"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, That takes religion."
@sfgox10 Hey fucknut how about you do a little more research. He calls theists deluded and says they have a neurological disorder, then goes and calls a christian his hero. That's called a contradiction. You stupid shit.
@DrinkSkateSleep Your logic is askew. Fucknut. He's regarding Ron Paul with his political policies. Bill doesn't have a choice because every fucking politician is "Religious" Just because someone is a christian doesn't mean I have to disagree with everything they say. YOU, by way of logic, are a dumb piss ant and are wrong.
@sfgox10 You obviously haven't seen alot of Bill Maher, he always says that if a polititian is religious that he will take that into consideration. Also Ron Paul is against abortion, gay marriage, gays openly serving in the military. And Bill is for all those things. I dont need logic, I've just watched alot of Bill Maher. I know what I'm talking about here so shut the fuck up.
"God is nature"...Nature is nature... But anyway, please elaborate on your statement sir....I would be most pleased to be able to understand what you mean.
What I mean, is I believe there is a god. But it doesn't care about the scriptures we write or whatever we worship. Look at science and nature and you'll find an unbiased reason, tranquility, and beauty. That I believe is the closest mankind can come to understanding that which we call "God".
God is nature. God is energy. God is love. God is my teacup. God is my dental floss. God is my balls.
God is "(insert thing we already have a word for, but i'll call it God even though I know it's illogical, just so I can be accommodating to a vague idea that I have largely rejected but that I still have risidual emotional attachment too)"
"roman catholic...incredible conqueror" Well the Catholic faith was not spread by war. It was spread by peaceful conversions of millions of people.
"poetry, stories...letters" Well there is more then that or the Lord of the Rings would be a religion also.
"ancient fiction" You yourself said there is fact in there. The question is "how much is fact"? You honestly believe that the catholic faith was able to be spread so well throughout the world simply because it was a "nice story"?
He surely will distort the story to make it seem implausible. So leave the advocate in "hell". We live in an "enlightened age" where we don't kill people for no reason. It is easy for modern man to simply say "that's just a bunch of superstition.", because there's absolutely no evidence to back it up, and it makes less sense the more we learn. It was certainly marked with blood, my friend. The church of England is full of an awful past as well. In a less enlightened age, Lord of the Rings might
"you think..killing people" No i am playing "devils advocate". My point was that if they don't have rights then obviously we should be able to kill them without ramifications.
"defy laws of nature" Yes some are simply fabricated, i agree. Christ , however, was not. And His very existance has changed the world. The problem with so much of this stuff is that it happend thousands of years agoe so it is to easy for modern man to simply say "ah... that is just a bunch of superstition".
and translated and edited again. Governments can and do take rights away. Think about how little rights people had in the world until recently. We live in a country that values rights, and even now you can see reductions in rights from time to time. It's not right, based on our moral standards, for countries to do that. In the past, it was good. I don't see how it is obvious that we should be able to kill people for no reason. I don't believe in the devil, and his advocate has no authority.
"don't see....should be able to kill people" ok how about inslave them? If "morality" is just mob rule, or tyrant rule. Then it isen't "morality". It is just might makes right.
"leave the advocate in hell" It is just a manner of speaking.
"absolutely no evidence" Again, simply not true, Would you make up a fake religion and then die for it?
"marked with blood" Wars happen, and some christians have been evil people, no doubt, but you can't blame the religion for their weakness.
If you think we should be able to enslave people that's your business. I happen to strongly disagree, and it goes against our modern moral values. There is circumstantial evidence, sure, but it's all witness testimony. Once again, fake religions spring up all the time, and once you believe it, sure someone would die for it. I can blame religion, because had the religion not existed, these crazies wouldn't feel justified carrying out atrocities.
"goes against...moral values" If the rulers decided that slavery and murder were ok then would that make that our brand spankin new "moral standard"?
"all witness testimony" like virtually all "evidence" especially historical evidence.
"would die for it" No, if you were the one who "made it up" and knew it was "fake" would you die for it? The apostles where there with Jesus at the begining.
"i can blame religion" Some maybe, but not religion that said those things were wrong..........
Once again, people have upheld this "moral standard" in the past. This is why historical evidence is not adequate to prove supernatural claims. Who said that people knew it was fake? What about the cults in the 70's that were willing to drink poison for their beliefs? What about militant Islam? The thing about the Abrahamic religions; you can take any message you want from biblical scripture, and interpret any way you choose. War or peace, it's got a lil bit of everything.
evidence is inadequate for proving supernatural claims. The only way I can say I know is if I look at the evidence myself and make an inference, or for things out of my realm of comprehension, I must put my trust in theories that have survived peer review and are supported by people who spend their entire lives devoted to the relevant field of study. And even then I must say "based on what we know now" or "this is what they're saying."
the world around us. I didn't say faith. I said my trust. I can always check the facts myself to know for sure, but I can reasonably and tentatively trust an expert's theory, especially if it has been checked by other experts. Presumably a lie would not withstand peer review. And a mistake would probably get caught fairly soon. The past can be written any way the author chooses, and historians only have that to go on. And something that contradicts the very laws of nature that resulted and
universe. Explain quantum theory to me right now. Those people who spend every day of their lives examining it can't tell you the basics of the foundational level of our reality. However, I must put my trust (not faith, because faith is belief without reason in the religious context) in those people, because I don't have time to study the universe all day. I certainly won't put my trust in those who can't admit they don't know, and instead study an ancient book all day. The point is that I
"explain quantum theory" Do you honestly think i have that much room and that much time?
"trust(not faith)" ....Ever heard someone say" i have faith in you"? does that mean belief without reason? Every religions person has "reasons" for believing.
"i don't have time" So then you put fai... i mean "trust" in other peopls words on it.... i see. So why not put trust in religious people then?
"can't admit they don't know" Any real theologian will admit there is much they don't know.
So you claim that you know about our universe, and that we know vast amounts as a species, but you cannot even begin to explain quantum theory? Perhaps because we are just delving into it? Perhaps because we know next to nothing about the fundamentals of our existence? I said faith in the RELIGIOUS CONTEXT is belief without reason. Religious people study one ancient book. Why would they be able to give me accurate up to date info about our universe?! No thank you. "Admit there is much they don't
"what order" ....Seriously? Laws of science can only exist if there is order...
"cannot begin to explain" I didn't say i couldn't i said i don't have that kind of time....Nor the desire. Anyway, are you saying if i can't explain Q-Theory to you then i don't know anything?
"believe without reason" Incorrect, everyone has "reasons" for believeing.
"study one ancient book" ....We just sit around reading the bible all day and think of nothing else ever right? lol
from nothing" didn't we? No one thinks this, and further, your doctrine says this explicitly. "Do you know that?" No. I don't have absolute knowledge of anything, but must make assumptions such as "I exist" and then build upon this using inferences from real world, verifiable evidence and the rigors of logical reasoning. The order that resulted in the "laws of science" do not necessitate a creator. Yes, you don't know anything. Neither do I neither does anyone. We only discovered the atom
IS PRESENTING THE ARGUMENT THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD NO CAUSE. So yes, it is an amusing and pathetic argument, I agree. No, I am not absolutely sure of that. I might be wrong, but from what the evidence suggests, it is highly likely that I'm right. Yes, I exist is an assumption. I might not exist. This may well be an illusion of some kind. But more likely, it is not, and here I am. You only see the way our universe works as lucky because you exist to contemplate it. You are expecting intention
of course being facetious, trying to show you how ridiculous it is. "Their answers for the cause are basically . . . sillyness." First of all, I disagree with your assessment, but second, if it may seem silly its because we DO NOT HAVE AN ANSWER, only hypothesis. If Atum is actually the god of creation, then the bible would not be the ultimate truth, would it? Your comp. may be an illusion, but there is overwhelming evidence to believe in its existence, correct? You don't have to use my entire
"WE DO NOT HAVE AN ANSWER" That is convenient, "we don't know yet" so then you can ignore anything else until you "know" which you never will in this life.
" If Atum is...God" God is God by any name weather it be Allah or Yahweh..
"overwhelming evidence to believe..." What constitues "overwhelming evidence"? Maybe i am just hollucinating...
"pay attention to context" I do try, forgive me if i don't get it some times.
consequence of the creator theory, and therefore fails logically. I believe we should ignore that which we cannot "know" and focus on what we can. As our knowledge progresses, we should adjust our views. Overwhelming evidence is verifiable, physical, and tangible. Any inference made about this evidence that matches prediction and fits the evidence together, and can readily be agreed on by people who know what they're talking about is most likely the closest theory to the truth.
