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

[Shad]

I completely agree. However, I never said otherwise. I responded to a claim about Jesus in the Jewish tradition.

Except your cited sources, not the folios themselves, present such a case as evidence. There is a disconnect between your view and your sources.

Keep in mind I am no "Jesus-myther". I just take issues with sources used. You should also realize the reference are questionable. Some of the reference are solely based on Christian sources not Jewish sources. Hence the Talmud is not truly using a Jewish source but the assumption that Christian tradition is remotely correct. IE It is a reference not a source.

Yes, although we don't know by how much. Currently, the oldest extant NT text is a scrap of John from the first half of the 2nd century, but there is currently an investigation of an extract from Mark used as mummy wrapping believed to date to the first century.

You mean the burial mask correct?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Except your cited sources, not the folios themselves, present such a case as evidence. There is a disconnect between your view and your sources.

Not in this respect there isn't. The sources I mention don't lend credence to such late sources that are clearly dependent upon traditions at best as early as the gospels (and likely later).

You mean the burial mask correct?

Yes.

 

[Shad]

Not in this respect there isn't. The sources I mention don't lend credence to such late sources that are clearly dependent upon traditions at best as early as the gospels (and likely later).

Voorst book is a pro-evidence side and put forward this view .

 

[Muffled]

Indeed, and truthfully ...Gravity is theoretical and not fact.

I thought Newton's apple took care of the proof. Of course we still don't know what it is.

 

[Muffled]

What's the alternative? Cling to a load of comforting beliefs and pretend we're not really going to die?

I believe the alternative is to live life and not worry about dieing very much except at the end of life expectancy when it is good to plan funeral and burial.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I thought Newton's apple took care of the proof. Of course we still don't know what it is.

Gravity seems pretty "factual" to me.

 

[morphesium]

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.

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?

That's good thinking there.

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. —Benjamin Franklin "
"All thinking men are atheists. — Ernest Hemingway"​

 

[First Baseman]

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. —Benjamin Franklin "

Nonsense. Christianity isn't blind faith. It is faith based on facts. This is simply an attempt to con men into thinking we have no basis for our faith when we do. Just produce the remains of Jesus if you are so sure He didn't rise from the dead. Well, we've been waiting more than 2000 years...

"All thinking men are atheists. — Ernest Hemingway"

All thinking men are men. This assumes that religious men are incapable of thinking and is obvious hogwash.

You should pick your heroes more carefully. It took a Christian all of 5 minutes to tear down your heroes' BS.

 

[viole]

I am not having a go. No doubt this subject is somewhat boring to you or perhaps a joke. Anyway, I think I asked last - and if you can read between the lines - if there is no intelligence involved in creation (a God for example) then does that mean it is all ultimately luck? In other words, energy just doing stuff.

Let's assume that it is the product of intelligence.

Is this intelligence the product of intelligenge, or the product of sheer luck?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Robert.Evans]

...
Intelligence evolves from what it is. We might call that luck, in a human sense. But we have little to compare it with then. It did what it did because of what it was. I guess it would not be luck as that would define an end and also give paraaters when, at the time, there were none. But that is consciousness that we are talking about and not matter that ends up with consciousness and is the One that is unknowable.

Can the rules be the same for the First-cause?

I see where you are going with it. So in short, at the beginning, there was no intelligence. Answer it better if you can, please.

I might also add that there was nothing to compare it to, so how could one define odds of something being or not being? I am not sure if you logic is actually plausible. You are asking something that does not yet exist.

Of course you will use that same reasoning (such as it was) to ignore the existence of God I suppose.

 

[viole]

Intelligence evolves from what it is. We might call that luck, in a human sense. But we have little to compare it with then. It did what it did because of what it was. I guess it would not be luck as that would define an end and also give paraaters when, at the time, there were none. But that is consciousness that we are talking about and not matter that ends up with consciousness and is the One that is unknowable.

Can the rules be the same for the First-cause?

I see where you are going with it. So in short, at the beginning, there was no intelligence. Answer it better if you can, please.

I might also add that there was nothing to compare it to, so how could one define odds of something being or not being? I am not sure if you logic is actually plausible. You are asking something that does not yet exist.

Of course you will use that same reasoning (such as it was) to ignore the existence of God I suppose.

I am just trying to estabilish the universality of your dichotomy (intelligence vs. luck).

So, again, if it is the product of intelligence, what is this intelligence the product of?

Intelligence, or luck?

What do you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Robert.Evans]

Let's assume that everything is the product of intelligence.

Is this intelligence the product of intelligenge, or is it sheer luck?

Ciao

- viole

Intelligence evolves from what it is. We might call that luck, in a human sense. But we have little to compare it with then. It did what it did because of what it was. I guess it would not be luck as that would define an end and also give paraaters when, at the time, there were none. But that is consciousness that we are talking about and not matter that ends up with consciousness and is the One that is unknowable.

Can the rules be the same for the First-cause?

I see where you are going with it. So in short, at the beginning, there was no intelligence. Answer it better if you can, please.

I might also add that there was nothing to compare it to, so how could one define odds of something being or not being? I am not sure if you logic is actually plausible. You are asking something that does not yet exist.

Of course you will use that same reasoning (such as it was) to ignore the existence of God I suppose.

I am just trying to estabilish the universality of your dichotomy (intelligence vs. luck).

So, again, if it is the product of intelligence, what is this intelligence the product of?

Intelligence, or luck?

What do you think?

Ciao

- viole

I forgot, there is no such thing as luck - not in reality.
I shall consider this subject some more later.

 

[viole]

I forgot, there is no such thing as luck - not in reality.
I shall consider this subject some more later.

Do we have a chance that you might revise your intelligence vs. luck argument?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Robert.Evans]

Do we have a chance that you might revise your intelligence vs. luck argument?

Ciao

- viole

You think it is wrong? Please explain. My thinking is that if intelligence is not involved, it must be luck. And to make that clear, I mean if there is no God then it is luck.
Luck does not really exist. All cause and effect and stimulus, do you agree?
So you ask a question in atheist speak about an area of reality that does have luck in it in the first place. Is that clear?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Do we have a chance that you might revise your intelligence vs. luck argument?

So the answer is no, I guess. Please give me your thinking, as I think you are quite clever. Enlighten one as me.

 

[viole]

You think it is wrong? Please explain. My thinking is that if intelligence is not involved, it must be luck. And to make that clear, I mean if there is no God then it is luck.
Luck does not really exist. All cause and effect and stimulus, do you agree?
So you ask a question in atheist speak about an area of reality that does have luck in it in the first place. Is that clear?

Forget my atheism.

Is that intelligence a product of intelligence or it is the product of luck?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Robert.Evans]

Forget my atheism.

Is that intelligence a product of intelligence or it is the product of luck?

Ciao

- viole

Have I not told you? Luck does not exist. That is the answer. Now you will say me argument is therefore wrong. Then I will say that we consider there to be luck as we don't think intelligence is involved. Is this difficult or can you get to the point?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't think it's ridiculous to believe that an entity like Abrahamic deity exists. I just think, that if it does, it's a liar and a pathological sadist who hates humanity.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Forget my atheism.

Is that intelligence a product of intelligence or it is the product of luck?

Ciao

- viole

You fallen asleep?

 

[viole]

Have I not told you? Luck does not exist. That is the answer. Now you will say me argument is therefore wrong. Then I will say that we consider there to be luck as we don't think intelligence is involved. Is this difficult or can you get to the point?

So, your argument is, if I understood correctly:

1) everything is either the product of intelligence or luck
2) luck does not exist
3) ergo, everything is the product of intelligence

Is that right?

Ciao

- viole