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

[Bennett.]

Seems legit...

Figures seem legit too!

 

[holy diver]

Figures seem legit too!

Evangelical christian fundamentalism is so much fun.

 

[Bennett.]

Evangelical christian fundamentalism is so much fun.

You're pretty awesome aren't you!

 

[holy diver]

You're pretty awesome aren't you!

Back to the ad-hominem strategy, eh?

Tell me something. Is your god is omniscient and omnipresent?

 

[Max zero]

It doesnt have to be a deity.

Simply something supernatural.



Nothing isnt everything. Quite the opposite.

Science doesnt work (or even exist) in nothing, and on nothing, and in no time at all.



Or time for them to appear in.

No time or space in nothing mate.

Remember 'time' is a dimension of the Universe (cf: space-time).



Physically (and logically) impossible to do.

We would have no space to 'be' in to observe it, and we would have no time to watch it unfold.

'Pre' Big Bang there was no time or space (beyond some nebulously unexplained 'singularity').

Which of course still leaves the question of what is this supernatural 'force'? Is it any functionally any different then saying "I have no idea and am just making shit up" ?

 

[CharacterFirst]

I don't like the writing at the start of this video. It is just disrespectful and unnecessary.
But the short interview is interesting. Dr. Bart Ehrman, a non-believer and biblical history scholar, tells it like it is _ Jesus was a real historical person and virtually no historical biblical scholar would claim otherwise.

 

[tb_fanboy]

No you're looking at it one lopsidedly and conveniently forgetting that God already knows we WONT ignore sinful temptations. And he knows this before he even creates us.

He's omniscient remember. He knows exactly what his creations will do before even his creations do. He knew you were going to Sin before he made you in the first place.

He then made you anyway.

He also knew that he would have to torture and sacrifice Jesus, knew what Lucifer was up to, knew he would have to kill a whole crap load of people 'in vengeance' - and all before he even began the process of creating anyone or anything.

Suffering and Sin is all part of Gods plan.

Whatever the **** it is.

Also there is no 'Free Will' if you believe in God. Just an illusion of free will.

God could write down exactly what you are gonna think and do for every second of your life in a book.

He can write this book before you are even born. And it would be 100% correct. He then creates you. You now have no choice but to do exactly what this book says (without ever reading it yourself) or you prove God 'wrong'... which pf course is impossible.

Think about this.

No I don't believe in predestination or that God 'chooses' who is saved. you didn't even answer the argument in my post you just replied to a little I wrote at the end and made a pretty big claim saying that there is no free will if you believe in God. Sure God may know you're going to do, doesn't mean he forces you to or forces you not to.....free will. So...with free will existing, it could be seen as 'free will rape' if he made or forced us to love him when he wants us to genuinely love him. That free will that allows us to love him by choice as he wants as far as I know, is also what gives us the ability to sin and in case you didn't realise not sin when we can. You're making it sound like God designed us for sin and then got angry at us

 

[Pie eyed]

Before we even look at the question, please answer me one question.

Are, in your opinion, miracles at all possible in our world?

Define a "miracle".
The word is much abused of late.

 

[Pie eyed]

Where did the universe come from then?

Or has 'something' always been 'here'?

It's no wonder you have such a negative outlook on things!
If the God you described was real, I'd doubt him myself!

Explain why "it's no wonder" I have such a negative outlook?
Negative in what regard?
I am by nature an optimist in every regard, or are you referring to what you personally regard as a negative outlook about evidence for God, Jesus or in fact a single word of the bible historically based on your beliefs?

 

[bombermick]

Figures seem legit too!

How would the ark have enough food for all of the sauropods? It's estimated that Sauroposidon would have needed a tonne of food a day, just to survive. Then Noah would have had to make a wooden box strong enough to keep a Triceratops from getting out.

Even accounting for collecting juveniles, it seems crazy talk.

 

[bombermick]

I don't like the writing at the start of this video. It is just disrespectful and unnecessary.
But the short interview is interesting. Dr. Bart Ehrman, a non-believer and biblical history scholar, tells it like it is _ Jesus was a real historical person and virtually no historical biblical scholar would claim otherwise.