"overwhelming evidence" Any examples of this? Besides if one wanted to play the doubt game they can always make up reasons why it isen't so. Didn't you say "we can't know anything" earlier anyway?
"people who know what they're talking about" So many people who "knew" what they were talking about turned out to be wrong didnt' they? Besides why is it not possible for some one to "Know" what they are talking about with regard to God?
I told you, ABSOLUTE knowledge is impossible, but we must assume that the knowledge gained from scientific inquiry is the closest to the truth. Overwhelming evidence - gravity?! My existence?! Evolution?! "turned out to be wrong" - we covered this. It's okay to be wrong, and it's inevitable anyway from time to time. These people who "know what they're talking about" are people who spend their entire lives looking at physical verifiable evidence, those "experts" on god think about it, and study
in this universe IS eternal. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, just transformed into something else. This is my challenge to you - Since science is "so often mistake" and just as much can be learned through human reason, give me a theory that has been put forth simply from contemplation about god that has given us truth about the way our universe works, and progressed our species. I suppose this site was brought to you by cardinals from the church? Or the technology that allowed you to
"you know..incomprehensible God" ....Again if God existed, He could tell us about Himslef now couldn't He?
"no evidence...anything BUT..physical universe"...Ghosts, miracles, demonin possession aren't evidence in your mind? Or every witness was just dellusional?
"everything IS eternal" So you are going to live forever? No? Then you aren't eternal. Besides, isen't there a scientifc law that says everying is on a one-way ticket to maximum entripy?
presuppose that a god exists in the first place. Based on what evidence? The bible?! This logic is very circular. Ghosts don't make logical sense, and can be explained in any number of ways. If a modern medical expert could verify an incorrupt body, or if miracles stood the test of unbiased experimentation, then I could possibly accept them. Demonic posessions?! Really? I am not going to live forever, but I am a collection of atoms made of energy, and that energy WILL exist forever.
"demonic posessions" Just a small thing on this site "excorcism report by ABC's 20/20" Bite marks on her back? Self inflicted right? Stop ignoring everything you disagree with.
"energy will exist forever" Even assuming that is correct. Then that energy in a "state of maximum entrapy" would thereby be useless and disproove your "eternal universe" idea. And it still dosen't say where it came from, what started the cycle and so on.
Demons? Really? Okay, it's quite easily testable. If demons can inflict injury, then their interaction with our physical world can be detected. If some experimentation has been done, I would be glad to take a look at the data and the findings. "State of maximum entropy" - explain the relevance here. Once we really start understanding our world at a quantum level, perhaps we will be able to say where it came from. I trust a church sanctioned (most likely devoutly relgiious) 16th century
Demons" Yes, evil spirits. I know, there i go with that silly religion stuff again.
"interactions...can be detected" Yes, like unexplaind bruises on normal people. Or objects moving without explaination. Or a "possessed" person being able to repeatedly spit in the eyes of priets all the while having his (the possessed) eyes closed. YOu know, silly stuff like that.
"relevance here" ....If it degrades to a maximum state, then it can't be "eternal" now can it?
on evidence of human activity; quarry and tools and unfinished pyramids) with intent to serve a purpose. Universe - No evidence of construction, definitely not by any being, with no apparent intent to serve any particular purpose. I can't say what is real and what is silliness, but I can say what is most likely and what is highly unlikely. Once again, please show me the data from an experiment on a posessed person or a demon, and I will give it some thought. I don't think the universe is
"not by a being..no apparent intent" Purely speculation on your part...what happend to liklihoods anyway? "definitly not by (god)"
"presumably turn into something else" Things can only be recycled so many times my friend.
"can't say what is real"..... Really?
"data..posessed person... demon" There have been many documented occurances of these things, but it dosen't make any difference really, because you will ignore it anyway.
"modern medical expert" oh, so that other expert dosen't count because he isen't "modern". That works out well for non-believers. A "modern" expert would also not be modern given alittle time, so you could ignore that one too. Works out very well dosen't it?
"unbiased experimentation" Then you could also just accuse the "expert" in question of being biased aswell.
"then i could possibly accept them" Possibly? Even when your criteria is met you still only "possibly" believe? ..........
physician very little to validate a supernatural claim. The "expert" can be as biased as he pleases. All he can give is his inference based on the evidence gathered from the experiments. If you disagree, you can take a look yourself and draw your own inference, and whatever matches observation the closest is probably the truth. "most of these advancements . .. made by religious people" Their religious preference had nothing to do with their scientific endeavors. They did not use god in
"trust very little" So because he was religious he is automatically a liar then?
"expert can be biased" Only religious "experts" right?
"inferences based on evidence" Yes, that is how science works isen't it?
"draw your own inferences" How am i supposed to study something dead and gone? Can you research the culture of ancient Greece without others word on it?
"religious preference...nothing to do with...endeavours" Says who? Could they possibly be doing it out of duty to God?
going to degrade to any maximum state. But there may be evidence to prove this. Point me in the direction of the theory that states this. Even if it did degrade, it would presumably turn into something else. "He is automatically a liar" Thank you for putting words in my mouth. They taste great. I was saying that a medical examiner who possibly already believes in god and miracles, who is commissioned by the church, and not by a third, objective party, from the ultra religious
"theory that states this (entropy)" Though the total amount of energy in the universe is constant, the amount available for useful work is gradually decreasing. Real systems tend to become disorganized spontaneously; that is their entropy tends to increase. One statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is that EVERY SYSTEM LEFT TO ITSELF WILL TEND TOWARDS A CONDITION OF MAXIMUM ENTROPY (DISORDER). From the school book "Chemistry Precision and Design". Creation is on a one-way trip to disorder.
"put my trust in theories that have survieved peer review and are supported by people who spend their entire lives etc" Yes and "God theory" has not only survived "peer review" of countless philosophers and other people but it has also stood the test of time. Many people also spend their "whole lives devoted" to the study of miracles, or contemplating God's attributes and so on. So why do you ignore all of them?
knowledge into account. What is the study of miracles? How do you go about studying miracles? And what conclusive evidence have they brought forth? You can contemplate the color of thor's eyes . . . so?! Contemplation does not equal substantial evidence. I can't ignore people who bring out logically sound arguments, backed with physical evidence. I certainly can ignore those who use well refuted arguments and have nothing but their thoughts or personal experience to back them up.
"study of miracles" hmmm let me think... Oh ya, observing the incorrupt body of a saint who has been dead for centuries...Or documenting all the "eye witnesses" for a Eucharistic miracle... things like that.
"conclusive evidence" Conclusive for people who care to find the truth.
"contemplation..not equal substantial evidence" Nothing consitues "substantial" evidence as you have already spoken in so many words.
'well refuted" Well "refuted" now lol. mmmm belief in scientists.
I tire of repeating myself. All of history does not need to be discounted, but claims that do not coincide with the way our universe works should be judged skeptically. Crusades was killing. Inquisition was torture of non-catholics. The catholic church advocated the colonization of muslim lands, and had no problem with muslims' death and enslavement. Pascal's wager; irreducable complexity; teleological argument etc. etc. What do your experts say?
"all history does not need to be discounted" Yes just the stuff you don't like.
"should be judged skeptically" the problem with judgeing history skeptically is it is to easy to simply say "Dude, that was like, todally like, a long time ago dude, and like, that couldn't have happend because, like, i didn't see it bro".
"crusades" Not all killing is immoral.
"inquisition" was performed by the government of Spain.
"muslim''s death and enslavement" Examples please.
So Zeus existed, then, right? Witches were running around putting hexes on people? I suppose you must believe werewolves were stalking around in the woods? Sea monsters were destroying ships? If you're not judging history skeptically, you are going to have to believe alot of nonsense. "Not all killing is immoral". So your absolute morality is not so absolute after all, eh? Miracles are unexplained phenomena, often found to be fraud or exaggeration. Existence does not point to a god. . .
incorrupt bodies of saints, and none of them have had a proper autopsy to see if there was any preservatives put in them, and regardless, there are natural ways to preserve a body. No I can't prove they don't exist, but I don't play that game, you do. I deal with what I can prove exists, and choose to ignore that which is unprovable. It doesn't say murder, it says kill. You'd think if god wanted us to differentiate between the two he could make it clear? Oh yeah, but the church knows best.
