filthy tugboat
Active Member
Thief said:This far in the topic and you ask as you do?
Well, to be honest I didn't know what you meant by the question, I still don't. Perhaps you would like to repeat it with a bit more detail?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Thief said:This far in the topic and you ask as you do?
Well, to be honest I didn't know what you meant by the question, I still don't. Perhaps you would like to repeat it with a bit more detail?
700+ postings and the title question remains....
I say the Carpenter did not die for our sins....He died because of them.
Place an intelligent fellow in a crowd of fearful and superstitious people....
and the Voice of reason will die.
Did He die as a scapegoat?.....nay.
I repeat, both the zygote and the human that it will later become both came from intelligence.
Ok, the first act of creation was temporal, I conceded the point.
Wait a minute, we agree that the act of creation was a temporal effect, so how then can you go on to say "God could never create anything as change cannot occur without time", um, the change occurred IN TIME. The first act of creation was IN TIME.
The movement occurred IN TIME. Once the movement occurred, he went from atemporal to temporal, and he will always be "potentionally infinite", there is no going back. Time didnt exist before he moved, he moved, time began. See?
The singularity did come in to existence, like I said, it is not something that was just sitting there for infinitude and all of a sudden expanded. Nobody knows how or why this happened, but we know that it did. Here is the problem, if we postulate that the singularity was sitting there for an infinite amount of time, and there is nothing outside, right? All of the matter and energy that will ever exist, exists in the singularity, right?? Why would it all of a sudden expand? Why didnt it expand sooner? Why not later?? Especially if it had an infinite amount of time to expand, what would be the reason why it expanded when it did, if there are no external factors beyond it?? Makes no sense whatsover. That is why no one is postulating the singularity sitting there for all these billion years. The singularity appeared and expanded from the moment it appeared, and has been expanding ever since.
Good question. I dont think anyone could give a good answer as to how God could create out of nothing. BUT, it is more plausible to believe that God created out of nothing, than believe that the universe popped in to being uncaused out of nothing.
When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least we can see and understand that the magician caused the rabbit to appear. But on naturalism, the rabbit just pops in to being uncaused out of nothing, with no magician in sight.
You have this habit of thinking that the singularity was infinite, and waiting to expand at some point. This is false thinking. It didn't exist before 13.7 billion years ago.
I gave you quotes based on the standard model, and at least two of those quotes did indeed say that there was no matter or time before the singularity.
Whoa wait a minute wait a minute. First off, lowered it to that kind of degree? You cant get that kind of degree of entropy from unguided and blind processes.
Second, you are right, the entropy is increasing in our universe, which means that our universe was "wound up", and is now running out of energy, like a battery. "Whatever effected the singularity that caused it to expand".......yeah......God....only something with a intellectual mind can get entropy levels that low to that specified degree of tuning.
You cant get this kind of fine tuning from a blind, random, and natural process. This kind of improbability is only used by people who want to negate God from the equation so bad that they are willing to postulate anything to do this.
I repeat, 10(10123)...that is a 10 as the base, and a 1 as the exponent, followed by 123 zeros. That is the number you have to deal with.
I base theism not because im looking to fill the gaps, but because the other alternative seems absurd to me.
God is love, of course he loves himself. I love myself. Cmon now with these irrelevant questions.
And the definition presupposes the notion of "sane human beings don't disregard the rights of others and rules of society". The rules of society was made by people with a subjective standard of right and wrong. What came first, the rule, or the man?
But hypothetically speaking, if they did...
Social agreement? Were you part of the social agreement? I dont remember agreeing with anything. I was born in a world where there were already rules set to follow. I never agreed to anything
So, if there are no objective morals even with God, still, that goes back to subjectivity. The man that murders your family is not objectively wrong, he is subjectively wrong only to those that disagree with him, but since it is not cool to "appeal to population", it doesnt matter who disagrees with him, right?
If they did this, and God created them, they would be "objectively" wrong. With God, his laws applies EVERYWHERE. So they couldnt get out of wrongdoing just by saying "It is right according to our moral code." God doesnt have restrictions on where his laws work and doesnt work. But on your view, there is no God, and they would be perfectly moral on their code by molesting you lol.
I dont know what kind of answer you are looking for. He is the source of goodness. It is not a standard that is "set", it is a standard that simply "is".
Um, when did the Israelites lie? What?
God is the author of life. Life is his first, and ours second. He judges how he sees fit.
God is perfect, by definition. His commandments and decisions are therefore perfect.
Hahahahahah "i dont support the conclusions he drew or the commands he made" Ok dude. Keep giving me your presupposed subjective opinion.
Its not that I was unaware of it, I wanted to read the SCRIPTURE in CONTEXT, as most nonbelievers that I encounter like to take things out of context. And as i read it, the scripture did exactly what I thought it was going to do, and that is show God being a disciplinarian and a judge, as he always does to evil people. As far as this appeal to emotion that you are exhibiting, tough luck. The Amorites went to war, the Amorite people could have escaped if they wanted to. Just like some of the Iraqis fled during the American invasion. Those that stayed wanted to stay, so, they got the results of staying.
Well, on the Christian view, when children die they go to heaven with God. So the children that were killed, you dont have to worry abou them, they are with the Creator. That only leaves men and women, and undoubtedly, all of them participated in acts of abomination, and God could not tolerate it, therefore, he had the Isralites carry out his act of judgment. So as I said, this crybaby stuff isn't going to work. God got rid of evil people to make way for his chosen nation.
Well, them too. From the looks of things, someone in this conversation frequently attend brothels lol.
And you accused me of appealing to population when i stated a fact also, that over a billion people think the bible is morally good, as opposed to you. The pot is calling the kettle black.
Second, we dont need "modern" quotes from physicists stating that the universe began to exist, because as of right now it is a scientific fact. Nowadays they are working on attempting to explain how and why the universe did in fact begin to exist, which is why you have all of these crazy cosmological models out there floating around. So now it isnt a matter of "if", it is a matter of why and how.
It does mean the singularity came in to existence. For the seventh time, no one is suggesting that the singularity was out there sitting and waiting to expand. The singularity wasn't out there for this infinite amount of time that you seem to think it is. You are sadly mistaken if you believe this. All STEM began to exist.
I dont know. But the bigger question is how can nothing create something?
It's not about whether it is cool or not, it's about whether it really supports the argument. Logic =/= cool. Yep I think we're on the same page now about subjective morality. Most humans want similar things and that is usually because those things most humans want often benefit the humans in question. I suppose it is objective in a way. "things that benefit humans are moral". This is a combination of subjective and objective in a way because it is only moral to humans however it is an objective grounding for morality.
I don't know about "perfectly moral" but I can't imagine why it would be wrong according to anyone or any law but my own. Their laws allow it, as does their moral code. Is it that different to our treatment of other animals? What if they got us to run through mazes for food and never let us go? Would that be objectively wrong?
Explain please what this standard means and how it applies to me? I just don't see what you mean when you say God's moral commands are true, the standards he has given are right. Even if they're not "set", how are they right? What makes them objectively right always?
I think the Israelites lied about the countries they invaded. They told stories about how evil they were to inspire nationalism and patriotism among their subjects. I would go to war against the Nazi's just by virtue of knowing the things that they did, the Israelites told everyone that their enemies sacrificed children to their God's and all that jazz. What do you think that would have done to the people? It would enrage them, encourage the war effort, raise morale for their troops.
As I said before, since when does "might make right"? How does his creation of life mean we have to listen to him? How does our inability to stop him make everything he does right?
Is he? What does that mean? What does perfection in this sense mean? Take this seriously, I never understood what perfection meant to God? He is the best thing that ever could possibly be? At everything? I think something could be better at convincing people he is real.
