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

[Muffled]

Wouldn't this mean intelligence had to exist naturally?

I believe nature is a creation. God is not so He is not natural but what is often referred to as supernatural.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No one is making an assumption of the historicity of a person

Yet this difference is not support by Vroots later analysis. Both Alexander and Caesar have vastly more textual and material evidence to support them. They impacted the world during their lifetime, Jesus impact a few people. Christians changed the world not Jesus directly as per your two examples

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.

Here you are CLEARLY demonstrating your clearly naive bias for your inane, ill-informed definition of "material evidence", which you've thus far defended by arguing against both historians and archaeologists whilst failing to supply the faintest hint that you are aware of the fields of which you speak (such as being aware of the difference between numismatics and archaeology).

since archival research is based your own field's methodology

You're going to have to be more specific. You failed to make BASIC DISTINCTIONS among fields such as archaeology and numismatics WHILST FAILING to reflect a BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF ARCHAEOLOGY (the understanding you have defended has amounted to dismissing ACTUAL archaeologists without reference to sources and some made-up reference to your "field"). You're going to have to do a bit better.

This work is either done by with dual qualifications or by a historian.

You are neither, and are incapable of basic differentiation among relevant fields.

Like I said archaeology is a cross-discipline field

All you've done is "said". What you haven't done is demonstrated that you have any idea what you are talking about, that you are familiar with the literature in any relevant fields, that you can do more than object to ACTUAL EXPERTS, or that you have a basic understanding of the nature of the relevant fields.

The only way your view stands is if you are saying your own field and it's methods are unreliable.

My field is neuroscience & the mathematics and physics of complex systems. This is a hobby for me, which I began before I was an undergrad. The fact that you can't make basic distinctions among fields that those who majored in the same field I had as an additional major could...well..., you should maybe study archaeology and history a bit before making such ridiculous claims.

Nope since I clear stated almost every project starts with archival research of relevant texts

You didn't, and it doesn't.

For subjects that have no written records for then material evidence is the only type available

Ridiculous. We have "textual" and "material" evedence for Achilles, Herakles, Zeus, etc. Try again.

Nothing I quoted said numismatics is archaeology

FINALLY! True. You didn't demonstrate any knowledge of the field of numismatics. You simply referred to the study of coins you FAILED to recognize as such, failed to demonstrate IS ANYTHING OTHER THAN SUCH, and failed to demonstrate MATTERS apart from the same evidence that exists for mythical figures (which you clearly, as quoted above, ignored as evidence when convenient).

Never said it was. I said archaeology is a cross-discipline field.

After being informed you didn't know what the study of coins was/is.

 

[ArtieE]

I believe nature is a creation. God is not so He is not natural but what is often referred to as supernatural.

And where did this "supernatural" come from if it wasn't "created"? Does it just exist "supernaturally"?

 

[First Baseman]

And where did this "supernatural" come from if it wasn't "created"? Does it just exist "supernaturally"?

First of all, neither you or he can possibly understand the supernatural. So your question is moot.

There was no place for God to have "come from" until after He created places. There was no place to have come from before God created it so you know not of which you speak.

 

[viole]

I believe God does not need a creator because He is not a creation. One can tell the atomic rules.are a creation because they operate as rules and not randomly. God can be a bit random sometimes. That is the nature of intelligence.

God can be a bit random? Where do the laws of probability come from?

By the way, the atomic rules are quite trandom.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

First of all, neither you or he can possibly understand the supernatural. So your question is moot.

There was no place for God to have "come from" until after He created places. There was no place to have come from before God created it so you know not of which you speak.

So, do you agree that it is possible for something to exist without coming from anywhere?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ArtieE]

There was no place for God to have "come from" until after He created places.

So before "he created places" where was he if he had no place to stay in because he hadn't "created places" yet?

 

[Shad]

Here you are CLEARLY demonstrating your clearly naive bias for your inane, ill-informed definition of "material evidence", which you've thus far defended by arguing against both historians and archaeologists whilst failing to supply the faintest hint that you are aware of the fields of which you speak (such as being aware of the difference between numismatics and archaeology).

