|
On November 05 2004 12:03 BigBalls wrote:
No origin.
It starts with god creating the earth and space in 7 days. Then adam comes in, who lives for 950 years iirc.
The word years is definitely used in describing the ages of people. Just add up all the years (i think it also says how old people are when they have children, so there isnt much guessing needed) till you get to the new testament and i think it would be around 6000
Please quote the bible saying that god created earth and space in exactly 7 days. I have the bible right here and it doesnt say that, although my bible is not in english.
|
I'd also like to throw in a point, and I am unsure whether it has already been pointed out, because I haven't read this entire thread. Sorry if it has.
The concept of the omniscience of God, in the form of a living consciousness, is a logical error in and of itself. Let us consider the two ways of analyzing omniscience: consciously and without conscience.
God, being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, by definition knows and has always known all things at all times. Thus God cannot have a plan, goal, hope, or ideal, nor is He in any place to judge anything but the fruits of his own labor, though he knew everything of those fruits before they were borne. From his own will and his own consciousness has existence existed, and in this perfect determinism, all events are predestined. God's awareness of the future binds the future to a particular path, and hence there can be no random or perfectly unpredictable occurrences. Hence, in the classical sense of God, he cannot be a judge, nor can he have emotion. For God having known all at all times, he cannot look down on his one begotten Son and say, "with him I am well pleased." God's emotion contradicts God's essence in being all-everything. From this we can conclude only two possibilities: there is no conscious God, or any conscious God can be only very powerful, and very knowledgeable, but not completely one or both.
The concept of omniscience without consciousness is exemplified in a statement like, "existence knows everything," or "time knows everything." These are personifications of abstract concepts, which are not thinking and acting -- not conscious. Thus they are not illogical in nature, because they do not entail utter predestination, but merely the fact of the totality of existence itself.
It is logical and acceptable to consider the potential for omniscience, but it is illogical and unacceptable to consider that this limit is attainable in conscience. Thus, unless believers take the easy, unintelligent way out of the entire argument by ridiculously stating that God cannot be bound to the rules of logic that he created, there is no possibility of the existence of God in his classical form.
|
On November 05 2004 12:02 SoL.Origin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2004 11:54 [vital]Myth wrote:On November 05 2004 11:35 SoL.Origin wrote:
Don't know if this was stated regarding the "heavy rock" argument: if the rock is too heavy for even god to lift it, then it would have to be infinitely heavy because god has infinite power, and thus the rock would have infinite mass and it would be impossible to lift it in the first place because it would be impossible to grab it given that is has no limits of mass. This is why the argument is contradictory in itself.
Trying to measure God's power according to the rules that he himself created is just silly. God could also just alter the gravitational field of one mass infinitely, if he is all-powerful, and in doing so would make the weight of a rock-of-finite-mass in that gravitational field infinite in magnitude. Then, with his infinite strength, he could at best keep the rock at rest without cheating and creating a finite gravitational field. Of course, in "the rules God himself created," it is absurd to imagine an infinitely strong gravitational field, because it would contradict the "rules" of gravitation. It is equally as absurd to imagine a rock of infinite mass, because infinite mass does not exist. Thus you are basing your argument, about the necessity of infinite mass, on the premise that your scenario is within the "rules that God created," which it is not. The scenario of infinitely strong gravitation is not within "the rules that God created" either. Hence the question, "can God make a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it?" rests on the premise that even God must follow the rules that God created, and thus there cannot be infinite mass nor infinitely strong gravity. Considering cases that lie outside the rules of the situation does not invalidate the situation. For instance, you can't state that a two-dimensional function is invalid simply because it is bounded along the horizontal axis and does not exist at either positive or negative infinity. Hence the question stands, "can God make a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it?" and it is valid. Your post makes no sense whatsoever. God is obviously not limited to this universe, and if he wants to create a rock in this universe the rock must necessarily apply the rules created by him or it wouldnt be in this universe. What you are asking is like saying "god cannot do something that is impossible to be done" but that is obviously a contradiction in itself.
You basically put out your own fire there. The concept of God being able to do something that is impossible is the entire point of the question, "can God make a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it?" Because any answer to this question is a contradiction, some premise within the question must be wrong. The wrong premise is the concept of God, in the form that we are told to understand him.
|
On November 05 2004 12:05 SoL.Origin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2004 12:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
the "most christian" people I've talked to are all of the opinion that the world is at least younger than 10000 years.
If you really want to know you should read the bible, it is the only source available that you can trust regarding this subject. Other people base their assumptions on reading the bible too but they are not necessarily right. I starting reading the bible a couple of years ago and have yet to find a contradiction in it, and I've studied physics and chemistry enough for that purpose.
Doesn't the bible say that God is good *and* omniscient/omnipotent? That's a pretty big contradiction right there. Don't forget that George Bush was just re-elected.
