|
On February 19 2009 12:49 Jerebread wrote:
I would like to know what your take is on this classic teleological argument for a creator?
-Complexity implies a designer.
-The universe is highly complex.
-Therefore, the universe has a designer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_community
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe#Naturalistic_possibilities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe#Counter_argument_to_religious_views
i could type all this up, but i already typed up some of it (one possible explanation) in my previous post responding to you
edit: found it
On February 18 2009 15:59 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
To add a counter against the fine-tuning principle, which is one of the cruxes of I.D., the fact that the 20 fundamental constants needed for matter to hold together like this so well may not be a coincidence. The inflationary period proposed by Alan Guth (which is generally accepted now, with different flavors existing because we don't have enough observational data to rule some versions out) awhile back may have been a vacuum nucleation event, in which the fundamental constants were changing while the entirety of the universe was moving to a lower potential energy state. The constants that exist such that matter can exist on mass scales as they do today may very well have been settled upon due to their low potential energy states (matter has more potential energy than pure energy), so in order to fall into the lowest potential energy states, the constants would have tuned themselves to the values such that the most matter could exist (while still not violating the second law of thermodynamics). So that explains why the constants are so good towards the end of matter existing, and the anthropic principle IdrA mentions explains why we feel so special that we exist here. If we existed on the other side of the universe, we'd feel just as special, cuz over there, it wouldn't be "the other side of the universe" to itself. By the way, scientists have been able to reproduce the reactions that change carbon/nitrogen compounds -> amino acids and amino acids -> peptide compounds (by a process imitating an asteroid hitting earth). Just a few more steps and we have self-replicating RNA. (otherwise known as rudimentary life)
Again, just like TechniQ, don't pretend to know physics to advance your argument. His BS about the big bang was wrong and your BS about the 20 constants could be very wrong as well.
|
On February 17 2009 23:26 TechniQ.UK wrote:
2) As for spirit tuna, just forget it man your the one who is cannot reason and your religious zeal for physics far extends mine.
Hello, science is inherently more reasonable than religion by definition, because religion requires faith. Just because I'm zealous about science doesn't mean I'm zealous on dogma, which you are.
also, to the "cannot reason" comment, yes i can, because if there is scientfic proof that something i used to believe was true in physics, i could readily throw it away. yes, i have an inherent faith in physics itself and its methods, because they all logically make sense, and you can't pull the ground out from under the scientific method itself, as there are no contradictions nor unfairness like there are among the denominations of christianity.
|
On February 19 2009 12:49 Jerebread wrote:Next, simply put, - my God claims to be God. Now you (the audience in general) might be sitting there thinking, that's a retarded, self-validating statement. But, when you look into the other faiths of the world, you come to find that Jesus is the only one who made such claims. Now if Jesus claims to be God, then there must be things about his life that back that up, otherwise, he's just a liar, or a crazy guy. Aside from the many miracles that he performed (eg. healing the blind/deaf/mute/terminally ill/raising the dead), the greatest testament to his divinity, is in his resurrection. Jesus could only have been one of four things: a legend, a liar, a lunatic--or Lord and God. There is so much historical and archeological evidence to support his existence that every reputable historian agrees he was not just a legend. If he were a liar, why would he die for his claim + Show Spoiler +(Just in case anyone decides to make a comment about suicide bombers, just... lol, two very different things.), when he could easily have avoided such a cruel death with a few choice words? And, if he were a lunatic, how did he engage in intelligent debates with his opponents or handle the stress of his betrayal and crucifixion while continuing to show a deep love for his antagonists? He said he was Lord and God. The evidence supports that claim.
Biblical scholars disagree with you here...
John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate, page 27: "A further point of broad agreement among New Testament scholars ... is that the historical Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him: he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate. ... such evidence as there is has led the historians of the period to conclude, with an impressive degree of unanimity, that Jesus did not claim to be God incarnate.";
Gerd Lüdemann, "An Embarrassing Misrepresentation", Free Inquiry, October / November 2007: "the broad consensus of modern New Testament scholars that the proclamation of Jesus' exalted nature was in large measure the creation of the earliest Christian communities."
On February 19 2009 12:49 Jerebread wrote:
I would like to know what your take is on this classic teleological argument for a creator?