Negative since some of your own source s agree with what I have called material evidence, read the book you cited by Holt again. It is not ill-defined but a category which is used to separate texts with artifacts such as material culture. I have no argued against any archaeologist since all my citation from archaeologists have been supportive of my position. Even some of your citations agree with my position.

You're going to have to be more specific. You failed to make BASIC DISTINCTIONS among fields such as archaeology and numismatics WHILST FAILING to reflect a BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF ARCHAEOLOGY (the understanding you have defended has amounted to dismissing ACTUAL archaeologists without reference to sources and some made-up reference to your "field"). You're going to have to do a bit better.

I made a clearly distinction as archaeology is a cross field discipline. Your inability or ignorance to this fact is irrelevant. What is amusing is your cited Holt as if he as a historian while he has a dual specification in archaeology and numismatics. Apparently you can use "historian" to cover a person while multiple degrees yet I can not.

All you've done is "said". What you haven't done is demonstrated that you have any idea what you are talking about, that you are familiar with the literature in any relevant fields, that you can do more than object to ACTUAL EXPERTS, or that you have a basic understanding of the nature of the relevant fields.

Actually I have since your own citation support my view once you read the complete work rather than quoting-mining a part you like. I have mentioned multiple excavations and a few of their findings.

My field is neuroscience & the mathematics and physics of complex systems. This is a hobby for me, which I began before I was an undergrad. The fact that you can't make basic distinctions among fields that those who majored in the same field I had as an additional major could...well..., you should maybe study archaeology and history a bit before making such ridiculous claims.

Ah so you are representing a field you have no expertise in then attempting to blast me based on your hobby knowledge.... Again I made a distinction as a clarification, you ignored it. Not my problem, that is solely on you.

You didn't, and it doesn't.

I mentioned archival research a number of times. Again you ignored it. Not my problem, solely on you

Ridiculous. We have "textual" and "material" evedence for Achilles, Herakles, Zeus, etc. Try again.

No we do not. We have artifacts and text which represent these figures. However none are interpreted as direct evidence for these mythical figures. Much like busts of Alexander in the Roman era do not represent Alexander during his era but how the Romans view him from Godhood to a military leader

FINALLY! True. You didn't demonstrate any knowledge of the field of numismatics. You simply referred to the study of coins you FAILED to recognize as such, failed to demonstrate IS ANYTHING OTHER THAN SUCH, and failed to demonstrate MATTERS apart from the same evidence that exists for mythical figures (which you clearly, as quoted above, ignored as evidence when convenient).

Why would I need to demonstrate knowledge in a field I never claimed to hold. I am basing my vies on work of others, you know like Holt, as you have attempted to do. Again evidence is interpreted just as texts are. However you are oblivious to this factor. Maybe read Holt's book to get a better idea. I never ignored evidence. I disagreed with your layman interpretation which you have constructed into a strawman while you have ignored your own cited figures views and conclusions Again read Holt's book

After being informed you didn't know what the study of coins was/is.

Nope. you are speculating while ignoring the fact that archaeology is a cross discipline field. I assumed given your hobby interest you would realize this but you didn't

 

[Ultimatum]

That you are trying to give an infinite being, only finite abilities. Not logical.

You are trying to conceptualize an infinite being through a finite mind.
If it is "not logical" then this being does not exist. Logic isn't a tangible concept, but an external yarstick.

 

[George-ananda]

You are trying to conceptualize an infinite being through a finite mind.
If it is "not logical" then this being does not exist. Logic isn't a tangible concept, but an external yarstick.

What was not logical was the OP thinking an infinite being could have too much to be involved with.

 

[gnostic]

What was not logical was the OP thinking an infinite being could have too much to be involved with.

No, I just find the Abrahamic notion that God spent time judging people to be utterly tediously things to do, as if judging humans for the afterlife, seemed to be pointless.

If the universe was his creation, and so vast, don't you think there are better things to do than deal with humans?

Why have them live and die on earth, then judge them and send them to heaven or hell?

The whole notion that God test them on earth, judge them when they die, and then sending them to whatever afterlife they deserve, seem rather absurd.

If God want populate heaven with people, then why not just create more angels, instead of dealing with "sinful" or "imperfect" humans.

