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

[Robert.Evans]

Again, you don''t know what you are talking about.

Science rely on probabilities, not on luck.

Luck is superstition. Good luck and bad luck, is just someone who ignorantly don't understand probabilities.

What does science probabitliy and luck have to do with anything? I don't think you understand the arugment again. I am saying that if intelligence is not involved in creation, ultimately, it must then be luck. Science has nothing to do with it.

And where in the 7-bloody hell you think science don't believe in "evolution"?

I don't understand that and I wonder if you mean someone else?

It has been Christian creationist literalists who have been rejecting Darwin's Natural Selection, and biological evolution in general, even today. Not all Christians reject evolution, not even in Darwin's time. But sadly many creationists continued to reject science, reject biology, reject evolution.

Christian theology write of nothing about biology, let alone evolution, because the bible show no understanding of even basic science. If you bother to read JOB 38 to 41, you can see that God don't understand science at all, because he sounds as primitive and superstitious as Iron Age author of JOB.

Scripture is there to be understood by those who have the ability, not just anyone. And it is not a sceince book so it seems ridicuolous treating it as one just to then poo-poo the idea. Silly.

And you talk of singularity as if you know what the singularity is. What is this singularity? And how do you know that God come from or evolve from the singularity?

Don't be shy, provide sources from your theology or from science that they understood or know what a singularity is. Please do tell...

Funny. Don't think I'll bother with this.

 

[Robert.Evans]

So you say...

Except that da Vinci was a real person, an artist, who actually painted that portrait. There is no evidence that link this universe and your invisible creator together, that just your belief.

But if its not, then its luck and that woul dbe plain silly, wouldn't it.

 

[DawudTalut]

I truly find that belief in the God of Christianity and Islam to be odd.

Both systems of belief believe that God wanted to save everyone...or at least save who want to be saved, and punish those who sin or don't believe in him. Those that are saved go to paradise and those who don't, end up in hell - the whole "afterlife" shebang.

He is supposedly all-powerful and all-knowing and eternal.

With tens or even hundreds of millions praying everyday, at different times of the days (remember, there's time zones), and with hundreds of thousands if not millions of people dying each year, then God would have to listen to all these prayers and to judge each soul after have died.

God being eternal and being outside of time and all, where do God have anything else to do, other than listening to prayers, and judging and sentencing each soul to destined afterlife?

This has to be time-consuming, not to mention a very boring job to do.

In the real world, each court, especially in big cities, have bus-loads of bus-load of cases to be heard, and they all required for each case to be reviewed and processed before any hearing, and if necessarily trials.

Don't God have better things to do with his time than judging souls or listening to prayers?

Perhaps, 1400 or 2000 years back, the world population was probably much smaller than today. But now with population heading towards 6 billion people, I don't see how God could really spend so much of his time with humans.

Both the Qur'an and bible make God out as someone who play at being personal confessor, judge and creator, and that's what make both Christianity and Islam such ridiculous religions.

What's your 2-cent about this?

Peace be on you.
Holy Quran
[ch54:v51]And Our command is carried out by only one word, like the twinkling of an eye.

[2:202] And of them there are some who say: ‘Our Lord, grant us good in this world as well as good in the world to come, and protect us from the torment of the Fire.’
[2:203] For these there shall be a goodly share because of what they have earned. And Allah is swift at reckoning.

 

[viole]

Scripture is there to be understood by those who have the ability, not just anyone. And it is not a sceince book so it seems ridicuolous treating it as one just to then poo-poo the idea. Silly.

Of course it isn't. Science is a human endeavour and methodology aimed at finding some truths about the world that are not directly available to us, since we have not created the Universe.

The expectation is that what we painstakingly find as true corresponds to what the creator did and described in His inspired book.

We do not. Why not?

What about some little verses that make it clear that the world is a spheroid orbiting around a star, and not the other way round, instead of wasting space describing the genealogy of Adam? No science, just a little statement of facts concerning how God arranged the solar system.

I am sure that people at that time had enough intelligence to undesrtand that simple notion, and save us a lot of hassle and research (and people burned at the stake).