"none of them...had autopsy" I gave you the account of the CHEIF MEDICAL "dude" at Goa....Oh wait.... just "testimony" right?
"natural wasy to preserve a body" Quote from Doctor Cosmas Saraiva: "the limbs and other parts of the body were entire and clothed in their flesh in such a way that, according to the laws of medicine, they could not possibly have been preserved by any natural or artificial means" Going to put your trust in an expert my dear friend?'
is so useful. Because our knowledge (not absolute knowledge, but inferences based on evidence; assumptions) always evolves and grows. This guy did an autopsy in the 16th century, come on! This was primitive medical science! No, it doesn't say what not to kill, and so if god said it, and didn't bother to clear it up, then that is absolutely thou shalt not kill. Proof in the scientific context only means that it has an undeniable amount of evidence. In this case, some things are provable, and
"every church makes the same claim" Not everyone, and does the fact that multiple ones do mean no one can be right? Multiple people can lay claim to the same "identity" are they both right?
which said "Proof in the scientific context only means that it has an undeniable amount of evidence. ", and reasonable assumptions can be made from that evidence. When I say science hadn't begun, I mean the organized rules of the scientific method, which has been the only method to arrive at the truth of things so far. "Dubious mythological figure" meaning god. Jesus Christ the man probably existed, but I certainly don't believe he was god. That subplot makes no sense to me. I would say,
"dosen't say murder it says kill" lol Does it say WHAT not to kill?
"what i can prove exists" Ah but can you really "proove" it? We can always play the doubt game.
"ignore what is unpovable" So you ignore basically everything? Come now, we must be reasonable.
"Church knows best" I would put my "trust" in an institution established by God, wouldn't you? Or does God have to speak to you personally before you believe....Even though you would tell yourself you were just dreaming...
once again, I don't waste my time with those claims that are unprovable. If there is no evidence to back claims that a god exists except edited and translated witness testimony, from a primitive time when science hadn't begun yet, and of course to say "If there's no other explanation, it's god", I have issues accepting it as truth. I have even more issues with claims that this dubious mythological figure established a church. Not only because every church makes the same claim, but more
I would like to see what saint you are talking about, and if you could point me in the direction of a site that would have findings from research done on it, that would be great. I would like to see for myself. Clearly, you must have done your research, because why else would you know how it could have happened. There is such thing as substantial evidence. However, it doesn't strictly come from your mind. Again, I would like to hear an argument for god's existence that hasn't been refuted.
"what saint" there are many but here is one example Saint Francis Xavier. Buried december 4 1552 and packed with lime(no not the fruity kind) to increase the rate of decomposition. On Feburary 17, 1553 the casket was opened and he was found to be "perfectly preserved". In 1614 the body was again found to be "beautiful and whole". In december 30, 1974 issue of Newsweek Magazine described the body of the Saint as "surpizingly well preserved". Much earlier the chief medical authority in Goa said:
anyone put wholeheartedly their faith in something they can't know? Bloodletting is not a theory and was done in a more primitive time. Eggs and coffee being bad for you was not a theory that was peer reviewed and accepted the majority of academia. Science write their inferences based on evidence, using rigorous methodology to ensure objectivity. You have a misconstrued idea about science altogether. Many corpses have been found "surprisingly well preserved" but this does not point to god.
"bloodletting...eggs...coffee" They were all considered FACT by the mainsteam. "the latest research suggests" and it turns out to be nonsense pure and simple, like most of the rest of science.
"based on evidence...rigorous methodology" and yet so much of it ends up being shown to be wrong later....so much for rigorous.
"many corpses have been found "surpirising well preserved' but that does not point to god" That is all you have to say about Saint Francis?
Exactly why you can't trust witness testimony to prove supernatural claims. First of all, bloodletting was a medieval practice. Not scientific at all. Second, what scientist proposed a theory that coffee and eggs are bad for you? (Anyway, they are, to a degree.) It's okay to be wrong. Knowledge evolves. We know something now, it gets proved wrong or reworked, and we move on. Without this evolution, we would be in the dark ages. Yes, that's all I have to say about st. Francis. There are so many
"can't trust ...testimony" Everything we know vicariously through others is because of their "testimony" and just because accounts differ alittle from person to person dosen't mean what ever they saw didn't happen sir.
"medieval practice" Yes of "science" at that time..
"coffe and eggs" It happens all the time, "the latest research shows" and then later..."well THIS latest research shows"... they are so often wrong.
"we know something now" ....Wait i thought we couldn't "know"?
of our universe, and knowing that even know; even with the most educated man in the world, we use inadequate metaphor to explain our reality. Of course illiterate laborers thousands of years ago are going to misrepresent the truth. Before we formed a successful scientific method, and a sophisticated set of rules for logical reasoning, we were prone to believe witches were casting spells, making people sick, and bloodletting was a safe practice. "They are so often wrong" - Exactly why skepticism
"scientific method...set of rules" And yet they are still so often wrong to this day. Is it possible that people back then were right about some things?
"skepticism..useful" Yes of course, but a healthy one, not an absolute one.
"autopsy in the 16th century" So? He know the medical abilities back then and he said "now embalming or preservatives" and yet the body was still bloody after over a year.... Why won't you put your "trust" in this expert?
to such profound questions? I do not have an absolute skepticism, to reiterate. Once again, there are other ways to preserve bodies without preservatives; the saint was still dead, and eventually his body did decompose fully (not much of a miracle); and once again, how does this point to god's interference? Undeniable evidence happens. Do you believe that our body is made of atoms? Why? Or that our heart is a cellular structure? Why? Apparently you didn't read my input on "proof"
"God's interference" The fact that there have been more incorrupt bodies, and conincedently they where Saints of the Catholic Church, who in their lives were reported to have performed miracles.
"undeniable evidence happens" If your existance is an assumption how can anything possibly be "undeniable"?
"atoms...cellular structure" Yes, i believe them, why do you? Or are those things just "assumptions"? When i keep "doubting" everything it is to show you how you think about religion.
How do you know that there were no incorrupt bodies of regular everyday average joes? Secondly, you have no idea if every single one of those bodies was without preservatives. You would need a case by case study. I undeniably exist. All my sensory input work in tandem to produce this reality, and others are in it, reinforcing it. It is extremely unlikely this is not real. Once again, there is only likelihoods, and if the evidence is not there, it is unlikely, and not worth consideration.
"incorrupt...average Joes" There have been "well preserved" "joes" and they have natural explanations. St. Francis had been preserved in a way that "no artifcial or natural means" could answer for.
"case by case study" and most of the incorrupt Saints have had just that.
"i undeniably exist" wait... "there are only liklihoods" or " i assume i exist".... would you make up your mind please?
"evidence is not there" ....Most things start out that way, then they build evidence.
explanation for this phenomena. I want to make this very clear for you. Saying I undeniably exist is saying that it is highly unlikely that I am having this conversation, thinking, and sensing and not actually in existence. It has been thousands of years, and there have been millions of separate cultures that have spontaneously invented a god or gods, none of them seem to have the same priorities. If none of these cultures can come up with evidence for god's existence, I doubt it is going
"invented God(s)..none have..same priorities" I beg to differ, they have all had powers above man. That is something common to all. Furthermore how could all of mankind even come up with such a concept? Don't you think it is worth thinking about?
"none..come up with evidence" ...Most people view the universe as "evidence". Then you have miracles, supernatural occurances, at the very least they tend to point to the Divine, would you at least agree that it is reasonable to believe so?
"not worth considering" Just because it dosen't have evidence dosen't mean it isen't worth considering. We don't have "evidence" that there is life on Mars, dose that mean we shouldn't consider it?
Again, may i ask as to the religion of your parents good sir? Merely curious.
to happen. It is reasonable to think there is life elsewhere, and there is plenty of evidence to support that claim. I meant to respond to all of your posts, but I ran out of time. I meant to come back to it, but you had already replied. My parents were jehovah's witnesses for a while, and then my mom went to a more deistic/agnostic/spiritual philosophy, as did my dad, and recently he's been researching Wicca. My friends growing up were catholic and christian, and my family here is mormon.
I do think it is worth thinking about. It is worth some research. And we have found systems in our brain that are responsible for religious belief, and it's very easy to see how religion can form and be sustained. The universe is not evidence of any sentient, moral, eternal being. Miracles do not necessarily point to any god, especially not the Judeo-Christian god. "Supernatural occurances"? Like? None of this reasonably points to god. Since I was a small child, no one could answer my
"supernatural occurances? like?" ....What? Ever heard of demonic possession? And not a psycological problem can't answer for everything associated with it.