-Complexity implies a designer.
-The universe is highly complex.
-Therefore, the universe has a designer.
The first assumption is where the problem lies (well, one of them...). The structure of a snowflake is highly complex but there are no snowflake bluebrints up in the clouds. :x
|
Hi SpiritoftheTunA and IdrA,
I realize that what is found below is a rather long read (and probably boring for the rest of you), but you guys seem to be interested in it, and I would like to know what you think of it.
William Lane Craig wrote in his book, Reasonable Faith, that ‘Now a precisely parallel problem attends the Many Worlds Hypothesis is an explanation of fine-tuning. As we have seen, Roger Penrose calculates that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:10^10(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a collection of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. Adopting the Many Worlds Hypothesis to explain away fine-tuning would thus result in a bizarre illusionism; it is far more probable that all our astronomical, geological, and biological estimates of age are wrong and that the appearance of our large and old universe is a massive illusion. Or again, if our universe is but one member of a World Ensemble, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those are much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but one member of an ensemble of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On atheism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no World Ensemble.’
Just so you know where this guy is coming from, and not some random hobo that just says things, he pursued his undergraduate studies at Wheaton College (B.A. 1971) and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A. 1974; M.A. 1975), the University of Birmingham (England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D.Theol. 1984). He is also an accomplished writer, authoring over 30 books and over a hundred articles in professional journals.
|
On February 19 2009 13:18 Jerebread wrote:
Hi SpiritoftheTunA and IdrA,
I realize that what is found below is a rather long read (and probably boring for the rest of you), but you guys seem to be interested in it, and I would like to know what you think of it.
William Lane Craig wrote in his book, Reasonable Faith, that ‘Now a precisely parallel problem attends the Many Worlds Hypothesis is an explanation of fine-tuning. As we have seen, Roger Penrose calculates that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:10^10(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a collection of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. Adopting the Many Worlds Hypothesis to explain away fine-tuning would thus result in a bizarre illusionism; it is far more probable that all our astronomical, geological, and biological estimates of age are wrong and that the appearance of our large and old universe is a massive illusion. Or again, if our universe is but one member of a World Ensemble, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those are much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but one member of an ensemble of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On atheism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no World Ensemble.’
Just so you know where this guy is coming from, and not some random hobo that just says things, he pursued his undergraduate studies at Wheaton College (B.A. 1971) and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A. 1974; M.A. 1975), the University of Birmingham (England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D.Theol. 1984). He is also an accomplished writer, authoring over 30 books and over a hundred articles in professional journals.
It's just an example of another theologian cherry picking at the multiple theories in physics to find things he wants to use to imply a creator. The calculations you mention are nowhere near widely accepted, and is one of many theories. Most theories don't imply improbability of the low entropy condition, and I suggest you do research yourself on the subject. Just because he studied doesn't mean he framed it in a sensible light. Ask any physics Ph.D (preferably Cosmology) if his conclusion is viable, and they'll tell you the truth (it's far-fetched as hell and cherry picking theories). His doctorate was in Philosophy, and his degrees were in theology, so why would you mark him as a credible source in physics?
Ask any Harvard law graduate how the moon makes the tides and he'll give you, with 100% confidence, the completely wrong answer of "gravity pulls the water closer to the moon." In actuality, the differential gravity between the sides and center of the earth is what creates the tides. Just because somebody is highly educated doesn't mean they're right. Again, most physicists won't go around pretending to be well-read theologians, theologians should truly study physics comprehensively before they should be allowed to present theories in order to advance their own creationist agendas. This guy clearly didn't, especially considering how much time he spent getting his other degrees.
Show me one article of his that got published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and I will retract all of these statements.
|
Eh, isnt the whole "complexity requires a designer" argument completely debunked with darwin? Where something very simple can form something really complex with evolution?
|
On February 19 2009 12:49 Jerebread wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 10:13 Mindcrime wrote:
three persons in one God
Replace "God" with "human" and you have someone with dissociative identity disorder! Hi Mindcrime, Are you trying to make a funny or trying to contribute to the discussion? If you're trying to make a joke... props, good one. If you're trying to add to the discussion, I explained the concept a little earlier in the post.