He was a real person, because as you say no serious biblical scholar disagrees. Big difference between that and the son of God though.

 

[fishardansin]

Even Hitchens made a point of saying that there is close to zero chance that the man Jesus didn't exist. There is no way that so much would have been written about a person who didn't exist within living memory of when they are supposed to exist.

This does not show that he was the son of god though and despite Spatwana's protestations there are some similarities between some aspects of what is considered as part of the Jesus story and other gods. The fact social upheaval in Judea around the time of Jesus with the Jews and were to Roman hegemony over the Levant as the muslims are to American/Western hegemony over the oil fields of the middle east, suggests to me that Jesus was a teacher who wanted to reform the Jewish religion in such a way that allowed people to live in indifference to Roman rule rather than die in a futile fight against it. That that there was many "gospels" of christian faith at the time also points to this religious leader.

Many of the gnostic beliefs about eternity and the god spark as about knowing some esoteric "truths" about oneself and the subtle meanings in the sayings of such a wise man is very interesting, especially as they are not the gospels that were adopted at a Roman emperor's behest. There is some similarities between that and budist teaching. I'm not suggesting that this implies a "lifting" of ideas, in fact I believe that two human beings in very different locations with no contact between each other can reach very similar conclusions when they find themselves in similar situations.

Miracles don't exist, merely the incapability to explain something. Existence is not a miracle, IMHO. It is ineviatable that every that can exist does, even if it doesn't in the vast majority of possibilities. The fact that we're existing means that non-existence is seperate from us, perhaps we can know what that is when we die and the thoughts and feelings we have cease to exist. Though our knowledge at that point is non existent.

I personally believe that there is a field of infinite size that that has infinite possibilities and this is existence. My current study of random fields is perhaps my bias, skewedness for those who understand the subtlety. Among this infinite possibilities there are infinite possibilities of non-existence. Just that because of the nature of non-existence they each posses zero area. Using first principles of set theory and probability it is easy to explain this, doing so in English is ... well ... a thesis .... AND NOT THE ONE I'M SUPPOSED TO BE WRITING NOW!!!

 

[fishardansin]

While we're at it with the videos, and I'm not totally a Harris fan ... but...

 

[CharacterFirst]

He was a real person, because as you say no serious biblical scholar disagrees. Big difference between that and the son of God though.

Agreed.

But once this has been established, then we can move onto the question of Jesus divinity, instead of listening to the half-truths of various people trying to say Jesus was not a historical figure. He was, we have stacks of evidence for this, and he can be evaluated historically.

 

[Pie eyed]

Agreed.

But once this has been established, then we can move onto the question of Jesus divinity, instead of listening to the half-truths of various people trying to say Jesus was not a historical figure. He was, we have stacks of evidence for this, and he can be evaluated historically.

Post away with said stacks of evidence.

 

[holy diver]

Post away with said stacks of evidence.

This is the thing isn't it.

christians want to paint anyone who questions the historicity of jesus as a loon or not with the mainstream of straight historian or believing or non-believing theologians. The fact remains there is not stacks of evidence of jesus existing as the person he is represented to be. this is not even addressing the "stacks of evidence" for all the supernatural tricks he allegedly performed. The only thing that gets forwarded is the earliest known mention which is by Josephus, which is universally discredited as an forgery by religious and non-religious scholars alike. It's the supernatural claims which raise all flags. People who still insist in believing bronze age mythology must completely bleach their minds to ignore this part of the story.

 

[Roylion]

I don't like the writing at the start of this video. It is just disrespectful and unnecessary.
But the short interview is interesting. Dr. Bart Ehrman, a non-believer and biblical history scholar, tells it like it is _ Jesus was a real historical person and virtually no historical biblical scholar would claim otherwise.

There are a few.

