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

[Roylion]

I said you'd probably fit quite well with all your knowledge of what is true and isn't

Sorry, I don't understand what point you're trying to make in relation to Gnosticism.

 

[Pie eyed]

Do you really think the Romans cared about Jesus? he was irrelevant to them - for a time.
You seem to have no understanding whatsoever about ancient jewish practices about recording history either.

As relevant as he is to me...now.
You don't seem to get the fact that not everyone needs to conjure a redeemer to justify their beliefs.

 

[Roylion]

Ok Roy. you're the Artful Dodger, too.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Didn't get the answer you wanted obviously.

 

[Pie eyed]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Didn't get the answer you wanted obviously.

The answers they want are already provided.
You're problem Roy is they don't like the questions you frame.

 

[Bennett.]

hey man, i conduct myself pretty well, and i'm entitled to the occasional piss-take at the expense of persons who may or may not exist. and it doesn't invalidate any other points i've made. which you have not commented on.

Says who? Who or what gives you the right to decide what may or may not exist?

you are being facetious. a rotting corpse is not thought to be the right initial conditions for abiogenesis, not least the reanimation of a person with all of his memories and personality intact.

Ok, so what ARE the ideal conditions then professor? Name me something that has come to life from nothing first..

 

[Bennett.]

As relevant as he is to me...now.
You don't seem to get the fact that not everyone needs to conjure a redeemer to justify their beliefs.

A completely different point to the question of whether Jesus existed or not.

 

[Bennett.]

Lane Craig is a dud of a philosopher. It is hardly controversial.

Ok then, please show me, in your expert and professional opinion, as you are obviously a big hitter in the world of academia,
how you come to the conclusion that a PHd and a man who has had over 100 articles printed in peer-reviewed works (You know,
YOUR mobs measuring stick for whether or not someone is indeed worthy to be called an academic), is a dud.

 

[bombermick]

So did God create an earth/universe where the apparent age of the sun/stars matches up with the oldest rocks and where carbon 14 matches up with tree-ring data, or is the universe really that old? Is his word wrong, or is he a trickster?

 

[Bennett.]

Is his word wrong,?

How does this line up with your original question??

 

[Roylion]

The answers they want are already provided.
You're problem Roy is they don't like the questions you frame.

Yes, that's obvious. Or indeed some of the answers I've provided.

So now the personal attacks begin. What do we have so far? "Artful Dodger", "Fence Sitter." In the other thread I was a "spammer" apparently. That was quite amusing.

AND I also lack "spirituality." Whatever that means. Appreciation of the power and pervasiveness of the supernatural I suppose.

 

[bombermick]

How does this line up with your original question??

The Bible clearly communicates a young world, yet the evidence we have (multiple sources pointing to the same answer) say that can't be true. I know some Christians don't see this as a huge deal, but they couldn't be more wrong IMO.

 

[evo]

Ok then, please show me, in your expert and professional opinion, as you are obviously a big hitter in the world of academia,
how you come to the conclusion that a PHd and a man who has had over 100 articles printed in peer-reviewed works (You know,
YOUR mobs measuring stick for whether or not someone is indeed worthy to be called an academic), is a dud.

Every philosopher I have ever read, going back as far as the pre-Socratics, employed reason to challenge their preconceived ideas. They started thinking and went where ever it took them.
Lane Craig, on the other hand, is the only 'philosopher' I have come across who decided on the conclusion first then spent his career attempting to prove it. There is word for this time of 'reasoning': apologetics. In my view, it is the opposite of philosophy.

That aside. His fellowship of the Discovery Institute says it all to me. Harggh Haargh! What auspicious company.

http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php

 

[bombermick]

We have very little idea how non-life could have produced life, but would there have been a line when it crossed from one to the other? Secondly, if it happened today it would be quickly consumed by life. I can't get my head around how it would have occurred, but I do know the history of Earth's rocks says it happened.

 

[hardon]

Says who? Who or what gives you the right to decide what may or may not exist?

WTF?... i haven't claimed any right to decide what may or may not exist. did i decide in that sentence what exists and what doesn't? i specifically DID NOT make a decision on what does or does not exist. re read, comprehend, and if you still think i made a decision, actually or implicitly, then show me so that i may reassess my mode of communication.

