Problems with Belief when it comes to a Christian and Islamic God...

[Demonslayer]

It comes from an Existence before consciousness that just "IS"

When you say this you are of course refering to the universe right?

 

[Robert.Evans]

When you say this you are of course refering to the universe right?

Are you being serious now or silly?
I am speaking before the universe.

 

[Demonslayer]

Are you being serious now or silly?
I am speaking before the universe.

There was no before the universe. The universe has just always been.

 

[Robert.Evans]

There was no before the universe. The universe has just always been.

So you don't believe in the big-bang?
What are you saying?

 

[Shad]

So you don't believe in the big-bang?
What are you saying?

The Big Bang is an inflation model. Everything before this inflation is speculation. Beside before is a time reference. If time is part of the universe there is no before time. Every idea we have about the origins of the universe is based on speculation in which each has issues.

 

[Demonslayer]

So you don't believe in the big-bang?
What are you saying?

All the Big Bang really says is that we are currently witnessing an expanding universe that suggests some sort of event that caused the expansion. It doesn't say the beginning of the expansion we see was the begining of everything at all. In fact many models theorize an infinite series of expansions and contractions. That makes the most sense to me, though we don't know enough yet to do much more than speculate.

So yes, I believe in the big bang because it describes what we can witness. But it doesn't describe what you and most religious people think it means or what you need it to mean in order to refute it.

The universe is eternal. The universe has always been.

--------------------------

A cyclic model (or oscillating model) is any of several cosmological models in which the universe follows infinite, or indefinite, self-sustaining cycles. For example, the oscillating universe theory briefly considered by Albert Einstein in 1930 theorized a universe following an eternal series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch; in the interim, the universe would expand for a period of time before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce.

 

[Robert.Evans]

All the Big Bang really says is that we are currently witnessing an expanding universe that suggests some sort of event that caused the expansion. It doesn't say the beginning of the expansion we see was the begining of everything at all. In fact many models theorize an infinite series of expansions and contractions. That makes the most sense to me, though we don't know enough yet to do much more than speculate.

So yes, I believe in the big bang because it describes what we can witness. But it doesn't describe what you and most religious people think it means or what you need it to mean in order to refute it.

The universe is eternal. The universe has always been.

--------------------------

A cyclic model (or oscillating model) is any of several cosmological models in which the universe follows infinite, or indefinite, self-sustaining cycles. For example, the oscillating universe theory briefly considered by Albert Einstein in 1930 theorized a universe following an eternal series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch; in the interim, the universe would expand for a period of time before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce.

Universes will always exist but did not always, no. What existed then was the purest simplest form of existence that anyone could ever imagine, and well before the idea of God would be recognised.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The Big Bang is an inflation model. Everything before this inflation is speculation. Beside before is a time reference. If time is part of the universe there is no before time. Every idea we have about the origins of the universe is based on speculation in which each has issues.

Time reveals change. Can change be said to exist within consciousness, thoughts? If so, time existed before the universe began.
We know what happened before the BB, even if not in detail, by the words that were left us in scripture.

 

[Demonslayer]

Universes will always exist but did not always, no.

Yes, they always did. The universe(s) has/have always existed.

What existed then was the purest simplest form of existence that anyone could ever imagine, and well before the idea of God would be recognised.

How could you possibly know such a thing? And what is "the purest simplest form of existence?" What are you describing, what was there before the universe? What did it look like?

 

[Demonslayer]

We know what happened before the BB, even if not in detail, by the words that were left us in scripture.

This is like saying we know what happened in the Degobah System because of the words left to us in the script from the Empire Strikes Back.

How silly.

You really believe that some primitive men know exactly what happened 14 billion years ago? And you're willing to believe the Genesis account accurately details the begining of the universe?? And even then, you KNOW the Genesis account took place in the absence of any universe?

Seems to me you're making some rather grand assumptions, even IF you accept the Genesis account.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yes, they always did. The universe(s) has/have always existed.



How could you possibly know such a thing? And what is "the purest simplest form of existence?" What are you describing, what was there before the universe? What did it look like?

We have what is commonly known as a difference of opinion. Now who would have though an atheist and theist disagreeing.

Let me ask you this then, taking one point at a time: where did this universe/univeres come from? Even Dawkins says complex things have to be explained into more simpler things. You say it always existed. Why is that better than saying God always existed?

 

[Robert.Evans]

This is like saying we know what happened in the Degobah System because of the words left to us in the script from the Empire Strikes Back.

How silly.

You really believe that some primitive men know exactly what happened 14 billion years ago? And you're willing to believe the Genesis account accurately details the begining of the universe?? And even then, you KNOW the Genesis account took place in the absence of any universe?

Seems to me you're making some rather grand assumptions, even IF you accept the Genesis account.

Now who is saying that my understand as a theist will be same as your understanding as an atheist. The very text that you use will declare that to be false.

 

[Demonslayer]

Let me ask you this then, taking one point at a time: where did this universe/univeres come from?

Things that always exist don't "come from" anywhere, that's the very nature of eternal.

You say it always existed. Why is that better than saying God always existed?

It isn't.

But if something you call God could have always existed, something I call the universe could have always existed.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Things that always exist don't "come from" anywhere, that's the very nature of eternal.



It isn't.

But if something you call God could have always existed, something I call the universe could have always existed.

You will have to define "eternal" first. Are you saying it stretches forwards and backwards into time? Then I can answer.

 

[Demonslayer]

The very text that you use will declare that to be false.

I don't have a "text" that claims to accurately describe all the mysteries of the universe. I find it absurd to think anyone could sit down and write one book correctly explaining how everything we see came into existence.