"none..reasonably points to God" God is the reasonable answer, what is your "reasonable" alternative? "well we just don't know yet" Well that is convenient.
"no one could answer" How many people did you ask? Just because the ones you asked did have the answers you wanted dosen't mean that they were wrong or that none had the answers.
questions about god to my satisfaction. Of course I assumed there was a god, because everyone I knew said there was. I prayed, and nothing happened. I never heard any voice of god. I never felt any spiritual ecstasy. Then I started noticing how ridiculous the rituals were, and how contradictory the scripture was, and how blatantly offensive the church services were. I also saw how unquestioningly a child will accept these beliefs wholeheartedly.
"I doctor Cosmas Saraiva, physician to the Senhor Viceroy, have been to examine the body of Father Maser Francis, brought to this city of Goa. I felt and pressed all the members of the body with my fingers, but paid special attention to the abdominal region and made certain that the intestines where in their natural position. There had been no embalming of any kind nor had any artificial preservative agents been used. I observed a wound in the left near the heart and asked on of the Society....
.....who was with me to put his fingers into it. When he withdrew them they were covered in blood which i smelt and found to be absolutely untainted. The limbs and other parts of the body were entire and clothed in their flesh in such a way that, according to the laws of medicine, they could not possibly have been preserved by natural or artificial means, seeing that father Francis had been dead and buried for about a year and a half. I have affirm on oath that what i have written above is true
"substantial evidence" yes my dear friend, that is what we want. Not "absolute" evidence for anyone can say "well maybe an alien did it" or some such thing. We should accept what is reasonable. Many miracles, existance, and more point to a Supreme being, isen't that atleast somewhat reasonable?
"arguments...refuted" How can they be refuted unless you can "proove" them wrong? Someone simply not accepting an argument isen't the same as "refuting" it sir. Have a good day.
. . . neither does anything else. Sure, you could tack god onto anything at all. If we found a new species tomorrow, you could say "god just created it yesterday", and how could anyone prove you wrong? What is fact, is that there is a new creature that we know nothing about. Everything else is conjecture. Any philosophical argument for the existence of god has been refuted to do its illogicality. I hope I wasn't too sloppy here, have a good day as well sir.
There is nothing in this universe that only a supreme power can answer. That is an ancient answer in a modern age. Some of the conjecture may turn out to be right, but it's unverifiable, so I tend to not put much stock in it. Something indeed brought it to be, but an infinite creature that wants humans on this insignificant speck called earth in this tiny dust cloud out of trillions called the milky way to glorify him with trinkets and words??? I don't think so. Thank you, friend and good night.
"ancient answer in a modern age" And that ancient answer is just as logical today as back then.
"unverifiable" Did the DoDo once exist? Can you verify it? If you can't does that mean you shouldn't believe it did?
"Infinite creature wants humans" That is where His love comes in, it is for us to be eternally happy aswell, wouldn't you want to be happy for eternity? Thank you for your comments good sir, and goodnight to you aswell.
because it's not factually true. Men started this church based on teachings and writings of other men. All other claims are pure conjecture. Once again, I invite you to offer me a sound logical argument for the existence of god, because you have not so far. Yes, I can verify it. There are photographs, many separate corroborating testimonies (that don't ask me to believe something outside of the realm of possibility), sketches, bones, and numerous scientific studies done about them and their
if no one can agree on the truth of something, or even come close, and every single culture has independently come up with a different theory on the subject, then I don't believe any of them. I'm not playing the absolute skeptic card, you are, and I'm convinced of the dodo's existence. It seems you do not wish to retain my opinions, which is fine. I guess I'll repeat myself. Historical accounts CAN be trusted, but I cannot accept them to prove supernatural claims. Jesus did not start the church.
"absolute skeptic card..you are" You don't see what i am doing? You keep saying, about things you don't believe in, "they can't be trusted" "eyewitness testimony is not good enough" etc, so i was saying you could do the same with the Dodo for example.
"historical..CAN be trusted" Okay, good, now why can't they be accurate for supernatural claims? Is it even possible?
"Jesus..not start..church" I am sorry but that is incorrect. " go ye and teach all nations" for example.
"logical argument for the existence of God' Okeedokee how'a'bout when an effect is better know to us then its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existance of its proper cause can be demonstrated so long as its effects are better know to us; because, since every effect depends upon it's cause, if the effect exsists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existance of God, in so far as it is not self evident to us, can be seen from the effects.
in line with what the roman catholic church expects. The argument you've presented is immediately fallacious. "Every effect must have a cause, therefore god exists." Your premise does not necessitate the conclusion. Give me an argument that necessitates the existence of god. Thank you for the exchange, I anticipate your response.
"immediatley fallacious" No, my point wasen't that it was "absolute proof for God" But merely a reasonable argument. It is reasonable to assume there is an Supreme Power, that brought this universe to be. Don't you think?
"argument that necessitates the existence of God" If we could prove with absolute certainty that there was a God, then we wouldn't have "faith" so much as knowledge, my point , dear sir, is that it is at least reasonable to believe in God. Thank you aswell.
extinction, so I think I can trust that the dodo existed. His love? His love?! Let's say he exists. He asks you to give up your entire life simply to glorify his existence, and if you fail to do it properly, following the correct procedures out of millions, without his aid at all, and if you do it the wrong way, you are damned to an eternity in hell. What kind of love are you used to? What makes you so sure you are destined for paradise? Apparently you believe I'm certainly not.
""simply to glorify his existence" No, it is also for you to be happy for eternity.
"correct procedures out of millions" It isen't really very hard to follow your conscience.
"without His aid" He wouldn't give us a task we can't perform because that wouldn't be "just". Furthermore have you ever heard of the concept of "grace"?
"you..destined...paradise" I am not "sure" but i can only do my best, and trust in God.
"i'm certainly not" Not at all, do you follow your conscience?
But the only way for you to be happy for eternity is to glorify his existence for the entirety of your own. Seeing as how every conscience is different, depending on the brain it's housed in, following it is not adequate procedure to get into heaven, especially according to YOUR church. Once again, according to god and Jesus in your book, and to the church, it is not adequate to just do what you think is right in order to make it into heaven. If you have a different idea, it is certainly not
"glorify His existence" Yes, we glorify him, but that dosen't mean we wouldn't be happy too.
"according to YOUR church" I have told you repeatedly what my church teaches sir.
"just do what you think is right" If you are brought up not knowing any better (through no fault of your own) then it IS good enough. That is the teaching of the Church. Baptism of desire my friend.
"Does that make it good?" The point that I'm making is that "good" and "evil" are determined by man. If the entire population thinks something is "good", then who's to say it's not? Of course, by our standards, that's not "good" at all. But it might have been four hundred years ago. Yes, I take that stance on all history. You cannot prove a supernatural claim through historical evidence. People did drink kool-aid knowing it was poison. Islamic martyrs do set off a bomb knowing it will explode.
"determined by man" So you can't have a problem with anything unless the majority or the king tells you it is "wrong" then right?
"history" That is not reasonable at all.
"you cannot provesupernatural" Well if you can't proove anything else why would you be able to prove supernatural either?
"people drink kool-aid" How do you know they "knew"? Did you interview them before they died? Or are you trusting other peoples words? Besides, some people are mentally unstabe, you know, cultists.
sustains our existence cannot be proven through ancient witness testimony, I've made my stance clear here, and I hold that stance with every historical miracle claim. I think that's perfectly reasonable. I don't think anyone should blindly hold on to absolute knowledge. You should always be willing to accept a new theory, even if it goes against what you believe, if the evidence is there to prove it. Why are cultists mentally unstable?
"i hold..stance...historical miracle" How long before something becomes "history" 1 hour or a few days? Because what you just said to me is "history" now....
"perfectly reasonable" Not really. You think it is reasonable to deny EVERYTHING you don't like.
"evidence...to prove it" Evidence? you mean eyewitness testimony? Or the word of scientists? You would have to see it yourslef... and then you might be hallucinating.