White, yolk, and shell? When you put it that way, it certainly sounds like tritheism to me!
It seems rather odd that such a major tenant of a majority of Christian sects was never explicitly stated anywhere in the Bible.
There is so much historical and archeological evidence to support his existence that every reputable historian agrees he was not just a legend.
Historical and archaeological evidence? Like what? I've never heard of any archaeological evidence of any sort, and the only historical accounts of Jesus come from historians who wrote many decades later and very plausibly could have gotten all of their information on the subject from Christians.
|
On February 19 2009 13:17 LTT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 12:49 Jerebread wrote:Next, simply put, - my God claims to be God. Now you (the audience in general) might be sitting there thinking, that's a retarded, self-validating statement. But, when you look into the other faiths of the world, you come to find that Jesus is the only one who made such claims. Now if Jesus claims to be God, then there must be things about his life that back that up, otherwise, he's just a liar, or a crazy guy. Aside from the many miracles that he performed (eg. healing the blind/deaf/mute/terminally ill/raising the dead), the greatest testament to his divinity, is in his resurrection. Jesus could only have been one of four things: a legend, a liar, a lunatic--or Lord and God. There is so much historical and archeological evidence to support his existence that every reputable historian agrees he was not just a legend. If he were a liar, why would he die for his claim + Show Spoiler +(Just in case anyone decides to make a comment about suicide bombers, just... lol, two very different things.), when he could easily have avoided such a cruel death with a few choice words? And, if he were a lunatic, how did he engage in intelligent debates with his opponents or handle the stress of his betrayal and crucifixion while continuing to show a deep love for his antagonists? He said he was Lord and God. The evidence supports that claim. Biblical scholars disagree with you here... Show nested quote +John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate, page 27: "A further point of broad agreement among New Testament scholars ... is that the historical Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him: he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate. ... such evidence as there is has led the historians of the period to conclude, with an impressive degree of unanimity, that Jesus did not claim to be God incarnate."; Show nested quote +Gerd Lüdemann, "An Embarrassing Misrepresentation", Free Inquiry, October / November 2007: "the broad consensus of modern New Testament scholars that the proclamation of Jesus' exalted nature was in large measure the creation of the earliest Christian communities." Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 12:49 Jerebread wrote:
I would like to know what your take is on this classic teleological argument for a creator?
-Complexity implies a designer.
-The universe is highly complex.
-Therefore, the universe has a designer. The first assumption is where the problem lies (well, one of them...). The structure of a snowflake is highly complex but there are no snowflake bluebrints up in the clouds. :x
From the Bible:
-The title "Son of God" ("Son of" implies "of the same nature as."): Mt 11:27; Mk 12:6; 13:32; 14:61-62; Lk 10:22; 22: 70; Jn 10:30; 14: 9
-Omnipresent: Mt 18:20; 28:20
-Omnipotent: Mt 28:18; Heb 1:3; Rev 1:8
-Creates (only God can create): Col 1:16-17; Jn 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Heb 1:10
-Sinless, perfect: Heb 7:26; Jn 8:46; 2 Cor 5:21
-Has authority to forgive sins: Mk 2:5-12; Lk 24:45-47; Acts 10:43; 1 Jn 1:5-9
-One with the Father: Jn 10:30; 12:45, 14:8-10
-Gives eternal life: Jn 3:16; 5:39-40; 20:30-31
If you don't have a Bible, or don't have the time to look up the references:
+ Show Spoiler +Jesus clearly claimed to be the Messiah and Son of God:
-Jesus told the Samaritan woman that he is the Messiah (Jn 4:25-26)
-Jesus affirmed Peter's statement that he is the Messiah and Son of God (Mt 16:15-17, see also Mk 8:29-30, Lk 9:20-21)
-Jesus told the high priest that he is the Messiah and Son of God (Mk 14:61-62, Mt 26:63-64, Lk 22: 70)
-The Jews understood that this meant Jesus was equating himself with God: "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God" (Jn 5:17-18).
