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

god or advanced entity?

  • god

    Votes: 14 40.0%
  • advanced entity

    Votes: 21 60.0%

  • Total voters
    35
Status
Not open for further replies.

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Max zero

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Posts
12,196
Likes
7,245
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
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

Premiership Player
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Posts
4,409
Likes
3,707
Location
A wilful, lavish land.
AFL Club
Geelong

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.
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Posts
1,477
Likes
219
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Denver, UO, NY
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

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
37,967
Likes
15,373
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
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

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 28, 2009
Posts
9,737
Likes
1,170
Location
Vermont South
AFL Club
Essendon
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

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 28, 2009
Posts
9,737
Likes
1,170
Location
Vermont South
AFL Club
Essendon

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.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

fishardansin

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Posts
15,185
Likes
10,119
Location
coburg
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Australian cricket team
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!!!
 

CharacterFirst

Premiership Player
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Posts
4,409
Likes
3,707
Location
A wilful, lavish land.
AFL Club
Geelong
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

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
37,967
Likes
15,373
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
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.
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Posts
9,156
Likes
8,254
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Cronulla Sharks PGFC Detroit Lions
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

Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,032
Likes
8,638
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #3,042

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

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Posts
3,491
Likes
603
Location
Mornington Peninsula
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore
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

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 28, 2009
Posts
9,737
Likes
1,170
Location
Vermont South
AFL Club
Essendon
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

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
37,967
Likes
15,373
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
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.
 
O

Old Spice

Guest
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

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Posts
3,491
Likes
603
Location
Mornington Peninsula
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore
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

Team Captain
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Posts
433
Likes
338
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
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.
 

Monniehawk

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Posts
3,491
Likes
603
Location
Mornington Peninsula
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore
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!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom