If there was universe before big bang

[ppp]

1 - Do you believe electricity flows THROUGH a wire, or AROUND it?
2 - Do you believe the sun rises in the east, or that the earth revolves?
3 - Do you believe that Hannibal was an historic figure, or that there is no evidence for Hannibal?
4 - Do you believe there are no miracles but that the universe just popped into existance for no reason at all?

You keep making bogus claims, then trying to avoid accountability by shift to a different question, or in this case 4 questions. I have no interest in a Gish Gallop.

I am happy to move on and answer your questions, AFTER you deal with the previous point. You claimed that being fine with a proposition is how people believe things. There are many things that I, a person, believe that I am not fine with, which means that your claim was dead wrong. Do you understand that?

 

[PruePhillip]

You keep making bogus claims, then trying to avoid accountability by shift to a different question, or in this case 4 questions. I have no interest in a Gish Gallop.

I am happy to move on and answer your questions, AFTER you deal with the previous point. You claimed that being fine with a proposition is how people believe things. There are many things that I, a person, believe that I am not fine with, which means that your claim was dead wrong. Do you understand that?

Ok don't answer it then
But I do believe there was a Joshua who built a 'cursing altar' on Mount Ebal, late Bronze Age.
I believe he was a general to the Egyptian we know as Moses. I believe the archaelogy at Shiloh
shows the first evidence of the law of Moses being observed, where the same cultic center is
found as described in Exodus. I believe Jews could write at that stage, and their populatin was
much greater than first thought due to excavations done at Timna Valley.

 

[MonkeyFire]

What if our universe was not the first one, but just one of many universes that has existed?

How would it affect your religious beliefs?

Would a string of universes be yet an other reason for people to not believe in a God or gods?

the universe is eternal and infinite in size and population. In my religion we think that this universe is in a succession of beginning less and endless worlds always coming from and returning to Heaven, always being created a new. We believe that the universe is constantly saved by a fallen angel/angel in descent, known as Azrael, the name of St. Michaels when He is the Phoenix who suffers blood shed as an angel just attain a special wedding that He experiences once and then attains a special fate.

 

[ppp]

Ok don't answer it then

All you have to do is finish one point before going to the next. If that is too much of a burden for you, then it is not worth my time.

Ciao.

 

[PruePhillip]

All you have to do is finish one point before going to the next. If that is too much of a burden for you, then it is not worth my time.

Ciao.

Remind me of the point - I do hundreds of threads and lose track. Sorry.

 

[ppp]

Remind me of the point - I do hundreds of threads and lose track. Sorry.

Scroll up to post 181

 

[PruePhillip]

Remind me of the point - I do hundreds of threads and lose track. Sorry.

Quote - 'I am happy to move on and answer your questions, AFTER you deal with the previous point. You claimed that being fine with a proposition is how people believe things. There are many things that I, a person, believe that I am not fine with, which means that your claim was dead wrong. Do you understand that?'

This is semantics, interpretation and philosophy.
I don't believe because I am 'fine' with something. I am fine with how I believe things.
So I am fine with the idea that a slot machine which hasn't paid out is not due for a payout 'cos that's the Gamblers Fallacy.

 

[ChristineM]

Domesticated camels were all over the Middle East going back over a thousand years before Abraham.
Saying they were everywhere except Canaan is daft - this area was the crossroads for ancient trade.
The points I raised have little to do with being 'entitled to believe', they are historical and archaelogical.

Not according to history and I'll take the historical word thanks.

I said the middle east. fyi, the camel is originally from the American continent.

No they are not

 

[PruePhillip]

Not according to history and I'll take the historical word thanks.

I said the middle east. fyi, the camel is originally from the American continent.

No they are not

Arabs could have domesticated camels 5,000 years ago. And not long after that they were
domesticated in Asia, ca 2500 BC.
The Levant was the crossroads of Middle East trade. Finding the 'earliest' camel in Israel
ca 1000 BC just means that's the oldest they have found to date.
Abraham was born ca 1750 BC as he was 100 years old when Sodom was destroyed.
Not sure what this 'no they are not' refers to. I made no mention of America.

 

[ChristineM]

Arabs could have domesticated camels 5,000 years ago. And not long after that they were
domesticated in Asia, ca 2500 BC.
The Levant was the crossroads of Middle East trade. Finding the 'earliest' camel in Israel
ca 1000 BC just means that's the oldest they have found to date.
Abraham was born ca 1750 BC as he was 100 years old when Sodom was destroyed.
Not sure what this 'no they are not' refers to. I made no mention of America.

Could have doesn't make history, it makes guess

You mentioned camels

 

[PruePhillip]

Could have doesn't make history, it makes guess

You mentioned camels

OK, according to Wiki camels were domesticated 3000-1000 BC in the Arabian Penninsula.
Some years back I sought to change Wiki's camel entry but I was rebuffed. There's plenty
of very old domestic camel material. Wiki in the end did moderate its BC 1000 in light of
what I sent them.
But it's logical - the camel is a large, easily domesticated desert traversing mammal. I would
not be surprised if they weren't domesticated 10,000 or 20,000 years ago.

 

[ChristineM]

OK, according to Wiki camels were domesticated 3000-1000 BC in the Arabian Penninsula.
Some years back I sought to change Wiki's camel entry but I was rebuffed. There's plenty
of very old domestic camel material. Wiki in the end did moderate its BC 1000 in light of
what I sent them.
But it's logical - the camel is a large, easily domesticated desert traversing mammal. I would
not be surprised if they weren't domesticated 10,000 or 20,000 years ago.