Dr. Richard Carrier
Thomas L. Thompson,
Thomas Brodie
Kurt Noll

Philip Davies, Emeritus Professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Sheffield, England, published an article with the online journal The Bible and Interpretation, entitled Did Jesus Exist . In that article he stated that:

"I don’t think, however, that in another 20 years there will be a consensus that Jesus did not exist, or even possibly didn’t exist, but a recognition that his existence is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability."

Davies also made the point in relation to the attempt of Christian apologists and Biblical scholars to ridicule the idea that Jesus may not have existed.

"This is precisely the tactic [the Old Testament] anti-minimalists tried twenty years ago: their targets were ‘amateurs’, ‘incompetent’, and could be ignored. The ‘amateurs’ are now all retired professors, while virtually everyone else in the field has become minimalist (if in most cases grudgingly and tacitly). So, as the saying goes, déjà vu all over again."

Davies has also defended Thomas L. Thompson’s work on Jesus mythicism, and has argued that the whole debate should be taken seriously and not condemned as the work of amateurs. He acknowledges that in fact the evidence for historicity is rather weak and extremely problematic, and not at all cut-and-dried, and in no way warrants the kind of rhetoric coming from the likes of Bart Ehrman. He says, in fact, that admitting it’s possible Jesus didn’t exist is the only way the field can maintain academic respectability.

Arthur Droge, professor of early Christianity at UCSD has also professed a historicity for Jesus agnosticism. In other words he has an open mind about the issue.

 

[Monniehawk]

This is the thing isn't it.

christians want to paint anyone who questions the historicity of jesus as a loon or not with the mainstream of straight historian or believing or non-believing theologians. The fact remains there is not stacks of evidence of jesus existing as the person he is represented to be. this is not even addressing the "stacks of evidence" for all the supernatural tricks he allegedly performed. The only thing that gets forwarded is the earliest known mention which is by Josephus, which is universally discredited as an forgery by religious and non-religious scholars alike. It's the supernatural claims which raise all flags. People who still insist in believing bronze age mythology must completely bleach their minds to ignore this part of the story.

A bit of a dichotomy, but you may have nailed it.
My belief is that there is enough evidence to suggest a strong possibility of Jesus existing.
BUT, as you point out, is that Jesus really an accurate representation of what we have come to understand?
I think not.
It beggars belief that the true and original image of Christ could remain unsullied over two millennia: and it hasn't, imo.
Human nature has prevailed upon the perception of the person of Jesus, and over time, incrementally transformed a simple rural carpenter from being a reforming preacher, to a prophet, to a worker of miracles, to a demi god then into a god himself.
This metamorphosis occurred over a period of centuries - and is still continuing. The society that created the myth needed a myth of a certain structure. Successive societies needed to reconcile the myth within an ever-changing societal paradigm.
All this still occurs over time - more slowly and elegantly with the establishment of the dogma of the 4th C Nicene Creed. This consolidation was needed because of the wild and conflicting claims from various parts of the (disorganised) early church.
The last two centuries has seen a new acceleration with (notably US-based) sects proposing a range of interpretations of the myth - again, in line with the needs or aspirations of that society.
My feeling is that this is how all gods are formed: in the minds of men. Other men just modify the concept.

 

[bombermick]

Watching the Steven Hawking program tonight on Cosmology and Is There a God gave me more questions than answers. Apparently, before the big bang there was no time and no space. No time because it followed a similar pattern to black holes - where time stops.

That still leaves the question as to where the first particle came from (this black hole type structure), as well as space having to appear at the exact moment this particle came into existence; otherwise there's nowhere for the particle to exist in.

Ultimately, it still leaves room for the supernatural, although perhaps that's just because that's so much easier for me to understand.

 

[Pie eyed]

Watching the Steven Hawking program tonight on Cosmology and Is There a God gave me more questions than answers. Apparently, before the big bang there was no time and no space. No time because it followed a similar pattern to black holes - where time stops.

That still leaves the question as to where the first particle came from (this black hole type structure), as well as space having to appear at the exact moment this particle came into existence; otherwise there's nowhere for the particle to exist in.

Ultimately, it still leaves room for the supernatural, although perhaps that's just because that's so much easier for me to understand.