"mentally unstable" Following a nobody for no reason is "unstable".
could go gather the facts myself and check the outcome against the experts. If you want to play the doubting game, I suggest you start with your own beliefs. You know how often a peer reviewed theory gains popularity, being mistaken? Legitimate scientific research is done with strict criteria to keep it unbiased. Unlike writing down what you think happened. Of course what I said becomes history once it leaves our present, but I'm not claiming to have seen a building float away, or my dog come
"i could go gather the facts" You can't go back in time so history is all fiction i guess... and until you "gather all the facts " then you will just have to be in the dark won't you?
"start with your own beliefs" I am not the one doubting anything and everything. You are.
"being mistaken" You mean like blood letting? or Eggs are bad for you? or Coffee is bad for you then oh wait, it turns out..... lol
"writing down what you think happened" isen't that all science? What they "think"?
know." - except that they know how the universe, life, concsiousness, conscience, and language all came to be. History is dependent on corroborating testimony, pictures, photos, videos, recorded sound. We have nothing else to go on. Miracles cannot be proved through only witness testimony that doesn't even match up 100 percent. True, I do doubt everything. Why not? We have a faulty sensory system, we live in a manipulative world full of suggestion, lies, and mistakes. Why in the world would
"they know" Saying i know something happend isen't the same as knowing how it all works. I know this computer works but i don't understand everything about computer programing and electricity....
"pictures, photos, vidoes, recorded sound" Which can all be faked.....
"match up 100 percent" No testimony ever "matches up" down to exact detail because people see things differently. Does that mean what they saw couldn't have been? You take doubt to far.
in the last few hundred years. Yes, everyone has reasons for believing. Social pressure being a huge one, comfort being I think a close second. You get your information from an ancient book, and theologians study this ancient book to become an "expert" on it. How do you know this comp. works? Because it's real and in front of you. How do you know "divine power" works? Because you read it somewhere. Yes, it all can be faked, but it's all we have to go on. "people see things differently".
"you get your information from an ancient book"....That "book" is one aspect of the Faith.
"it's real and infront of you" so if it was behind me and i was blind then it wouldn't be real? Just because you can't see or touch something dosen't mean it isen't real sir.
"read it somewhere".... Reason, miracles, etc....
"it's all we have to go on" SPOT ON! We should go with what is reasonable.... And there is one REASONABLE answer to miracles, existance and so on....
where there is none, and placing luck in an indifferent system. Right, it is an aspect of faith, which I don't believe leads anyone to the truth of the universe. That's not what I was implying. You know a comp. is real because it's detectable. We can learn how it works if we can detect it. Please use my quotes in context. It's all we have to go on for history. Written testimony cannot be relied on for accurate scientific knowledge. Knowing that people in the past had a different understanding
"all we have to go on" Yes, and it is reasonable to believe much of it.
"written testimony cannot be relied on for accurate scientific knowlege" I disagree and anyway, as you we agreed, we have to go with what is reasonable, and it isen't reasonable to disregard all "written testimoy".
"misrepresent the truth" Or maybe they were precisly right? They were "primitive" back then and we will be looked on in the same way given enough time.
quote, but please pay attention to the context. Yes, we will be looked at as primitive, because we are to a later generation. Our beliefs will largely be looked at as wrong, I'm sure, and our knowledge will be recognized for what it is - pitiful and strongly lacking; the same way we can justifiably look back on cultures thousands of years ago. We will always be wrong from time to time. Why, being wrong with more sophisticated knowledge and technology, would these early civilizations be right
"our beliefs...will be looked at as wrong" Well then why believe them if they are wrong?
"why,..would these early civilizations be right to such a profound question" Because God's existance is not a scientific question. Further more, is it just possible that God Himself instructed some of His creatures?
"body with preservatives" Which the doctor said were not used.
"decompose fully" Not true.
"miracle" ....Did you completely ingnore the quote from the doctor.
There are only likelihoods. We should believe in what is MOST likely based on our current knowledge. The creation of the universe, the matter of wills, "first humans", these are all questions that have, can, and will be probed by scientific method. Further, even if god did exist, (based on current knowledge) it is more likely he simply punched in the laws of the universe, and let it unravel itself. As I said, there are other ways to keep a corpse well preserved, and it did decompose fully.
a book. I couldn't expect them to know any more about god than me. "Some things are fact". No. There are only likelihoods."doesn't mean they will come up with . . right answers" - they are most likely to. "condition transcended 'well preserved'" There are still natural ways to preserve a body. If it decomposed, what would be the point of this "miracle". Why? "no artificial or natural means could answer for" - Again, it was the 16th century. I doubt they would come up with a comprehensive
"know any more about God then me" Why not? They have "spent" their whole lives thinking about it, studing miracles etc. Sounds prideful to me.
"there are still natual ways" Not to preserve in that condition.
"what would be the point" So because the phenomena stopped then it might as well not happend? Apply that logic to other things and see what you come up with.
"16th century" They had a decent understanding of human decomposition at that time....
own a computer was thanks to some bishops? Or scholars? You're being clever, and I enjoy it, but our language is set up for metaphor and hyperbole. I would not be able to hold a conversation effectively, and convey my thoughts correctly if I had to qualify every statement. Just know that if I sound absolute about something, it just means I find it extremely likely to be the case based on the evidence I've encountered. Anyway. My point is that if all they've done is thought about the
"just as much can be learned through human reason" I didn't say that, but you are severly underestimating human comprension. Where would science be without human though and reson behind it?
"progressed our species" Contemplation about God makes Him more understandable thereby leading to more converts wich would tend to lead to less strife which would "advance" our species. Agreed?
"technology" Where did i say bishops and or the Church invented computers?
Innate human thought and reason were only evolved to handle our human environments. They are not adequate to properly comprehend the truth of our universe. This is why we've come up with tools to help us, like the sciences and logic. There is no link between religiosity and contentment, so I cannot agree that converting leads to less strife. In fact, religious conflicts have led to a lot of wars and conflict. "Where did I say bishops . . . invented computers" - my point was that technology
"point was, longetvity..efficience...comfort" First, most of those advancements have been made by religious people. Furthermore our beloved technology has lead to the most destructive ablities imaginable, hardly healthy. Religion isen't about making your couch more comforable, it is about serving God.
"only likelihoods" Is that a fact or a likelihood? See the contradiciton?
"presupposition that God exists" Nonsense, If God appeared to you, your "presuppositions" wouldn't matter much.
any of their theories, and was not a conclusion drawn from any of their work. We're not talking about couches here!!! The destructive abilities are a byproduct of this advancement, which science itself cannot be held responsible for. That is another issue altogether. However, religious conflicts have been the direct result of fervent religious zeal. "see the contradiction?" We already discussed this. "If god appeared to you" - did god appear to you?
"couches" ...You were comparing science with religion... Apples and Oranges...
"distructive abilities...byproduct" All the good stuff was intended, but none of the bad? Really?
"religious conflict" I see, so you can't hold science accountable for what people do in the name of science, but you can hold all religion accountable for what some people do in its name... interesting.
"contradiction" Yes, because there are facts, not only liklihoods.
era of the 1500's is not going to give me a satisfactory answer on the subject of miracles, especially with such a mundane one. Religion is the earliest science, they're not apples and oranges. Please give me an example of a destructive ability given to us in the name of science and not an unintentional byproduct of scientific discovery given to us in the name of nationalistic conquest. Also, give a "fact". You said that if god appears to you, a presupposition is irrelevant. Did god appear to
"religion..earlist science" Only in a vague notion...mabye. Religion deals with what we can't see and touch and therefore isen't "real science" now is it?
"name of science" How about Nukes?
"unintentional byproduct" Look at the military today.... You think all of those developments are "accidents"? I find it ammusing how science is never to blame, just people using it wrong but for some reason the same standard dosen't apply to religion. Couldn't people be using it wrong? So to speak.
a more involved and eloquent explanation, and once again, if you are curious, please do research for yourself. There is no evidence that time is a property anywhere else but this universe. It may be, but no one knows that. "Religion deals with what we can't see and touch" - wrong. Religion attempts to explain what we can see and touch with through what we can't. Why is there a universe? God. Why is there evil? Satan. Why is there suffering? Original sin. Why are we here? To worship god. What
"it may be" Yes indeed. The way i see it is there "may" have been a TIME when the universe wasen't in existance.
"wrong (religion" ...First, i didn't say religion ONLY delt with the spiritual, that is the most important aspect of it. Besides, do you think science can answer for evil? Religion dosen't try to "scientifically" answer these questions. It answers them in a more profound and, quite frankly, important way. For instance is it more important to know about gravity or God?