 

[Muffled]

God can be a bit random? Where do the laws of probability come from?

By the way, the atomic rules are quite trandom.

Ciao

- viole

I believe one can't mix oxygen and hydrogen and get carbon dioxide. The rules don't allow it. The rule says that you will get water.

 

[Muffled]

And where did this "supernatural" come from if it wasn't "created"? Does it just exist "supernaturally"?

I believe so but who would know? God has no memory of never existing and we are a creation so we weren't around to know.

 

[MARCELLO]

I am sorry but I cannot see any difference between Islam and Christianity. The uneducated christians of Africa do not value educating girls either and they think having more babies even without enough food,is a gift of God.So where is the difference? . There is no ezzan shouting in christian Africa but worse, chantings start early in the morning in the church with the loudest speaker so you cannot sleep for hours!

The western values are never enough or capable of telling ideas about Christianity. Most of the christians are 3rd worlders. And except bible belt of USA, there is almost no Christians left in the west.

 

[Muffled]

No, I just find the Abrahamic notion that God spent time judging people to be utterly tediously things to do, as if judging humans for the afterlife, seemed to be pointless.

If the universe was his creation, and so vast, don't you think there are better things to do than deal with humans?

Why have them live and die on earth, then judge them and send them to heaven or hell?

The whole notion that God test them on earth, judge them when they die, and then sending them to whatever afterlife they deserve, seem rather absurd.

If God want populate heaven with people, then why not just create more angels, instead of dealing with "sinful" or "imperfect" humans.

I believe the point is that God loves us.

I believe God is capable of doing everything including the most minute thing so He never has to choose what to do as opposed to our finite state where we do have to choose what is important.

I believe it is like a person planting a garden. He tends it and weeds it and waters it until it is time to reap what is sown and then the garden dies. Then the person starts the process all over again next year. If the fruit is good he will keep it but if it is not it will go into the mulch pile.

I believe you should explain why you think so.

I believe your premise is incorrect. God has no need to populate Heaven. I believe Heaven is simply a rest from the physical world. The physical world will never be perfect but Heaven is. However there are some people (like my wife) who prefer perfection to real life.

 

[ArtieE]

I believe so but who would know? God has no memory of never existing and we are a creation so we weren't around to know.

In Isaiah 43:10 God himself seems to say he was formed but he doesn't say by whom or if he's just a result of some natural phenomenon. http://biblia.com/bible/niv/Isaiah 43.10

 

[Muffled]

In Isaiah 43:10 God himself seems to say he was formed but he doesn't say by whom or if he's just a result of some natural phenomenon. http://biblia.com/bible/niv/Isaiah 43.10

I believe you are misconstruing the word "formed." it is past tense meaning that the form already exists but there is no statement that a forming takes place.

 

[ArtieE]

I believe you are misconstruing the word "formed." it is past tense meaning that the form already exists but there is no statement that a forming takes place.

God is alleged to have said "Before me no god was formed". Obviously that means that he was the first god formed. The question is formed by whom or what?

 

[Muffled]

God is alleged to have said "Before me no god was formed". Obviously that means that he was the first god formed. The question is formed by whom or what?

I believe the word "obvious" shows that you can't prove what you say. For me it is obvious that God was already formed and did not need to be in a formation process or be formed by anything.

 

[Unification]

Thoughts require a medium of some kind. All our thoughts(and therefore the only "thought" we are aware can exist) are due to a combination of fatty tissue and electricity. When that tissue fails or the input is cut off, our thoughts simply cease. There is nothing to suggest "free-floating" thought. Everything you are is contained inside your head, and without that "you" cease to be.

I do agree that everything that we are is contained within us.

There are studies "suggesting" the possibility in quantum mechanics. They would be electrical, of virtual particles and photon's. The human gives off biophotons. That the thought or thoughts are stored in light. Virtual particles pop in and out of existence just as thoughts manifest in and out of existence.

It's been demonstrated independently that it is possible to transfer the properties of one quantum particle such as a photon to another even if the two are at opposite ends of the galaxy.

Photons or light particles transfer to another location when their properties are disturbed.

A copy, destroyed in one location, and the exact replica copy sent to another location. Like mirror information.