The Hill/Hole analogy was the key. The universe is the hill, space is the hole.
Combined the amount to exactly nothing.
You can get nothing from nothing...agreed.

 

[Old Spice]

To think there was no Jesus - or Amenhotep IV for that matter - is to come at this question from a modern perspective. The ancient world was saturated in mysticism and it is impossible to find any historic figure of that period that did not advance their vision of society without a mystical/religious colouration.

Jesus, coming from the Judaic tradition and confronting the decadence of the Early Roman Empire and it's accolytes in the Judaic world, assembled a philosophy of the world which was dripping with mysticism, but which also had a strong ethical colouration. There was injustice, there was righteousness, there was salvation. Everything you want to hear and more.

I think Jesus certainly existed as an historic person. I find it hard to believe that an organisation could grow and develop without an historic nuclues, ie a person.

That doesn't mean I have to believe in the supernatural / pious adormments - any more than I have to believe in the dictates or omnipotence of the Pharaos.

 

[Monniehawk]

Watching the Steven Hawking program tonight on Cosmology and Is There a God gave me more questions than answers. Apparently, before the big bang there was no time and no space. No time because it followed a similar pattern to black holes - where time stops.

That still leaves the question as to where the first particle came from (this black hole type structure), as well as space having to appear at the exact moment this particle came into existence; otherwise there's nowhere for the particle to exist in.

Ultimately, it still leaves room for the supernatural, although perhaps that's just because that's so much easier for me to understand.

I did enjoy it.
The difference may lie in the attitude.
One is a theory based on empiricism, the other a belief based on faith.
In science, the universe came from nothing and created everything.
Likewise, god/s came from nothing and created everything.
I'm comfortable with people holding either premise, although I discount the former.
The only concern is when one seeks to destroy the other.

 

[porksy]

christians want to paint anyone who questions the historicity of jesus as a loon

By questioning the Man that we devote our entire EXISTENCE and ETERNITY to, it is like you are disrespecting us personally. Christianity is many things to us, and a hobby isn't one of them. It is a lifestyle. So naturally, many Christians will get very defensive about Jesus.

I'm not like that to an extent. I'll listen to what you people have to say. It's when people expect us Christians to respect the atheist opinion on Jesus, but they don't respect our opinion back, that I get pretty bugged. If I had a penny for every time I've been told I'm wasting my life or I'm following a fairy tale, and then I get beat up for preaching back! I don't care if what you're saying ends up being the cold hard damned truth. If you don't preach your views down my throat, I won't do it to you. Simple as that.

I hate the Jehovah's Witnesses knocking at my door on the weekends, so I don't like to preach about Christianity to the unwilling , knowing how annoying it can be on the receiving end. Just try not to do the same. And if you do do the same, then you SHOULD expect some upset Christians.

I don't know where you got the nerve to beat up Christians for not respecting atheistic opinion while going ahead and not respecting Christian opinion (actually yes I do know, you got it from the computer store ). But work on that logic, and you'll get a far bigger audience willing to intelligently and fairly counteract your views.

 

[tb_fanboy]

The Hill/Hole analogy was the key. The universe is the hill, space is the hole.
Combined the amount to exactly nothing.
You can get nothing from nothing...agreed.

I didn't see the show could you explain it please?

 

[Monniehawk]

I didn't see the show could you explain it please?

Basically, Hawking tried to explain negative energy and 'nothing' when explaining the origin of the universe. He said building a universe was analogous to building a hill.
When you dig the ground to build a hill (mass or positive? energy), you leave a hole (negative energy). The size of the hill and hole is always going to be equal. The sum of the two is always zero - or nothing.
He extrapolated from that idea to explain how the universe could indeed start from 'nothing'.
I guess at the singularity, the two energies cancelled each other: hence we had 'nothing'. No matter, no energy, no time and no space.
I understood that any object with matter was offset by negative energy (Pie-eyed, is that 'antimatter'?) and so vacant space is actually a negative energy and maintains the balance and elegance of the universe.
(Could someone more erudite help me out?)
Interesting idea and counter-intuitive to most of us mortals!