I plan to. But as I was saying, I didn't show Moses's act of Genocide disingenuously, he did enter thousands of homes and kill men women and children. Non-combatants. Which brings me to a point I meant to raise a while back, God has no inherent problem with the killing of children or the act of genocide. Those two things are not objectively wrong. Under the right circumstances, like the Moses escapade, it is not only not wrong, it's even the righteous thing to do. Do you agree? I'm not saying it's right every time, I'm saying that the act of genocide and the killing of children is not inherently bad according to the Bible.
"They were in a place that was in the way so we killed them." God would not have punished them if they'd left but because they stayed, with their family and their friends, they were subject to genocide.
Isn't that convenient, killing children is not bad because they go to heaven. Why! I'll just go out and start practicing me spear throw right now. Make a sport of it, all for the greater good yeah?
Is it you? I don't think anyone but you has brought up brothels?
It just really looked like it, I don't know what you were trying to acheive when you brought it up.
I still take fault with what you propose "the universe began to exist" means. unless you have since amended that to only meaning the expansion and not the sudden appearance of the singularity.
Was there a before the singularity? Time breaks down with everything else, what does it mean to say "before" the singularity? So at least we now agree that STEM existed inside the singularity.
Don't think that it can.
Ok...so you are saying that if a law was passed in Austrailia that allowed for men to have sex with girls ages 10-12, that would be ok, since it would be the law...gotcha.
All I can do is give the the same answer I have been giving you all alone. If that answer isn't good enough, I dont know what else to say.
What reasons do you have to conclude that they lied?
Do you think it is ok for children to listen and obey their parents? Did you listen to and obey your parents? Do you want your children to listen to and obey you?? Whether I believe in God or not, my answer to all three questions is YES, so now that I believe in God, I can understand why he wants us to listen to and obey him, and I understand now why we have to.
Yes, he is the greatest conceivable being. You may be familiar with the "ontological argument". If you aren't, check it out. It is a mind boogling argument for the existence of God from a "greatest conceivable being" stand point lol.
I think God has done an excellent job at convincing us that he is real. What more evidence do I need? A universe from nothing, the fine tuning of the universe to the tiniest degree, a ton of objective moral values, and the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Each one of those, when put in a argumentive form, carries a TON of weight in my eyes and it is at least believable on my part. What evidence do you need? According to Christianity, even some angels, who know that God exist, still chose to rebel against him and turn wicked. So even if God revealed himself to people, that still wouldnt garantee that people would turn to him.
The act of genocide and killing of children is bad if it is not mandated by God. We agree.
If you stay, you are obviously subject to what is going to take place, right?
As I said before, God is the author of life. When he takes a life, he is getting back what is his.
By "exist", I mean there was a point at which literally NOTHING existed. The singularity appeared, and expanded all in one instance, and that was the beginning of the universe.
There was not a "temporal" before, no. But there was a "causal" before, meaning there was a causal agent in existence, this agent just didnt exist in time.
Then you agree that a transcendent causal agent caused the singularity to appear.
You can repeat it all you want, you still aren't adressing the point. The process was reduced to non-intelligence, how was that form of non-intelligence capable of producing intelligence if non-intelligence is incapable of producing intelligence? Answering this with, "because that non-intelligence was produced by intelligence," doesn't address the question, it just repeats the claim, it also suggests that everything non-intelligent produced by intelligent beings is capable of producing intelligence. In which case, why does poo not produce intelligence?
Because it happened simultaenously. The first causal act occurred at the same instant that time was created. If you are sitting perfectly still in a chair for eternity, and then you "begin" to stand, from the moment you moved you have just stepped in to time. Time began from the very moment that you moved, and it will go on in to the potential future forever.How was the act of creation temporal if time was what was being created? Time has to exist before anything can occur, including any act of creation. Time is not something that can be created, it has to exist for the act of creation to occur.