Or not?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Robert.Evans]

Of course it isn't. Science is a human endeavour and methodology aimed at finding some truths about the world that are not directly available to us, since we have not created the Universe.

we have actually, that is how we know how to decipher it; or, we are just clever apes and incredibly lucky, along with creation.

The expectation is that what we painstakingly find as true corresponds to what the creator did and described in His inspired book.

If you are agreeing that the bible is not a science book, why write that?

We do not. Why not?

What about some little verses that make it clear that the world is a spheroid orbiting around a star, and not the other way round, instead of wasting space describing the genealogy of Adam? No science, just a little statement of facts concerning how God arranged the solar system.

I am sure that people at that time had enough intelligence to undesrtand that simple notion, and save us a lot of hassle and research (and burned people).

Or not?

Ciao

- viole

are you asking for a sign for someone who is not able to understand without it? A bit like writing my pin number to my CC on my forehead for anyone else who wants to use it and can't read my mind? I don't think so. Important things of wealth are always hidden.

 

[viole]

are you asking for a sign for someone who is not able to understand without it? A bit like writing my pin number to my CC on my forehead for anyone else who wants to use it and can't read my mind? I don't think so. Important things of wealth are always hidden.

Ergo, Christ resurrection is NOT an important thing of wealth.

Is it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Robert.Evans]

Ergo, Christ resurrection is NOT an important thing of wealth.

Is it?

Ciao

- viole

You have clever arguments. But it doesn't really work does it. I can say I have a pin number and you can see a bank, but that doesn't mean you're having my pin. He was resurrected as witness to the world, which the world then rejects. You were being silly then? I always get the feeling you are in your arguments, like most atheists.

 

[viole]

You have clever arguments. But it doesn't really work does it. I can say I have a pin number and you can see a bank, but that doesn't mean you're having my pin. He was resurrected as witness to the world, which the world then rejects. You were being silly then? I always get the feeling you are in your arguments, like most atheists.

I am not being silly, I think. And my arguments are not really clever. They just follow almost mechanically from the laws of logic.

I just take your statements at face value and follow the logical conclusions. I expect you do the same with me.

IF important things of wealth are always hidden (your claim), then either the resurrection of Christ is not an important thing of wealth OR it is hidden.

Which of the two alternatives do you prefer? Or would you rather revise your initial statement that important things of wealth are always hidden?

Your call really.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Demonslayer]

I am saying that if intelligence is not involved in creation, ultimately, it must then be luck.

There's a false dichotomy if I've ever heard one.

A mountain range is created by pressure and time. It is not "luck" and it was not created by an intelligent being. Diito islands, ditto canyons and rivers. Why not the universe?

 

[Robert.Evans]

I am not being silly, I think. And my arguments are not really clever. They just follow almost mechanically from the laws of logic.

I just take your statements at face value and follow the logical conclusions. I expect you do the same with me.

IF important things of wealth are always hidden (your claim), then either the resurrection of Christ is not an important thing of wealth OR it is hidden.

Which of the two alternatives do you prefer? Or would you rather revise your initial statement that important things of wealth are always hidden?

Your call really.

Ciao

- viole

I think I was thinking more of the crucifixion when you first mentioned it.

There were two Messiahs, lay and priestly. No one saw the real resurrection. That is held within as all things of wealth are. So I guess it still stands:

Blessed are those who believe and have not seen; so it is written.

 

[Robert.Evans]

There's a false dichotomy if I've ever heard one.

A mountain range is created by pressure and time. It is not "luck" and it was not created by an intelligent being. Diito islands, ditto canyons and rivers. Why not the universe?

Why do people have problems understand this? Presumably you will say it evolved over various forces and "pressures and time" which I am now going to ask, Did those pressures time and forces come about and act through luck or intelligence?

 

[gnostic]

He was resurrected as witness to the world, which the world then rejects. You were being silly then? I always get the feeling you are in your arguments, like most atheists.

Actually you are making things up...again.

Only a very few witnessed Jesus supposed resurrection, not the whole world.

And second, none of the earliest extant gospels have names attached to the gospels, meaning that these gospels were originally composed anonymously, and that current names of the evangelists attached to each gospel, weren't attributed to them until early 2nd century.