Other places where Jesus equated himself with God:
-Jesus told the Jews, "I and the Father are one." (Jn 10:24-38)
-Jesus told the disciples, "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am." (Jn 13:13)
-Jesus forgave sins, which only God had the authority to do (Mk 2:5-11, Lk 5:20-24)
-Jesus said that he had seen Abraham and that he is eternal: "'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'" (Jn 8:57-58)
-Jesus said that he had seen God, which no one else could do (Jn 6:46)
The Jewish leaders at that time got REALLY riled up about Jesus, to the point where they had the most innocent man in history put to death. Why is that? The number one reason is that he claimed to be divine.
|
On February 19 2009 09:46 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 05:07 NeVeR wrote:On February 17 2009 15:24 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 17 2009 15:23 Mada_Jiang wrote:
For all those who are reading or contributing to this thread, I strongly encourage you to communicate with God him self and get your answers. If he is a loving father he wouldn't leave you in the dark. Rather than reading through how each individual think about religion, step away from that and ask God to reveal him self to you.
For those of you who are getting all worked up arguing with each other and treating each other like you would never do to each other in real life.... I have one suggestion:
Rather than debating over whether heat waves exists, put your self there and feel the heat it self. Once again my email is oni_jiang@hotmail.com. I wont tell you what I think, if you are interested, I will share with you my experiences with God.
I pray that peace will be with you. ^.^ you are stupid. i will not explicate further because you would simply disregard it. peace to you too though. Wow, dude. The guy offers his hand out to everyone here in a completely friendly and polite manner and you have to insult him and his beliefs? Please stop being a douchebag. In my opinion, by the way, you are only doing a disservice to humanity by arguing against religion, since, regardless of whether or not it is true, it is necessary for the world all the same. how is it necessary? certainly people can gain comfort from it, that doesnt mean its necessary or that its a net good. and one could argue that the comfort itself is not a good thing if its based on false premises. and he deserves to be insulted, hes refusing to answer any post that legitly challenges his stance.
Like you said, the comfort (though I wouldn't use that word) it gives people is significant. To be more specific, it gives people a sense of purpose and serves as a foundation for morality. It also serves as a deterrent to crime. I believe that the benefits of religion greatly outweigh the harm it is capable of.
So why religion instead of mere individual spirituality? Religion creates a widespread community of believers that reinforces the faith of the individual and allows him to experience it in a social setting. We as human beings are social creatures, after all, and when we're able to share our beliefs or interests with others who feel similarly, we are all the more strengthened in those feelings. If you were to pursue the argument that "comfort itself is not a good thing if it's based on false premises", I would perhaps ask you what you believe the purpose of life should be. If you tell me that it is happiness - well, there's a contradiction.
Actually though, I personally find this common theory or notion of happiness as the aim of life to be somewhat disagreeable, for reasons I won't go into here.
|
On February 19 2009 13:13 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2009 23:26 TechniQ.UK wrote:
2) As for spirit tuna, just forget it man your the one who is cannot reason and your religious zeal for physics far extends mine.
Hello, science is inherently more reasonable than religion by definition, because religion requires faith.
Science requires an equal amount of faith: 100%
Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (nosc jokes plz), science fails miserably.
Science hasn't solved anything regarding our origins. We know so little pre-big bang.
Science hasn't solved anything regarding our subjective experiences and their root cause or true nature. All science has done is shown that our experiences correlate to our body/brain. But even religious people already know that much.
Religion does not conflict with science regarding the nature of what is happening to us right now. Where they conflict is on the cause and the results; neither has the upper hand there.
|
On February 19 2009 13:58 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 13:13 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 17 2009 23:26 TechniQ.UK wrote:
2) As for spirit tuna, just forget it man your the one who is cannot reason and your religious zeal for physics far extends mine.
Hello, science is inherently more reasonable than religion by definition, because religion requires faith. Science requires an equal amount of faith: 100% Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (nosc jokes plz), science fails miserably. Science hasn't solved anything regarding our origins. We know so little pre-big bang. Science hasn't solved anything regarding our subjective experiences and their root cause or true nature. All science has done is shown that our experiences correlate to our body/brain. But even religious people already know that much. Religion does not conflict with science regarding the nature of what is happening to us right now. Where they conflict is on the cause and the results; neither has the upper hand there.
Yes, I remember a scientist saying that nothing in science is 100% for sure.