Yes but you said time was created. If the act of creation was temporal then time has to exist prior to creation or else no action can occur.
Not really, how did time begin when he moved? Did it just start and that's why he moved? Or did his movement cause time to start? If the latter, how could his movement occur prior to time's existence?
Science cannot deal with things that are not material or of naturalistic nature. That is why "nobody knows". Prior to planck time, there was nothing there. That is the limitations of science. Metaphysics have to step in at this point.As my quotes last page stated, prior to around 1 billionth of a second after expansion began, nobody knows anything about what happened or what existed.
Well, tell that to contemporary cosmology, and big bang theorists.There is no information to be gained and all science breaks down at that point. Postulation that STEM came into existence within the singularity or during it's expansion or whether it always existed is not something that has any basis in facts.
You are not dealing with my points. If the singularity was there sitting for all eternity, why did it expand only 13.7 bilion years ago?? There was no pre-deterministic causes for this, so why did it expand at that time? Why not sooner? Why not later?? Me personally, I am not asking science to explain something that it is incapable of explaining. Science cannot be used to account for the origin of its own domain. We need metaphysics for that. To continue to look for scientific explanations is the blind leading the blind.There are no facts supporting anything beyond the second after expansion. this is what I've been trying to say, there is nothing to support what you're saying about the singularity coming into existence. All of my random idea's about where everything came from are just as flawed. I see no reason to believe that the singularity popped into existence, as far as I'm aware, things don't pop into existence.
Well, at least we agree on that part.They seem about the same to me. But as I've maintained, I don't think the singularity popped into being out of nothing. Cause or no cause, nothing is not something that can be acted upon. By definition, nothing is not something.
Actually, that would be on theism. But anywayz, you have two problems. One, you cant account for how, if the singularity existed for this infinite amount of time as you seem to think, why did it expand only 13.7 billion years ago if there was nothing there that previously existed to give rise to this expansion. The second problem you have is, time cannot be past eternal. So even if you were to postulate a pre-existing naturalistic cause to the singularity, none of this could be past eternal. In other words, time cannot be extended in to past infinity. Now on theism, this isn't a problem, because we dont believe time is infinite, we believe that time is finite, and the cause of time was not itself in time. You, on the other hand, believe in past infinity, which is absurd from a logical standpoint.On naturalism, the magician pulls the rabbit from somewhere else and makes it look like he pulled it from an empty hat. The popping out of nothing thing has only been suggested by you. Caused or uncaused, nothing is not something that can be acted upon.
Um, peer reviewd articles? Why do you need this? The evidence for the beginning of STEM has been so overwhelming, that for the past 75 years, cosmologists have been trying to find an explanation for this. Why do you think there is this history of all these naturalistic models....the steady state theory....the oscillating theory....vaccum fluctations.......quantum gravity...and the list goes on...Lawrence Krauss "A universe from nothing"......the list goes on and on...because they recognize that the evidence points to a cosmic beginning.Please show me the peer reviewed articles that support this hypothesis.
He is talking about both. He clearly realizes that the singularity and expansion happened at the same time. "The universe began from a state of infinite density"...that is the singularity....."space was created and all matter"....that was the expansion...you are asking for peer reviewed articles, just look up the big bang theory on wikipedia...I am telling you, all of these naturalistic models like the steady state theory and such, were all created because scientist didnt like the evidence pointing to a finite universe, because they thought all along that the universe was eternal. Just look at the history of cosmology and you will see where the evidence points."The universe began from a state of infinite density about one Hubble time ago. Space was created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe."
In that "event". he's not talking about the expansion, he's talking about the singularity. Perhaps you could link me to the peer reviewed article that supports this quote, then we will see what part is accepted science and what is perhaps this individual scientists view.
This seems silly to say, with enough energy input, you can get any kind of degree. That's how entropy works.
What? Why only something with an intellectual mind? The only thing keeping this world from failing to entropy is the sun and that is not an intellectual mind. Please don't digress into, "but yeah God set the sun up." We've been through circular logic once already, let's not do it again.
