supposed to have had some immutable ideas at one stage.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

I think Bloods means that the reality we are describing with the laws of physics won't change, we just refine the laws to describe it. Therefore, if Aristotle's laws won't accurate enough to predict certain things and we refined them later after experiment, we haven't changed the laws of the universe, just our understanding of them.

The thing is that the idea of such unchangeable and absolute laws or truths of the universe is a human construct. Our experiments point to there being things that are repeatable and that nothing has been reliably recorded to breach certain rules. Therefore, we tend to see our understanding of the order in the chaos that is the universe as some absolute unbreakable rules. I'm not sure we can ever know that these rules are unbreakable though. Just be pretty sure that our formulae will reliably predict things if we assume that they are.

Could these rules change for a split second or all one day change as the universe changes? I'm not sure we know enough or will ever know enough to answer that in the negative.

Regarding intervention of a creator, it is pretty hard for us to prove or disprove, but most likely is a way for us to explain what we don't understand. Even without breaching the current laws of physics there are weather patterns that could part the Red Sea, for example. Given enough time, places and people, what can happen, will happen, and this doesn't have to be attributed to God. If the Red Sea really did part for Moses that's pretty cool, but you could find just as ridiculous coincidences on the Internet that have never been attributed to God.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Start with the classical mechanics ones if you like. Aristotle was supposed to have had some immutable ideas at one stage.

and Aristotle's models were not based on controlled experiments he was a great thinker but was not scientific in his approach.
what you fail to grasp here is that the physics behind the laws doesn't change. the current understanding is incomplete which is why we continue to expand upon them with new laws that define things that the original ones did not fully explore. we don't look at thermal dynamics and say well the conservation of energy is wrong, its not wrong it describes what occurs from certain observations. we now know more due to nuclear physics that matter and energy are interchangeable. knowing this newtons ideas were expanded on, not discarded.

even newtons laws of motion for example accepted approximations for what occurs is it exacting? full explanation? of course not. we are still learning.

If your trying to suggesting an object in motion will sudden stop without any outside force acting upon it. go, prove it collect, your noble prize. of course i wont hold my breath.

how understanding adapts that understanding we apply to the laws of physics our description of these laws themselves how it all works adapts as we learn more, but the underlying physics its does not change.

If you have any proof it does change then provide it. as usual its all the "oh ÿou don't know this could happen you don't know" by that logic you could be raped by dragon on your way to work on monday, after all can you prove that dragons don't magically pop in and out of existence and rape people?