Particuarly one that says some creature "created light" well before he "created stars," which we now know are the source of all light. I mean really, there is a mistake in the very first sentence.

We're still learning. We don't know yet, stop pretending we do.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I don't have a "text" that claims to accurately describe all the mysteries of the universe. I find it absurd to think anyone could sit down and write one book correctly explaining how everything we see came into existence.

Particuarly one that says some creature "created light" well before he "created stars," which we now know are the source of all light. I mean really, there is a mistake in the very first sentence.

We're still learning. We don't know yet, stop pretending we do.

Pretending?? You don't understand scripture. Stop thinking because you don't know one else does.

 

[Demonslayer]

You will have to define "eternal" first.

e·ter·nal
əˈtərn(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: eternal
lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning.

synonyms: everlasting, never-ending, endless, perpetual, undying, immortal, abiding, permanent, enduring, infinite, boundless, timeless;

 

[Robert.Evans]

e·ter·nal
əˈtərn(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: eternal
lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning.

synonyms: everlasting, never-ending, endless, perpetual, undying, immortal, abiding, permanent, enduring, infinite, boundless, timeless;

Without a beginning or end then.

Doesn't work. You can't have time going off into reverse endlessly. Forwards yes, but not backwards. Time shows change. So ultimately, it must have a begining. Everything we know shows that.

 

[viole]

You answered my question? Where? Did I miss it? You just asked me again and I gave my answer. I have yet to see you answer that if intelligence is not the answer it must be luck or to give a third response.

And to answer your question, no. It comes from an Existence before consciousness that just "IS"

I am thrilled that you realize that there is at least something (an Existence before consciousness that just "IS") that is neither the product of intelligence nor the product of luck. Which actually defeats your dichotomy, in at least one case.

So, your answer is my answer.

I just need an intermediating "intelligence" less than you.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shad]

Have you read them and what is your experience teasing out references from texts from ancient history and evaluating the likelihood that they provide evidence for the persons they do?

Many yes but not all. However none really state the sources of this information. A reference to Jesus could be from Christian tradition and ideas in order to establish a counter to Christianity.

I don't care about whether a paper is atheist, muslim, wiccan, etc. I came into NT and Biblical studies from classics, where we dreamt of having the kind of evidence for almost anybody we wished to speak of as we do of Jesus. Christian and anti-Christian scholars basically founded the historical critical method. It's been a century since Von Riemarus zu Wrede ended the attempts to write "lives" of Jesus. There are enough biases to go around without taking these into account before evaluating the arguments.

I only used atheist as a metaphorical reference not as a real one in order to establish that merely mentioning a figure does not mean the references for said figure are based upon a line of tradition or refenence from within a single group. As per above I could be merely referencing your sources as part of a dialogue. I am accept at face value Christian tradition of Jesus for the sake of an argument treating it as an axiom temporarily.

So what? That just means his figure has not been subjected to several centuries of the most intense scrutiny any figure of antiquity has ever faced.

Exactly. There is motivation greater for one figure due to being a central figure of a religion than another. This creates an issue with some scholars since they believe in the religion they study. There is a disconnect which can compromise the integrity of some scholar's work.

They amount to less than the Jewish sources for Jesus.

Yes. However if this figure was a fiction then a world religion wouldn't collapse. This does create issues with NT scholars that hold less than conservative, in historical scope, view of Jesus and the Bible.

Haven't spent much time around those who actually WRITE the history books on ancient Greeks, Romans, etc., have you? Unlike with Jesus, basically the only ones who care are those who write history.

Yes I have considering I am in a historical field. You just further my point. If some figures end up being fictional no one cares. Moses becoming a fictional character causes laymen to become interested not due to any interest in history but due to religion. My field is exposed to this often enough.

Ridiculous. We have almost no references for Pythagoras, and more references for Jesus than virtually anybody from antiquity. Try again.

Wrong as many do attempt to support not just Jesus as a historical figure but to support their dogma and doctrine on the backdrop of history such as with inerrency. They create conclusions far beyond the evidence available.

So does Zeus. So does Herakles. Naïve analysis of attestation such as that you offer renders Homer and Hera more historical than Alexander the Great.

Irrelevant figures are moot. I was not talking about other gods but historical figures. We have material evidence of their conquests, their statesmanship, empire building. We have coins minted by Caesar and coin made from a month to years after his death. This is not the case with Jesus. We have textual evidence of Jesus only. People have begun questioning Homer as the author of the work attributed to him due to the lack of material evidence.

Yet the attestation for his existence is greater than emperors and superior in numerous ways.

Not compared to Caesar and Alexander which were specific examples for a point.

Alexander and Jesus did everything they did with their own hands? It was Alexander who wrote the sources that make him a god? Same with Caesar? Caesar deified himself? Called himself "son of god" and started a civil religion based around him?

You missed my point. We have material evidence, not just textual, covering part of Alexande'rs life, namely his conquests, which covers a large part of his "world". This is not the case with Jesus. Unless you want to suggest that the collapse of the Persian Empire, hellenization of the area and the emergence of successor states following Greek culture spontaneously appeared with zero cause at all. Caesar's ancestors linked their family with deities long before he lived. He claimed to be the son of Venus as per the minted coins. The only block he had to legitimate deification was that the senate rejected it. However Jesus had the same issues, he lacked a stamp of approval from the leaders of religion he was part of. In both cases we have later leaders under modified systems deifying both under a so-called legitimate system. In Caesars case Octavian times the senate agreed to the propose. For Jesus the Jewish followers did this under reformed Judaism which is now Christianity.