It's not difficult to no negate something that is not evident.
Do I? What does it mean?
I didn't say anything about you basing theism on gaps in knowledge, I was referring specifically to intelligent design advocates and arguments. Intelligent design may be true, I have nothing against it's truth, there is just nothing to support it either. No science at least, and most theists expect that, they always tell me that if God exists, he is well out of the realm of science and that is fine, that is no problem for me, but ID has no weight behind it scientifically speaking, without God belief, it's meaningless, it depends on the belief existing prior to agreeing that ID is true.
So God is forced to love himself? He doesn't have the power to not love himself and everything he does? He has no choice in the matter of love?
I said, "probably". That is really abnormal for a lion and lions and hyena's do essentially have a social agreement. The hyena's often take the lion's scraps, the lions hunting abilities help to feed the hyena's so if they kill all of the hyena's then they have essentially broken a social law. Not in the same way we think of it but in a way, yes, I think it would be psychopathy.
Your act of abiding by the laws and living in the society is a form of agreement. You have decided to follow those social laws and while you live in that society you are agreeing to the social laws. You could leave and learn how to live in the wild at which point you would no longer be a part of that society but I'm not sure if you could ever really leave that social agreement... Hmmm, you have given me something to ponder, I will divulge more on this subject later.
God is all powerful, why make a man just to die to save everyone when he could just do it by thinking it happening?
Yes, I know I will get a lot of comments saying "Jesus is no man! He is God!" Well, technically isn't he a demigod? Half man half God? And even if you don't consider him to be, it just made people suffer from sadness, especially Mary the mother of Jesus.
The rationalization of this topic is a bit harsh. Death is not justifiable I don't care who's kid it is. The son of God would not deserve to die nor would such a thing ever be necessary. It does happen and as scripture states Jesus died but that doesn't mean that was the best course and doesn't mean he had to die cause god had some greater purpose. Jesus had a greater purpose with or without having to die. Jesus being crucified is tragic and sad but definitely not necessary. Justifying the death of anyone saying it was the plan of god sounds pretty bad actually.
He is talking about both. He clearly realizes that the singularity and expansion happened at the same time. "The universe began from a state of infinite density"...that is the singularity....."space was created and all matter"....that was the expansion...you are asking for peer reviewed articles, just look up the big bang theory on wikipedia...I am telling you, all of these naturalistic models like the steady state theory and such, were all created because scientist didnt like the evidence pointing to a finite universe, because they thought all along that the universe was eternal. Just look at the history of cosmology and you will see where the evidence points.
So if you are at a pool table, and you have a basket of billiard balls, and you put the balls in the basket, and constantly pour the balls on the pool table, do you ever think the balls will assemble themsevles in a way to form a perfect "rack". This is how entropy works, the amount of disorder is more probable than the amount of order. And what that Penrose number implies is, the odds are so against our universe being fined tuned for human life, that to think that these things occurred by random chance is completely absurd.
Yeah, and the sun is also burning out its energy as we speak, and the universe will eventually suffer a heat death. The low entropy had to be an initial condition from the moment the singularity appeared. It takes faith to believe that our universe could be the incredible odds against it.
"Evident" is a subjective term. It isn't evident to you. It is very much evident to me and the billions of others that accept theism. Back to that alleged fallacy, right?
That number represents the odds of our universe being life permitting, odds caculated by the prominent physicist Roger Penrose.
Well hey, I dont believe that we can get that must precision from a blind, unguided, and non-intellectual process. Whenever "we" see this kind of precision, this kind of organization, this kind of complexity, we assume intelligent design. The cells in our DNA is more complex than a space shuttle (another point i keep stressing), but we are to believe the space shuttle is designed and the DNA not designed? This is highly absurd to me. But I understand that people will continue to be in denial no matter. I dont think the problem is lack of evidence. The problem is, people just dont like the idea of God.