Give me one spiritual question that science will never be able to answer? Also, give me an example of science "resigning its beliefs to oblivion". Invariable in this case meaning you can't change any of the components of the explanation to fit a situation, the theory either matches observation or doesn't, there's no sliding away. "Yet the number of things it got wrong" - Like . . ? Once again, how else without science are you living in an insulated home with electricity on a computer? Give
"science will never...answer" How about the purpose of man? Furthermore you can't proove they will be able to answer alot of questions, just like i can't proove they can't.
"oblivion" ....Ever studied history and science? Alchemy for example.
"change to fit situation" For example?
"things got wrong...like?" Seriously? Just look at medical science for one. How about the surgeon general saying smoking was good for you and now smoking will kill you....lol
What is the purpose of porpoises? What is the purpose of rocks? What is the purpose of the sun? Why does there have to be a purpose for everything? This is that assumption that everything must have some intention behind it, which I reject outright. Alchemy was not real chemistry, and I cannot classify that as a real science. Every religion changes their story to accommodate scientific fact once it is found. For example - 7 days to 6000 years, once we realized it is ridiculous to believe
"purpose" It strikes me as less then logical to say things DON'T need a purpose. Can you think of anything man-made that dosen't have a purpose?
"Alchemy..not..chemistry" It was a real area of science becase they did scientific research into it, and they failed... Besides that was one example.
"Changes...story" Incorrect, the church has alwasy held that the "6 days" were not necessarily to be taken literally. How could there have been our standard days if the sun didn't exist?
"can you think of anything man-made" - Clearly you see the problem with this statement? Nature is not man-made. the universe is not man-made. Of course man-made things serve a purpose, because we had intent to create it to serve a purpose! Alchemy was attempted before the scientific method was solidified, and of course failed, because it wasn't based on the reality of the universe. If the 6 days portion of the story, which is right after the introduction of the deity, is allegory, why can't the
"man-made" The point was that if everything that exists because of man has a purpose how is it that everything else wouldn't? Seems strange.
"Alchemy" Was scientific research. It failed. Just like alot of other scientific theories. It was still science.
"deity be allegory" What could a supreme being be allegory for? A "day" can be a metaphore for a period of time. Is God allegory for...what luck? lol Again, some is metaphor, some is literal........
"Seems strange." - It doesn't seem strange to me at all. You think that just because we have the ability to create things that serve a purpose, everything that exists must have a purpose? I don't follow your logic. Let's say alchemy could be classified as science, so what? We grew up and learned alchemy was nonsense. God in the OT could be used in the same metaphorical sense as Einstein used it. As the energy that has become everything and all of us.
purpose" I think that if it didn't have a purpose it wouldn't exist. Silly isen't it?
"So what" Just more stuff science got wrong....obviously.
"God..metaphorical" Lol So energy was what gave us the ten commandments and the rest of the bible? God's existance wasen't metaphorical, the "how He did it" was, or at least could be. Strangely, some things were metaphors, some things were different manners of speaking. Try explaing something complicated to a child without metahpors... Understand?
Just curious - what purpose do you think the galaxy has? What purpose do black holes have? What purpose does a grain of sand have? "more stuff science got wrong" - yeah . . . Once again, so what? You will get things wrong on the road to knowledge. "So energy gave us the ten commandments" - What?! That's absolutely silly. Men gave us the ten commandments, and men wrote the rest of the bible, having been taught to interpret the creation myth literally.
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, That takes religion."
Demon666Evil 8 months ago
I like Bill but he contradicts himself alot. Remember when he said Ron Paul, a christian, was his hero?
DrinkSkateSleep 9 months ago
You're a stupid shit.
sfgox10 9 months ago
@sfgox10 Hey fucknut how about you do a little more research. He calls theists deluded and says they have a neurological disorder, then goes and calls a christian his hero. That's called a contradiction. You stupid shit.
DrinkSkateSleep 9 months ago
@DrinkSkateSleep Your logic is askew. Fucknut. He's regarding Ron Paul with his political policies. Bill doesn't have a choice because every fucking politician is "Religious" Just because someone is a christian doesn't mean I have to disagree with everything they say. YOU, by way of logic, are a dumb piss ant and are wrong.
sfgox10 9 months ago
@sfgox10 You obviously haven't seen alot of Bill Maher, he always says that if a polititian is religious that he will take that into consideration. Also Ron Paul is against abortion, gay marriage, gays openly serving in the military. And Bill is for all those things. I dont need logic, I've just watched alot of Bill Maher. I know what I'm talking about here so shut the fuck up.
DrinkSkateSleep 9 months ago
@DrinkSkateSleep Now you're basing it off of other Billsodes. So dumb, we're referencing this video, shithead.
sfgox10 8 months ago
@sfgox10 Are you that retarded that you have to concentrate only on this video? It's a statement he's made that's hypocritical.
DrinkSkateSleep 8 months ago
@DrinkSkateSleep LOL AT THIS
sfgox10 8 months ago
Comment removed
yourarrogantcunt 1 year ago
@dinkipooxa good comment, thanks.
ComeLeVent 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hahahah idiot guy doesnt believe God can write a book
HE IS GOD HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS!! so little atheist, you lose
xjaskix 2 years ago
There is no way for a nonexistent being to write a book.
"HE IS GOD HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS!!"
Yet it seems it's impossible to provide any proof of him doing ANYTHING!?
FeroGotBalls 2 years ago 13
@xjaskix Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
DemonAMVs 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Personally I believe God is nature. It's scripture that is full of lives.
Lathox 2 years ago
"God is nature"...Nature is nature... But anyway, please elaborate on your statement sir....I would be most pleased to be able to understand what you mean.
Thank you.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
What I mean, is I believe there is a god. But it doesn't care about the scriptures we write or whatever we worship. Look at science and nature and you'll find an unbiased reason, tranquility, and beauty. That I believe is the closest mankind can come to understanding that which we call "God".
Lathox 2 years ago
He don't steal the word nature for it lol
faab007 2 years ago
God is nature. God is energy. God is love. God is my teacup. God is my dental floss. God is my balls.
God is "(insert thing we already have a word for, but i'll call it God even though I know it's illogical, just so I can be accommodating to a vague idea that I have largely rejected but that I still have risidual emotional attachment too)"
SerenityNoww 2 years ago
It's pantheism. "God is everything" can make you feel really good, but in fact answers nothing.
kufr72 2 years ago 10
@SerenityNoww All praise to your balls!
RichGilly 1 year ago
@SerenityNoww You're emotionally attached to your balls?
DrinkSkateSleep 9 months ago
Comment removed
araless 2 years ago
Haha Bill makes such good points, so simple a child could understand them yet some people still don't see a problem with religion.
chestbuster1987 2 years ago
"roman catholic...incredible conqueror" Well the Catholic faith was not spread by war. It was spread by peaceful conversions of millions of people.
"poetry, stories...letters" Well there is more then that or the Lord of the Rings would be a religion also.
"ancient fiction" You yourself said there is fact in there. The question is "how much is fact"? You honestly believe that the catholic faith was able to be spread so well throughout the world simply because it was a "nice story"?
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
He surely will distort the story to make it seem implausible. So leave the advocate in "hell". We live in an "enlightened age" where we don't kill people for no reason. It is easy for modern man to simply say "that's just a bunch of superstition.", because there's absolutely no evidence to back it up, and it makes less sense the more we learn. It was certainly marked with blood, my friend. The church of England is full of an awful past as well. In a less enlightened age, Lord of the Rings might
araless 2 years ago
"you think..killing people" No i am playing "devils advocate". My point was that if they don't have rights then obviously we should be able to kill them without ramifications.
"defy laws of nature" Yes some are simply fabricated, i agree. Christ , however, was not. And His very existance has changed the world. The problem with so much of this stuff is that it happend thousands of years agoe so it is to easy for modern man to simply say "ah... that is just a bunch of superstition".
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
and translated and edited again. Governments can and do take rights away. Think about how little rights people had in the world until recently. We live in a country that values rights, and even now you can see reductions in rights from time to time. It's not right, based on our moral standards, for countries to do that. In the past, it was good. I don't see how it is obvious that we should be able to kill people for no reason. I don't believe in the devil, and his advocate has no authority.
araless 2 years ago
"don't see....should be able to kill people" ok how about inslave them? If "morality" is just mob rule, or tyrant rule. Then it isen't "morality". It is just might makes right.
"leave the advocate in hell" It is just a manner of speaking.
"absolutely no evidence" Again, simply not true, Would you make up a fake religion and then die for it?