Science may be easier to grasp and accept but that by no means correlates with truth.
|
On February 19 2009 13:58 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 13:13 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 17 2009 23:26 TechniQ.UK wrote:
2) As for spirit tuna, just forget it man your the one who is cannot reason and your religious zeal for physics far extends mine.
Hello, science is inherently more reasonable than religion by definition, because religion requires faith. Science requires an equal amount of faith: 100% Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (nosc jokes plz), science fails miserably. Science hasn't solved anything regarding our origins. We know so little pre-big bang. Science hasn't solved anything regarding our subjective experiences and their root cause or true nature. All science has done is shown that our experiences correlate to our body/brain. But even religious people already know that much. Religion does not conflict with science regarding the nature of what is happening to us right now. Where they conflict is on the cause and the results; neither has the upper hand there.
Science's theories still work upon observable evidence though, theories aren't just "theories" in the colloquial sense, they're mounds and mounds of evidence that haven't been disproven yet. Also, science conflicts alot not just with pre-big bang, but also with many religious denominations' interpretations of how life exists, why the Earth is where it is, evolution, etc. Science has evidence for all of these, religion only has faith.
(Plus, Christian schools used to teach that the Earth was the center of the universe and the stars were all on a sphere of crystalline perfection rotating around us. Churches had many of Galileo's followers 'disappear' just for challenging this model)
The real difference between science and religion is that science does not conjure theories from anything other than evidence.
|
On February 19 2009 13:58 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 13:13 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 17 2009 23:26 TechniQ.UK wrote:
2) As for spirit tuna, just forget it man your the one who is cannot reason and your religious zeal for physics far extends mine.
Hello, science is inherently more reasonable than religion by definition, because religion requires faith. Science requires an equal amount of faith: 100% Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (nosc jokes plz), science fails miserably. Science hasn't solved anything regarding our origins. We know so little pre-big bang. Science hasn't solved anything regarding our subjective experiences and their root cause or true nature. All science has done is shown that our experiences correlate to our body/brain. But even religious people already know that much. Religion does not conflict with science regarding the nature of what is happening to us right now. Where they conflict is on the cause and the results; neither has the upper hand there.
What about saying "we're not certain" takes faith?
|
On February 19 2009 13:50 Jerebread wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 13:17 LTT wrote:On February 19 2009 12:49 Jerebread wrote:Next, simply put, - my God claims to be God. Now you (the audience in general) might be sitting there thinking, that's a retarded, self-validating statement. But, when you look into the other faiths of the world, you come to find that Jesus is the only one who made such claims. Now if Jesus claims to be God, then there must be things about his life that back that up, otherwise, he's just a liar, or a crazy guy. Aside from the many miracles that he performed (eg. healing the blind/deaf/mute/terminally ill/raising the dead), the greatest testament to his divinity, is in his resurrection. Jesus could only have been one of four things: a legend, a liar, a lunatic--or Lord and God. There is so much historical and archeological evidence to support his existence that every reputable historian agrees he was not just a legend. If he were a liar, why would he die for his claim + Show Spoiler +(Just in case anyone decides to make a comment about suicide bombers, just... lol, two very different things.), when he could easily have avoided such a cruel death with a few choice words? And, if he were a lunatic, how did he engage in intelligent debates with his opponents or handle the stress of his betrayal and crucifixion while continuing to show a deep love for his antagonists? He said he was Lord and God. The evidence supports that claim. Biblical scholars disagree with you here... John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate, page 27: "A further point of broad agreement among New Testament scholars ... is that the historical Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him: he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate. ... such evidence as there is has led the historians of the period to conclude, with an impressive degree of unanimity, that Jesus did not claim to be God incarnate."; Gerd Lüdemann, "An Embarrassing Misrepresentation", Free Inquiry, October / November 2007: "the broad consensus of modern New Testament scholars that the proclamation of Jesus' exalted nature was in large measure the creation of the earliest Christian communities." On February 19 2009 12:49 Jerebread wrote:
I would like to know what your take is on this classic teleological argument for a creator?
-Complexity implies a designer.
-The universe is highly complex.