Being surprised doesn't make it so..

Anyway, as i said, believe what you will

 

[PruePhillip]

Being surprised doesn't make it so..

Anyway, as i said, believe what you will

There's this funny saying, 'The bible is guilty until proven innocent.' Meaning that if the bible said Moses rode
an elephant over the Alps to attack Rome then people would say elephants had not been domesticated like
this. And the story of course is absurd, and besides, there's no proof.

Why? Because there's a lot at stake. This isn't about history, its about issues of God, meaning, life etc..

 

[ChristineM]

There's this funny saying, 'The bible is guilty until proven innocent.' Meaning that if the bible said Moses rode
an elephant over the Alps to attack Rome then people would say elephants had not been domesticated like
this. And the story of course is absurd, and besides, there's no proof.

Why? Because there's a lot at stake. This isn't about history, its about issues of God, meaning, life etc..

It may be good enough for you to interpret the bible in whatever way your confirmation bias dictates.

For me the bible and faith is really meaningless. Really because there is little or no third party corroboration, and some of it defies logic and known events.

What i do find it guilty of is false statements which are accepted as "gospel" by believers, thus limiting education.

There are however some few facts in the bible which to me is the same technique used in any good novel, provide a little truth and people will more easily accept the hog wash.

 

[PruePhillip]

It may be good enough for you to interpret the bible in whatever way your confirmation bias dictates.

For me the bible and faith is really meaningless. Really because there is little or no third party corroboration, and some of it defies logic and known events.

What i do find it guilty of is false statements which are accepted as "gospel" by believers, thus limiting education.

There are however some few facts in the bible which to me is the same technique used in any good novel, provide a little truth and people will more easily accept the hog wash.

So... King David is found to be a real person but that then leaves
1 - did he write all those psalms and songs?
2 - did he really speak to God, and visa versa?

The latter question is one of faith. Demanding a 'proof' that God had a relationship with David is no different to
you demanding proof of my relationship to God.
In the case of David there's a third factor
3 - David spoke about the Messiah, and in him being the rejected and reigning King David symbolized Him too.

This is where it gets deep, really deep. The Jews believed their king would be the son of David, and Jesus
directly challenged this very issue. 'The lord said to my lord', meaning, 'God said to my lord' - the deeply
offended the Jews, that their lord is not God but another party.

 

[ChristineM]

So... King David is found to be a real person but that then leaves
1 - did he write all those psalms and songs?
2 - did he really speak to God, and visa versa?

The latter question is one of faith. Demanding a 'proof' that God had a relationship with David is no different to
you demanding proof of my relationship to God.
In the case of David there's a third factor
3 - David spoke about the Messiah, and in him being the rejected and reigning King David symbolized Him too.

This is where it gets deep, really deep. The Jews believed their king would be the son of David, and Jesus
directly challenged this very issue. 'The lord said to my lord', meaning, 'God said to my lord' - the deeply
offended the Jews, that their lord is not God but another party.

Faith is a wonderful thing.

 

[PruePhillip]

Faith is a wonderful thing.

Jesus quoted David, 'THE Lord said to MY Lord, sit at my right hand UNTIL I make your enemies your footstool'
Jews said the Messiah is the son of David. But Jesus asked 'If the Messiah is the son of David, why does David
call him Lord?'
But in Zechariah it states that the reigning Messianic king is the same lowly man who rode upon the colt, and the
one whose hands were pierced. And the Jews will mourn.
That's deep. And written a long long time before Jesus.

 

[ChristineM]

Jesus quoted David, 'THE Lord said to MY Lord, sit at my right hand UNTIL I make your enemies your footstool'
Jews said the Messiah is the son of David. But Jesus asked 'If the Messiah is the son of David, why does David
call him Lord?'
But in Zechariah it states that the reigning Messianic king is the same lowly man who rode upon the colt, and the
one whose hands were pierced. And the Jews will mourn.
That's deep. And written a long long time before Jesus.

So where is this gospel according to jesus? I've read 3 bibles, along with various snippets and ive never seen jesus say anything. I have seen passages where other people say thst jesus said. I really do not understand why you cannot see the difference.

 

[PruePhillip]

So where is this gospel according to jesus? I've read 3 bibles, along with various snippets and ive never seen jesus say anything. I have seen passages where other people say thst jesus said. I really do not understand why you cannot see the difference.

Not sure why Jesus HAS to write anything. The Old Testament tells us many things the Messiah WILL do,
such as suffer persecution, come to his temple, purge his people, heal the sick, raise to dead etc but no
writing. This was done by people who were mostly eye witnesses - save for maybe Luke who wrote a
Gospel and The Acts, plus oddly - Paul.
Hannibal didn't write either, yet we are fine with that. And if Jesus wrote, peole would stay it's forgery.

 

[ChristineM]

Not sure why Jesus HAS to write anything. The Old Testament tells us many things the Messiah WILL do,
such as suffer persecution, come to his temple, purge his people, heal the sick, raise to dead etc but no
writing. This was done by people who were mostly eye witnesses - save for maybe Luke who wrote a
Gospel and The Acts, plus oddly - Paul.
Hannibal didn't write either, yet we are fine with that. And if Jesus wrote, peole would stay it's forgery.

Because people, including you write stuff you claim he said. You don't know this, you only know that a 3rd party claims jesus said those words.

Again JC was not the Messiah, he didn't meet the requirements as laid down in Jewish scripture.

Hannibal does not have a third of the world's population trying to make laws and run countries, in their favour at the expense of those who don't have the same faith. Hannibal does not have groups of people indoctrinating children to deny science in favour of superstition.