Like laptoplegacy said in the first response to this thread, it's not omnipotence or omniscience that are hard to buy--the universe could concievably be run by indifferent or evil agents that had full knowledge and control over all events. But the major monotheistic faiths at least seem to make the claim that god is not only omnipotent but also good. This "goodness" is praised in human terms and I've never seen anything in the original sources that says anything about how humans shouldn't think about it too much because it's beyond their comprehensive capacity. The idea is that an omnipotent and good--that's good by human standards--lord of the universe would not allow any evil in the world, but there's no doubt that there's evil everywhere in our world.
So in direct reponse to the topic title: even though there may be an omniscient being, there's no point in believing in him because he doesn't give a shit about us.
|
well, does the bible say something like 'god created the day and the night', question is - what was there when there were no day and night?
or does it say 'there was darkness, god created the light', question is - where did darkness came from, if not from god? if it did came from god, you still have 1st question.
am i wrong about these lines?
|
Little excerpts of genesis:
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Sentences like that are listed throughout the first 6 days, the creation period. In those 6 days, god created light, heaven, water and the land, the stars and the sun, animals, more living creatures and man. then on the 7th day he rested. So, in 7 days, god created adam, the heavens and the earth.
005:005 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty
years: and he died.
So adam lived 930 years.
Clearly the language of days and years is being used.
edit: I really dont doubt that you know the bible better than I do, and im curious what you are looking at because it is clear to me that years and days have the same meaning.
|
|
|
On November 05 2004 12:15 rplant wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2004 12:05 SoL.Origin wrote:On November 05 2004 12:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
the "most christian" people I've talked to are all of the opinion that the world is at least younger than 10000 years.
If you really want to know you should read the bible, it is the only source available that you can trust regarding this subject. Other people base their assumptions on reading the bible too but they are not necessarily right. I starting reading the bible a couple of years ago and have yet to find a contradiction in it, and I've studied physics and chemistry enough for that purpose. Doesn't the bible say that God is good *and* omniscient/omnipotent? That's a pretty big contradiction right there. Don't forget that George Bush was just re-elected. Like laptoplegacy said in the first response to this thread, it's not omnipotence or omniscience that are hard to buy--the universe could concievably be run by indifferent or evil agents that had full knowledge and control over all events. But the major monotheistic faiths at least seem to make the claim that god is not only omnipotent but also good. This "goodness" is praised in human terms and I've never seen anything in the original sources that says anything about how humans shouldn't think about it too much because it's beyond their comprehensive capacity. The idea is that an omnipotent and good--that's good by human standards--lord of the universe would not allow any evil in the world, but there's no doubt that there's evil everywhere in our world. So in direct reponse to the thread: even though there may be an omniscient being, there's no point in believing in him because he doesn't give a shit about us.
When thinkers begin to realize the contradictory nature of the God as he is written, catch-phrases like "God works in mysterious ways" and "God can't be understood by man" are the only replies they get. The weakness of these rebuttles, being claims without reasoning, points to an unequivocal winner of the argument. Pat yourself on the back for winning  .
P.S. That's all I'm gonna say in this thread.
|
On November 05 2004 12:15 rplant wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2004 12:05 SoL.Origin wrote:On November 05 2004 12:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
the "most christian" people I've talked to are all of the opinion that the world is at least younger than 10000 years.
If you really want to know you should read the bible, it is the only source available that you can trust regarding this subject. Other people base their assumptions on reading the bible too but they are not necessarily right. I starting reading the bible a couple of years ago and have yet to find a contradiction in it, and I've studied physics and chemistry enough for that purpose. Doesn't the bible say that God is good *and* omniscient/omnipotent? That's a pretty big contradiction right there. Don't forget that George Bush was just re-elected. Like laptoplegacy said in the first response to this thread, it's not omnipotence or omniscience that are hard to buy--the universe could concievably be run by indifferent or evil agents that had full knowledge and control over all events. But the major monotheistic faiths at least seem to make the claim that god is not only omnipotent but also good. This "goodness" is praised in human terms and I've never seen anything in the original sources that says anything about how humans shouldn't think about it too much because it's beyond their comprehensive capacity. The idea is that an omnipotent and good--that's good by human standards--lord of the universe would not allow any evil in the world, but there's no doubt that there's evil everywhere in our world. So in direct reponse to the thread: even though there may be an omniscient being, there's no point in believing in him because he doesn't give a shit about us.
I dont believe the words omnipotent and omnipresent were even invented when the bible was written... and i havent read anything equivalent in the bible so i cant say much about it.
And regarding your last sentence, i think maybe you should think of the possibility that your faith is at trial and god will give you those things you want if you have faith in Him and follow his commandments.
Obviously most people who say god is unfair also commit themselves to breaking his commandments every minute... try spending a day without breaking any of the 10 commandments, and not even thinking about doing it, and try to notice how your life was different that day. Were you more "lucky" maybe?
|
Bah, none of you are even getting the point of the whole post.
Look for drone's post on page 7 or 8, then you'll get it.
I can't believe how long it takes some of you, it's pretty simple too. But you have to overcomplicate shit before you're even done reading it.
|
To sum it all up, if there is an omnipotent being THEN there is no free will.