"marked with blood" Wars happen, and some christians have been evil people, no doubt, but you can't blame the religion for their weakness.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
If you think we should be able to enslave people that's your business. I happen to strongly disagree, and it goes against our modern moral values. There is circumstantial evidence, sure, but it's all witness testimony. Once again, fake religions spring up all the time, and once you believe it, sure someone would die for it. I can blame religion, because had the religion not existed, these crazies wouldn't feel justified carrying out atrocities.
araless 2 years ago
"goes against...moral values" If the rulers decided that slavery and murder were ok then would that make that our brand spankin new "moral standard"?
"all witness testimony" like virtually all "evidence" especially historical evidence.
"would die for it" No, if you were the one who "made it up" and knew it was "fake" would you die for it? The apostles where there with Jesus at the begining.
"i can blame religion" Some maybe, but not religion that said those things were wrong..........
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
Once again, people have upheld this "moral standard" in the past. This is why historical evidence is not adequate to prove supernatural claims. Who said that people knew it was fake? What about the cults in the 70's that were willing to drink poison for their beliefs? What about militant Islam? The thing about the Abrahamic religions; you can take any message you want from biblical scripture, and interpret any way you choose. War or peace, it's got a lil bit of everything.
araless 2 years ago
"upheld "moral standard" in the past" and does tha make it good?
"historical evidence...not adequate" Do you hold that stance for all other history or just the stuff you don't like?
"who said people knew it was fake" If anyone would know it would be the ones who started it don't you think?
"cults in the 70's" Yes drinking the "cool-aid" and do you think all the saps that drank it knew it was poision?
"interpret" Which is why we have an authority on the matter, the Church.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
evidence is inadequate for proving supernatural claims. The only way I can say I know is if I look at the evidence myself and make an inference, or for things out of my realm of comprehension, I must put my trust in theories that have survived peer review and are supported by people who spend their entire lives devoted to the relevant field of study. And even then I must say "based on what we know now" or "this is what they're saying."
araless 2 years ago
"only way i can...know" Then you know next to nothing sir.
"i must put my trust in...theories...peer review..." Oh, living by faith now are we? And none of those peolpe could be lieing right? or mistaken?
"people...devoted lives...field of study" Like historians that study, oh say Jesus, or miracles throughout history.... but they don't count right?
"based on what we know now" If we "know" something and it turns out to be wrong then we didn't know it now did we?
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
the world around us. I didn't say faith. I said my trust. I can always check the facts myself to know for sure, but I can reasonably and tentatively trust an expert's theory, especially if it has been checked by other experts. Presumably a lie would not withstand peer review. And a mistake would probably get caught fairly soon. The past can be written any way the author chooses, and historians only have that to go on. And something that contradicts the very laws of nature that resulted and
araless 2 years ago
"faith, trust" When someone says they have "faith" in someone they mean the same things as "trust" in someone.
"i can check..facts"Did you gather all the "facts" or did you get them from other people that gathered them?
"expert's theory" Well then trust the Theoligical experts on "God theory" :).
"probably cought soon" Probably, and they all could make the same mistake... if we want to play the doubt game anyway.
"any way author chooses" Like modern research....
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
universe. Explain quantum theory to me right now. Those people who spend every day of their lives examining it can't tell you the basics of the foundational level of our reality. However, I must put my trust (not faith, because faith is belief without reason in the religious context) in those people, because I don't have time to study the universe all day. I certainly won't put my trust in those who can't admit they don't know, and instead study an ancient book all day. The point is that I
araless 2 years ago
"explain quantum theory" Do you honestly think i have that much room and that much time?
"trust(not faith)" ....Ever heard someone say" i have faith in you"? does that mean belief without reason? Every religions person has "reasons" for believing.
"i don't have time" So then you put fai... i mean "trust" in other peopls words on it.... i see. So why not put trust in religious people then?
"can't admit they don't know" Any real theologian will admit there is much they don't know.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
So you claim that you know about our universe, and that we know vast amounts as a species, but you cannot even begin to explain quantum theory? Perhaps because we are just delving into it? Perhaps because we know next to nothing about the fundamentals of our existence? I said faith in the RELIGIOUS CONTEXT is belief without reason. Religious people study one ancient book. Why would they be able to give me accurate up to date info about our universe?! No thank you. "Admit there is much they don't
araless 2 years ago
"what order" ....Seriously? Laws of science can only exist if there is order...
"cannot begin to explain" I didn't say i couldn't i said i don't have that kind of time....Nor the desire. Anyway, are you saying if i can't explain Q-Theory to you then i don't know anything?
"believe without reason" Incorrect, everyone has "reasons" for believeing.
"study one ancient book" ....We just sit around reading the bible all day and think of nothing else ever right? lol
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
from nothing" didn't we? No one thinks this, and further, your doctrine says this explicitly. "Do you know that?" No. I don't have absolute knowledge of anything, but must make assumptions such as "I exist" and then build upon this using inferences from real world, verifiable evidence and the rigors of logical reasoning. The order that resulted in the "laws of science" do not necessitate a creator. Yes, you don't know anything. Neither do I neither does anyone. We only discovered the atom
araless 2 years ago
"your doctrine says" Yes that God is the cause. The other belief is that it had no cause which is amusing but pathetic.
"don't have absolute knowledge of anything" ..Are you absolutey sure of that?
"assumptions such as "i exist" That is an assumption?
"Laws of science do not necessitate a creator" ... just a lucky happening right?
"yes, you don't know anything"... but you "know" that i don't know anything...So why do you get to "know" things? That isen't fair.....lol
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
IS PRESENTING THE ARGUMENT THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD NO CAUSE. So yes, it is an amusing and pathetic argument, I agree. No, I am not absolutely sure of that. I might be wrong, but from what the evidence suggests, it is highly likely that I'm right. Yes, I exist is an assumption. I might not exist. This may well be an illusion of some kind. But more likely, it is not, and here I am. You only see the way our universe works as lucky because you exist to contemplate it. You are expecting intention
araless 2 years ago
"universe had no cause" Perhaps, but their "answers" for the cause are basically on the same level of sillyness.
"i might not exist" In order for you to say that you must first exist....
"intention where there is none" Isen't that an "assumption"?
"truth of the universe" If there is a God, wouldn't He be the ultimate truth of existance?
"real because it's detectable" But maybe it is an "illusion of some kind"?
"use quotes in contexst" I don't always put up the ful quote for space
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
of course being facetious, trying to show you how ridiculous it is. "Their answers for the cause are basically . . . sillyness." First of all, I disagree with your assessment, but second, if it may seem silly its because we DO NOT HAVE AN ANSWER, only hypothesis. If Atum is actually the god of creation, then the bible would not be the ultimate truth, would it? Your comp. may be an illusion, but there is overwhelming evidence to believe in its existence, correct? You don't have to use my entire
araless 2 years ago
"how ridiculous it is" I agree.
"WE DO NOT HAVE AN ANSWER" That is convenient, "we don't know yet" so then you can ignore anything else until you "know" which you never will in this life.
" If Atum is...God" God is God by any name weather it be Allah or Yahweh..
"overwhelming evidence to believe..." What constitues "overwhelming evidence"? Maybe i am just hollucinating...
"pay attention to context" I do try, forgive me if i don't get it some times.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
consequence of the creator theory, and therefore fails logically. I believe we should ignore that which we cannot "know" and focus on what we can. As our knowledge progresses, we should adjust our views. Overwhelming evidence is verifiable, physical, and tangible. Any inference made about this evidence that matches prediction and fits the evidence together, and can readily be agreed on by people who know what they're talking about is most likely the closest theory to the truth.
araless 2 years ago
"overwhelming evidence" Any examples of this? Besides if one wanted to play the doubt game they can always make up reasons why it isen't so. Didn't you say "we can't know anything" earlier anyway?
"people who know what they're talking about" So many people who "knew" what they were talking about turned out to be wrong didnt' they? Besides why is it not possible for some one to "Know" what they are talking about with regard to God?
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
I told you, ABSOLUTE knowledge is impossible, but we must assume that the knowledge gained from scientific inquiry is the closest to the truth. Overwhelming evidence - gravity?! My existence?! Evolution?! "turned out to be wrong" - we covered this. It's okay to be wrong, and it's inevitable anyway from time to time. These people who "know what they're talking about" are people who spend their entire lives looking at physical verifiable evidence, those "experts" on god think about it, and study
araless 2 years ago
"we must assume" Why? Science is so often mistake why the hell beleive it? Just wait for the next theory lol
"spend their entire lives" So? Most people spend their whole lives being religious too.