Once again, i refuse to get suckered in to this irrlevance.
So, when a hyena takes the lion's scraps, is it stealing??
Good deal. On the Christian view, we believe that God has placed good morality on everyones heart, that is why practically everywhere earth, we all agree that murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, rape is wrong, etc. My point is, without God, if a law was passed in the United States that it was cool to have sexual relations with children under 12, it would be the right thing to do. This has subjectivity written all over it.
The rationalization of this topic is a bit harsh. Death is not justifiable I don't care who's kid it is. The son of God would not deserve to die nor would such a thing ever be necessary. It does happen and as scripture states Jesus died but that doesn't mean that was the best course and doesn't mean he had to die cause god had some greater purpose. Jesus had a greater purpose with or without having to die. Jesus being crucified is tragic and sad but definitely not necessary. Justifying the death of anyone saying it was the plan of god sounds pretty bad actually.
The Sum of Awe said:God is all powerful, why make a man just to die to save everyone when he could just do it by thinking it happening?
God is all powerful, why make a man just to die to save everyone when he could just do it by thinking it happening?
Yes, I know I will get a lot of comments saying "Jesus is no man! He is God!" Well, technically isn't he a demigod? Half man half God? And even if you don't consider him to be, it just made people suffer from sadness, especially Mary the mother of Jesus.
Substitutionary atonement is not the only valid theological construct for salvation. It presents us with problems such as idav pointed out. God's love doesn't have to be bought.Ah, but you see that (most) Christians believe that it was in effect God Himself in human flesh being nailed to the cross. The "Son of God" IS God Himself. It was the plan of God to sacrifice HIMSELF on the cross, in order to make the ultimate and final atonement for our sins. Now it wasn't necessary in the sense that God HAD to do it, but He chose to in order to reconcile us to Him and win us eternal salvation. And I agree that Jesus never deserved to die, it was a choice that He took to save His beloved creation.
Human creditors are more forbearing than that. Why should God be less?He paid the ultimate sacrifice in order to atone for all of humanity, and to reconcile all of humanity to Him.
Substitutionary atonement is not the only valid theological construct for salvation. It presents us with problems such as idav pointed out. God's love doesn't have to be bought.
Human creditors are more forbearing than that. Why should God be less?
Friend,
This is exactly one of the various questions that drove me away from christianity!I mean ,the concept of God taking human form and dying for the sins of humankind dosen't go down my throat.I had discussions with many priests regarding the doubts I had about christianity (like trinity,crucifiction,scientific & mathematical errors in the bible,etc) but none could give me satisfactory answers nor could I logically explain them.I am a kind of person who does not believe in blind belief or immitating our forefathers.I like to research and seek the truth on my own rather than having someone throwing his beliefs on my face!
I personally do not believe Jesus to be God.I ve read the bible and cannot find even a single unequivocal statement where he claims divinity.I mean, you see, there are several instances where his disciples find him praying.Jesus did not tell his
followers to worship him but to worship God,Nor did Jesus worship himself when he worshipped, but rather he worshipped God. And Jesus
was reported in the Gospels to have said,
“It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve Him
only.’” [Luke 4:8]Iwonder to whom would God pray and why?
Moreover,i believe that God and a human being represent two extreme ends.The moment God takes a human form,he ceases to be God.So the concept of God incarnating seems illogical to me.
I also do not believe that Jesus was the son of God.The attributes of bearing children is an ungodly characteristic.Why would God have a son?
Lastly,I do not believe that Jesus died for the sins of mankind because why would an innocent person have to pay the price of the crime he never ever commited?Imagine God punishing himself for the sins of his creation.That is unacceptable to me.If a person were to believe that God has already paid
the price for his sins,he would the commit more and more sins without fearing the punishment from God.Thus, whatever wrong a person does,he is not to blame for that because God has already paid the price on his behalf.Does that make sense?