However, if there is free will, then no such omnipotent being exists.
|
Precisely, all you guys are going into theories and shit that were side discussions, and I don't even think any of you got the main point. NONE of you are discussing it at all.
|
Let's suppose there is an omnipotent being.
By our logic, this implies that there is no free will, so the omnipotent being can predict everything that will happen from the beginning onwards. So, although the omnipotent being is all powerful, he cannot change the course of events that are going to happen, so the being is basically a quiet observer.
(Note that although the omnipotent being CAN change the course of history by changing it's own actions, it already knows how it will react to everything because it is omnipotent, so in reality, it is merely observing itself and everything else).
What circumstances must exist for these assumptions to hold?
Well, the universe MUST be of finite size. This is not to say that a finitely sized universe IMPLIES there is an omnipotent being, it merely means that an INfinitely sized universe implies that there is NO omnipotent being.
We have been arguing that math is the omnipotent being in the universe. So, if math were an omnipotent being, then the universe MUST be of finite size and not infinite.
What happens if the universe if of infinite size? This implies that a) there is no omnipotent being
b) there can be free will, although, everything may still be deterministic, yet there is no requirement for an omnipotent being that can actually predict everything.
|
You forgot one part though.
If the universe is indeed finite, that leaves the possibility for expansion further than the universe itself. A megaverse if you will.
Anything finite can have expansion, the only physical entity without expansion is infinite.
We'll assume there is no megaverse at the moment since we have explored far too far with telescopes with no sign of a curve in the universe for it to be assumed that it is spherical.
Also, if it turns out there is no omnipotent being, then the next step down is some sort of observer, controller if you will. Mathematics perfectly fits this place.
My conclusion is an infinitely large, flat, universe(there is more evidence that suggests an infinite universe and than a finite one) with a governing body of mathematics. No dieties needed.
EDIT: Do you agree with that conclusion bigballs?
|
Oh shit, been away for too long, too many things to respond to now. 
Just some things though:
Keanu made me fucking LOL. If that "I'm smarter then thou" attitude is all he has to offer in defense of his believe that's fucking pathetic.
Aseq is out of his mind. Having philosofical discussions about the possibility of (a) god existing is one thing, doubting the validity of evolutionary theory is quite another. There may be some truth in the statement made by various people that the concept of a god might just be 'way over our heads', evolutionary theorie sure isn't.
People opposing it are usually doing so out of ignorance. Sometimes it's just stupidity though, especially in the case of fundamentalist christians.
Bigballs is a clear thinker and I was also pleasantly suprised at the level of clearness Freak exposed while being in a drug-induced state of conciousness.
Moltke, c/p-ing large pieces of tracts from medieval philosophers that have long been debunked isn't adding much to the discussion imo.
Sol.Origin, don't suppose non-believers automatically know less about the bible than you do. I'm pretty confident I know more about it then you, yet I'm not a christian (anymore).
|
I feel so loved 
Now I'm just tired and not drugged o.O
|
Evolution imo is severely flawed (why would there be male and female species for nearly everything, they have much more trouble reproducing, since there are some two-gendered animals as well. Specialization. Also, sexually reproducing organisms have a much lower chance of being whiped out by parasites, virii etc since the genes get reshuffled with each new generation.
Also, where does conciousness come from. Complexity of the brain.
Where does the will to survive come from (since even the simplest animals show it)?) This is so simple that I'm astounded anyone would be troubled by this question. Obviously, organisms with no will to survive produce less offspring than organisms that do have this will, thus 'will to survive' is selected for.
and i don't see the point of living my life if it were true, since it would be as pointless as an MMRPG^^. Science would not be providing you with a reason to live. That's not what it's supposed to do, and you'd be stupid to expect that.
You have to give meaning to your life yourself and BTW, I don't think religion does a good job providing it. Just ask yourself the question what is the meaning of god's life??
|
Oh and a big LMAO to all people that believe the earth is not approximately 4.56 billion years old.
Sorry for instigating, but that belief has to be one of the most ridiculous things that fundi christians cling to.
|
you guys, its really not that complicated. the best way to describe goes something like this:
How did things get created (outside of evolution, im not talking about that creation)? Time? When did it all start? Its impossible, in our ability to understand, to have an answer. No matter how you slice it, you cannot offer a reasonable solution (the big bang: a big ball from nowhere explodes and thus time begins... what began it? what created it?). And, so, with God, we have the same.... There is no answer, no we can't understand.
Think of it like a 2D object trying to understand a 3D object. Exactly how is a 2D object going to explain a 3D object to his friends? It defies everything they know to be real and logical, and the depth is incomprehinsible to them.
That's not all that complicated, and I'm not really going into the nature of God, but that's just to explain... You people try to be clever and disprove God or something.... Well, don't be so proud of yourself. You're not the only one who's thought it all through.
|
you guys, its really not that complicated. It never is, for religious people. 
You're not the only one who's thought it all through. I know. Lots of other people before me came to the conclusion that the disproval of some ancient myths scrabbled down on clay tablets by Hebrew goatherders was actually not that difficult at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