So there are no certainty as to who wrote the actual gospels, and we don't if any of them had actually witnessed Jesus' ministry.

The authorship of each gospel are in doubt.

And if they are in doubt, then there are doubts as to whether any of the accounts about Jesus are true or not. Lot of it seem made up to me, like Jesus' birth, his death, his resurrection.

How can the whole witnessed Jesus resurrection or reject it, when the gospels only narrated only a few handful of people SUPPOSEDLY saw him alive of his supposed death.

A group of people don't equal to the world population of that time.

So stop making things up, Robert.

 

[Demonslayer]

Did those pressures time and forces come about and act through luck or intelligence?

Neither.

 

[First Baseman]

Of course it isn't. Science is a human endeavour and methodology aimed at finding some truths about the world that are not directly available to us, since we have not created the Universe.

The expectation is that what we painstakingly find as true corresponds to what the creator did and described in His inspired book.

We do not. Why not?

What about some little verses that make it clear that the world is a spheroid orbiting around a star, and not the other way round, instead of wasting space describing the genealogy of Adam? No science, just a little statement of facts concerning how God arranged the solar system.

I am sure that people at that time had enough intelligence to undesrtand that simple notion, and save us a lot of hassle and research (and people burned at the stake).

Or not?

Ciao

- viole

Romans 1:20 says it is obvious that God created. It is so obvious that one must make a heroic effort to be blinded to it. You have done exactly that.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

So if you don't believe it it is because you simply choose to ignore the obvious truth in favor of a lie.

 

[Demonslayer]

Romans 1:20 says it is obvious that God created

LOL, whaddup G?

So the Bible says God created stuff. The Bible says it's obvious.

The Qur'an says Allah made people from mud. The Qur'an says it's obvious.

The Hobbit says Hobbit have hairy feet. If you read the Hobbit, it's super obvious.

 

[First Baseman]

LOL, whaddup G?

So the Bible says God created stuff. The Bible says it's obvious.

The Qur'an says Allah made people from mud. The Qur'an says it's obvious.

The Hobbit says Hobbit have hairy feet. If you read the Hobbit, it's super obvious.

Waddup, M? Good to hear from you again. You'll have to post on that other site sometimes to keep it from getting so dog gone boring over there!

So what do you think is obvious?

 

[Demonslayer]

So what do you think is obvious?

That the New England Patriots are going to win another Superbowl this year.

 

[viole]

Romans 1:20 says it is obvious that God created. It is so obvious that one must make a heroic effort to be blinded to it. You have done exactly that.

If it is so obvious, why did he write it? If I wrote a holy book I would probably look silly if I wrote obvious things (like 2+2=4) in it.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

How can something invisible be seen? I am afraid, Paul is contradicting himself here. On a related note, the gods the greeks believed in do not look at all like the god Paul is talking about here. Are they also without excuse? Aristoteles and Plato missing something so obvious?

And if it is so obvious, why do you guys send missionaries all over the world? Are people who did not have the honor to hear Paul fundamentally silly?

So if you don't believe it it is because you simply choose to ignore the obvious truth in favor of a lie.

Do not believe in what? Apollo?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Demonslayer]

Do not believe in what? Apollo?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Actually you are making things up...again.

No

Only a very few witnessed Jesus supposed resurrection, not the whole world.

So? It's not that difficult to understand is it?

And second, none of the earliest extant gospels have names attached to the gospels, meaning that these gospels were originally composed anonymously, and that current names of the evangelists attached to each gospel, weren't attributed to them until early 2nd century.

So there are no certainty as to who wrote the actual gospels, and we don't if any of them had actually witnessed Jesus' ministry.

The authorship of each gospel are in doubt.

Some of us know who wrote them. But you and others maybe not.

And if they are in doubt, then there are doubts as to whether any of the accounts about Jesus are true or not. Lot of it seem made up to me, like Jesus' birth, his death, his resurrection.

There is no doubt unless it fits your agenda to have doubt there.

How can the whole witnessed Jesus resurrection or reject it, when the gospels only narrated only a few handful of people SUPPOSEDLY saw him alive of his supposed death.

A group of people don't equal to the world population of that time.

So stop making things up, Robert.

Try and understand what is written. Some things are ambiguous.