-Therefore, the universe has a designer. The first assumption is where the problem lies (well, one of them...). The structure of a snowflake is highly complex but there are no snowflake bluebrints up in the clouds. :x From the Bible: -The title "Son of God" ("Son of" implies "of the same nature as."): Mt 11:27; Mk 12:6; 13:32; 14:61-62; Lk 10:22; 22: 70; Jn 10:30; 14: 9 -Omnipresent: Mt 18:20; 28:20 -Omnipotent: Mt 28:18; Heb 1:3; Rev 1:8 -Creates (only God can create): Col 1:16-17; Jn 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Heb 1:10 -Sinless, perfect: Heb 7:26; Jn 8:46; 2 Cor 5:21 -Has authority to forgive sins: Mk 2:5-12; Lk 24:45-47; Acts 10:43; 1 Jn 1:5-9 -One with the Father: Jn 10:30; 12:45, 14:8-10 -Gives eternal life: Jn 3:16; 5:39-40; 20:30-31 If you don't have a Bible, or don't have the time to look up the references: + Show Spoiler +Jesus clearly claimed to be the Messiah and Son of God:
-Jesus told the Samaritan woman that he is the Messiah (Jn 4:25-26)
-Jesus affirmed Peter's statement that he is the Messiah and Son of God (Mt 16:15-17, see also Mk 8:29-30, Lk 9:20-21)
-Jesus told the high priest that he is the Messiah and Son of God (Mk 14:61-62, Mt 26:63-64, Lk 22: 70)
-The Jews understood that this meant Jesus was equating himself with God: "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God" (Jn 5:17-18).
Other places where Jesus equated himself with God:
-Jesus told the Jews, "I and the Father are one." (Jn 10:24-38)
-Jesus told the disciples, "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am." (Jn 13:13)
-Jesus forgave sins, which only God had the authority to do (Mk 2:5-11, Lk 5:20-24)
-Jesus said that he had seen Abraham and that he is eternal: "'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'" (Jn 8:57-58)
-Jesus said that he had seen God, which no one else could do (Jn 6:46) The Jewish leaders at that time got REALLY riled up about Jesus, to the point where they had the most innocent man in history put to death. Why is that? The number one reason is that he claimed to be divine.
Summation:
"I will prove to you that Jesus' claims to divinity were not made after the fact, by Chrisitans with a vested interest, by quoting the handbook which was made after the fact by said Christians."
|
On February 19 2009 14:11 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 13:58 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 13:13 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 17 2009 23:26 TechniQ.UK wrote:
2) As for spirit tuna, just forget it man your the one who is cannot reason and your religious zeal for physics far extends mine.
Hello, science is inherently more reasonable than religion by definition, because religion requires faith. Science requires an equal amount of faith: 100% Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (nosc jokes plz), science fails miserably. Science hasn't solved anything regarding our origins. We know so little pre-big bang. Science hasn't solved anything regarding our subjective experiences and their root cause or true nature. All science has done is shown that our experiences correlate to our body/brain. But even religious people already know that much. Religion does not conflict with science regarding the nature of what is happening to us right now. Where they conflict is on the cause and the results; neither has the upper hand there. What about saying "we're not certain" takes faith?
so you admit that the existence of a creator or greater scheme of things is just as possible as not?
On February 19 2009 14:10 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
Science's theories still work upon observable evidence though, theories aren't just "theories" in the colloquial sense, they're mounds and mounds of evidence that haven't been disproven yet.
Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (no sc jokes plz), science fails miserably.
Also, science conflicts alot not just with pre-big bang, but also with many religious denominations' interpretations of how life exists, why the Earth is where it is, evolution, etc. Science has evidence for all of these, religion only has faith.
give me one example of where science conflicts with the bible. and I do expect you to leave room for interpretation in the words of the bible.