Ok, so what ARE the ideal conditions then professor?

professor? ha ha ha, who's being 'mature' now eh?

anyhow, there are many hypotheses. i'd just be cutting & pasting. but if you are interested you can start at wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Name me something that has come to life from nothing first..

well i think that all of us here are made of lifeless 'stardust' if you like. the many particles and molecules (lifeless by themselves) that were used, are used, and are to be used in sustaining my life, were lifeless by themselves before being incorporated into my structure, support my consciousness while i am 'alive' and will be lifeless again when i die.

 

[Bennett.]

The Bible clearly communicates a young world

no it doesn't

 

[Bennett.]

WTF?... i haven't claimed any right to decide what may or may not exist. did i decide in that sentence what exists and what doesn't? i specifically DID NOT make a decision on what does or does not exist. re read, comprehend, and if you still think i made a decision, actually or implicitly, then show me so that i may reassess my mode of communication.

You said you were entitled to take the piss out of whomever may or may not exist. Entitled in YOUR opinion.

professor? ha ha ha, who's being 'mature' now eh?

Just joining in the norm

anyhow, there are many hypotheses. i'd just be cutting & pasting. but if you are interested you can start at wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

And if I presented a WIKIPEDIA article to support my arguments, I'd cop all sorts of abuse.

well i think that all of us here are made of lifeless 'stardust' if you like. the many particles and molecules (lifeless by themselves) that were used, are used, and are to be used in sustaining my life, were lifeless by themselves before being incorporated into my structure, support my consciousness while i am 'alive' and will be lifeless again when i die.

So you either have no meaning to exist or are nothing according to that view. Dust in the wind hey?

anyway, it either came from somewhere or what was dead in you became alive. Interesting.

 

[Bennett.]

We have very little idea how non-life could have produced life, but would there have been a line when it crossed from one to the other? Secondly, if it happened today it would be quickly consumed by life. I can't get my head around how it would have occurred, but I do know the history of Earth's rocks says it happened.

Well the big bang theory suggests something molecular expanded exponentially almost instantaneously.

It's almost as if something spoke it into being.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Didn't get the answer you wanted obviously.

You do know I am a Christian, don't you?

 

[Roylion]

You do know I am a Christian, don't you?

It's pretty obvious what your agenda is.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Yes, that's obvious. Or indeed some of the answers I've provided.

So now the personal attacks begin. What do we have so far? "Artful Dodger", "Fence Sitter." In the other thread I was a "spammer" apparently. That was quite amusing.

AND I also lack "spirituality." Whatever that means. Appreciation of the power and pervasiveness of the supernatural I suppose.

Are you peeved?

 

[bombermick]

no it doesn't

The language in Genesis clearly denotes a normal day, with specific mentions of evening and morning marking the end of that day. That's on top of the genealogies that make it even more apparent that the writers of the Bible believed that God had created quite recently. To argue otherwise is nothing more than trying to fit in scientific discoveries with scripture, because to do otherwise would be laughable.

 

[Bennett.]

Yes, that's obvious. Or indeed some of the answers I've provided.

So now the personal attacks begin. What do we have so far? "Artful Dodger", "Fence Sitter." In the other thread I was a "spammer" apparently. That was quite amusing.

AND I also lack "spirituality." Whatever that means. Appreciation of the power and pervasiveness of the supernatural I suppose.

Always the victim eh Roy?

 

[GetDimmaBack]

It's pretty obvious what your agenda is.

As it is yours, but as a result of my experiences I've come to a conclusion. You do understand that, don't you?

 

[Danny Cullen]

So did God create an earth/universe where the apparent age of the sun/stars matches up with the oldest rocks and where carbon 14 matches up with tree-ring data, or is the universe really that old? Is his word wrong, or is he a trickster?

Some people believe, others conjure things to believe in.

I'd bet London to a brick that there will be a new dating scheme in the next couple of hundred years (earlier probably given the enthusiasm of *ahem* scientists *ahem* nowadays) that crushes that.

Then there will be another one.....ad infinitum.

Whereas belief is a constant. No moving the goal posts there.

 

[bombermick]

Well the big bang theory suggests something molecular expanded exponentially almost instantaneously.

It's almost as if something spoke it into being.

It's possible I guess, I don't know why more Christians haven't latched onto big bang cosmology as evidence of God. However, we simply don't know. Our universe could be one of many, or there could have been countless universes, with ours lucky enough not to fall in on itself. Or a god could have spoke it into being, no-one knows.