(Plus, Christian schools used to teach that the Earth was the center of the universe and the stars were all on a sphere of crystalline perfection rotating around us. Churches had many of Galileo's followers 'disappear' just for challenging this model)
I am sure that non-christian schools have taught that same thing in the past. I really could care less about what sinful people have done in the name of various religions. That has absolutely nothing to do with the religion itself - it has to do with mankind.
|
On February 19 2009 14:22 travis wrote:Show nested quote +
Also, science conflicts alot not just with pre-big bang, but also with many religious denominations' interpretations of how life exists, why the Earth is where it is, evolution, etc. Science has evidence for all of these, religion only has faith.
give me one example of where science conflicts with the bible. and I do expect you to leave room for interpretation in the words of the bible.
i never said the bible itself, note my wording, "many religious denominations' interpretations"
|
On February 19 2009 14:22 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 14:11 Mindcrime wrote:On February 19 2009 13:58 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 13:13 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 17 2009 23:26 TechniQ.UK wrote:
2) As for spirit tuna, just forget it man your the one who is cannot reason and your religious zeal for physics far extends mine.
Hello, science is inherently more reasonable than religion by definition, because religion requires faith. Science requires an equal amount of faith: 100% Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (nosc jokes plz), science fails miserably. Science hasn't solved anything regarding our origins. We know so little pre-big bang. Science hasn't solved anything regarding our subjective experiences and their root cause or true nature. All science has done is shown that our experiences correlate to our body/brain. But even religious people already know that much. Religion does not conflict with science regarding the nature of what is happening to us right now. Where they conflict is on the cause and the results; neither has the upper hand there. What about saying "we're not certain" takes faith? so you admit that the existence of a creator or greater scheme of things is just as possible as not?
No. Not being certain and giving god a 50% chance of existing are two totally different things.
|
On February 19 2009 14:10 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 13:58 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 13:13 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 17 2009 23:26 TechniQ.UK wrote:
2) As for spirit tuna, just forget it man your the one who is cannot reason and your religious zeal for physics far extends mine.
Hello, science is inherently more reasonable than religion by definition, because religion requires faith. Science requires an equal amount of faith: 100% Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (nosc jokes plz), science fails miserably. Science hasn't solved anything regarding our origins. We know so little pre-big bang. Science hasn't solved anything regarding our subjective experiences and their root cause or true nature. All science has done is shown that our experiences correlate to our body/brain. But even religious people already know that much. Religion does not conflict with science regarding the nature of what is happening to us right now. Where they conflict is on the cause and the results; neither has the upper hand there. Science's theories still work upon observable evidence though, theories aren't just "theories" in the colloquial sense, they're mounds and mounds of evidence that haven't been disproven yet. Also, science conflicts alot not just with pre-big bang, but also with many religious denominations' interpretations of how life exists, why the Earth is where it is, evolution, etc. Science has evidence for all of these, religion only has faith. (Plus, Christian schools used to teach that the Earth was the center of the universe and the stars were all on a sphere of crystalline perfection rotating around us. Churches had many of Galileo's followers 'disappear' just for challenging this model) The real difference between science and religion is that science does not conjure theories from anything other than evidence.
The problem with this is that you're lumping all Christians together. Just because a certain group used to teach that doesn't mean we're all incorrect in our beliefs.
|
ok well do you not think it's possible that the point is not to tell people the nature of this material world (which should be completely irrelevant to the faith itself), but rather to illustrate various messages?
and in doing so, fallible people who are conveying those messages make errors in their examples because of ignorance regarding the nature of this material world? because it has nothing to do with the faith itself?
man that was worded kind of poorly but hopefully you understand me
|
On February 19 2009 14:22 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 14:10 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
Science's theories still work upon observable evidence though, theories aren't just "theories" in the colloquial sense, they're mounds and mounds of evidence that haven't been disproven yet.
Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (no sc jokes plz), science fails miserably.
The end definitely has alot of evidence towards heat death, look it up. The most macro, I assume, is cosmology, which is a huge topic, please study it, it's pretty interesting. The most micro has quantum physics, which has observational evidence going to past 12 significant figures of agreeing with the models (which is more than even the universal law of gravitation). Even microer than that would be string theory, and perhaps the Higgs model of mass.
As for the beginning, there are several theories that would allow a glimpse past the black hole, if they turned out to be true. For example, Loop Quantum Gravity implies that a singularity cannot exist, and thus there was a minimum size of the universe, a "hole" one could supposedly look through. If the string theory with parallel universes on parallel branes proves true, then the existence of multiple universes could help us look more towards the origin of them all. It's not a barren subject that has "failed miserably."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