"experts on God think about it and study" Yes and much can be learned through human reason, don't you think?
"saying i undeniably exist....highly unlikey " Then why didn't you say that?
""there are only likelihoods" Is that a likeligood or a fact? Sounds oximoronical.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
in this universe IS eternal. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, just transformed into something else. This is my challenge to you - Since science is "so often mistake" and just as much can be learned through human reason, give me a theory that has been put forth simply from contemplation about god that has given us truth about the way our universe works, and progressed our species. I suppose this site was brought to you by cardinals from the church? Or the technology that allowed you to
araless 2 years ago
"you know..incomprehensible God" ....Again if God existed, He could tell us about Himslef now couldn't He?
"no evidence...anything BUT..physical universe"...Ghosts, miracles, demonin possession aren't evidence in your mind? Or every witness was just dellusional?
"everything IS eternal" So you are going to live forever? No? Then you aren't eternal. Besides, isen't there a scientifc law that says everying is on a one-way ticket to maximum entripy?
"you're being clever" Thanks sir.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
presuppose that a god exists in the first place. Based on what evidence? The bible?! This logic is very circular. Ghosts don't make logical sense, and can be explained in any number of ways. If a modern medical expert could verify an incorrupt body, or if miracles stood the test of unbiased experimentation, then I could possibly accept them. Demonic posessions?! Really? I am not going to live forever, but I am a collection of atoms made of energy, and that energy WILL exist forever.
araless 2 years ago
"demonic posessions" Just a small thing on this site "excorcism report by ABC's 20/20" Bite marks on her back? Self inflicted right? Stop ignoring everything you disagree with.
"energy will exist forever" Even assuming that is correct. Then that energy in a "state of maximum entrapy" would thereby be useless and disproove your "eternal universe" idea. And it still dosen't say where it came from, what started the cycle and so on.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
Demons? Really? Okay, it's quite easily testable. If demons can inflict injury, then their interaction with our physical world can be detected. If some experimentation has been done, I would be glad to take a look at the data and the findings. "State of maximum entropy" - explain the relevance here. Once we really start understanding our world at a quantum level, perhaps we will be able to say where it came from. I trust a church sanctioned (most likely devoutly relgiious) 16th century
araless 2 years ago
Demons" Yes, evil spirits. I know, there i go with that silly religion stuff again.
"interactions...can be detected" Yes, like unexplaind bruises on normal people. Or objects moving without explaination. Or a "possessed" person being able to repeatedly spit in the eyes of priets all the while having his (the possessed) eyes closed. YOu know, silly stuff like that.
"relevance here" ....If it degrades to a maximum state, then it can't be "eternal" now can it?
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
on evidence of human activity; quarry and tools and unfinished pyramids) with intent to serve a purpose. Universe - No evidence of construction, definitely not by any being, with no apparent intent to serve any particular purpose. I can't say what is real and what is silliness, but I can say what is most likely and what is highly unlikely. Once again, please show me the data from an experiment on a posessed person or a demon, and I will give it some thought. I don't think the universe is
araless 2 years ago
"not by a being..no apparent intent" Purely speculation on your part...what happend to liklihoods anyway? "definitly not by (god)"
"presumably turn into something else" Things can only be recycled so many times my friend.
"can't say what is real"..... Really?
"data..posessed person... demon" There have been many documented occurances of these things, but it dosen't make any difference really, because you will ignore it anyway.
"words in my mouth"So, he is just mistaken then?
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
"modern medical expert" oh, so that other expert dosen't count because he isen't "modern". That works out well for non-believers. A "modern" expert would also not be modern given alittle time, so you could ignore that one too. Works out very well dosen't it?
"unbiased experimentation" Then you could also just accuse the "expert" in question of being biased aswell.
"then i could possibly accept them" Possibly? Even when your criteria is met you still only "possibly" believe? ..........
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
physician very little to validate a supernatural claim. The "expert" can be as biased as he pleases. All he can give is his inference based on the evidence gathered from the experiments. If you disagree, you can take a look yourself and draw your own inference, and whatever matches observation the closest is probably the truth. "most of these advancements . .. made by religious people" Their religious preference had nothing to do with their scientific endeavors. They did not use god in
araless 2 years ago
"trust very little" So because he was religious he is automatically a liar then?
"expert can be biased" Only religious "experts" right?
"inferences based on evidence" Yes, that is how science works isen't it?
"draw your own inferences" How am i supposed to study something dead and gone? Can you research the culture of ancient Greece without others word on it?
"religious preference...nothing to do with...endeavours" Says who? Could they possibly be doing it out of duty to God?
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
going to degrade to any maximum state. But there may be evidence to prove this. Point me in the direction of the theory that states this. Even if it did degrade, it would presumably turn into something else. "He is automatically a liar" Thank you for putting words in my mouth. They taste great. I was saying that a medical examiner who possibly already believes in god and miracles, who is commissioned by the church, and not by a third, objective party, from the ultra religious
araless 2 years ago
"theory that states this (entropy)" Though the total amount of energy in the universe is constant, the amount available for useful work is gradually decreasing. Real systems tend to become disorganized spontaneously; that is their entropy tends to increase. One statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is that EVERY SYSTEM LEFT TO ITSELF WILL TEND TOWARDS A CONDITION OF MAXIMUM ENTROPY (DISORDER). From the school book "Chemistry Precision and Design". Creation is on a one-way trip to disorder.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
"put my trust in theories that have survieved peer review and are supported by people who spend their entire lives etc" Yes and "God theory" has not only survived "peer review" of countless philosophers and other people but it has also stood the test of time. Many people also spend their "whole lives devoted" to the study of miracles, or contemplating God's attributes and so on. So why do you ignore all of them?
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
knowledge into account. What is the study of miracles? How do you go about studying miracles? And what conclusive evidence have they brought forth? You can contemplate the color of thor's eyes . . . so?! Contemplation does not equal substantial evidence. I can't ignore people who bring out logically sound arguments, backed with physical evidence. I certainly can ignore those who use well refuted arguments and have nothing but their thoughts or personal experience to back them up.
araless 2 years ago
"study of miracles" hmmm let me think... Oh ya, observing the incorrupt body of a saint who has been dead for centuries...Or documenting all the "eye witnesses" for a Eucharistic miracle... things like that.
"conclusive evidence" Conclusive for people who care to find the truth.
"contemplation..not equal substantial evidence" Nothing consitues "substantial" evidence as you have already spoken in so many words.
'well refuted" Well "refuted" now lol. mmmm belief in scientists.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
I tire of repeating myself. All of history does not need to be discounted, but claims that do not coincide with the way our universe works should be judged skeptically. Crusades was killing. Inquisition was torture of non-catholics. The catholic church advocated the colonization of muslim lands, and had no problem with muslims' death and enslavement. Pascal's wager; irreducable complexity; teleological argument etc. etc. What do your experts say?
araless 2 years ago
"all history does not need to be discounted" Yes just the stuff you don't like.
"should be judged skeptically" the problem with judgeing history skeptically is it is to easy to simply say "Dude, that was like, todally like, a long time ago dude, and like, that couldn't have happend because, like, i didn't see it bro".
"crusades" Not all killing is immoral.
"inquisition" was performed by the government of Spain.
"muslim''s death and enslavement" Examples please.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
So Zeus existed, then, right? Witches were running around putting hexes on people? I suppose you must believe werewolves were stalking around in the woods? Sea monsters were destroying ships? If you're not judging history skeptically, you are going to have to believe alot of nonsense. "Not all killing is immoral". So your absolute morality is not so absolute after all, eh? Miracles are unexplained phenomena, often found to be fraud or exaggeration. Existence does not point to a god. . .
araless 2 years ago
"zeus, withces, werewolves, sea monsters" Can you proove they don't exist?!?! lol
"skeptically" Of course have a healthy doubt, you unfortunetly, have neer absolute doubt.
"morality is not so absolute" I can't think of a time were self defence was EVER thought to be wrong....Murder on the other hand is and was wrong.
"miracles unexplaind phenom" ....Just keep saying it....And yes some are exaggerations and or fraud, no doubt.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
incorrupt bodies of saints, and none of them have had a proper autopsy to see if there was any preservatives put in them, and regardless, there are natural ways to preserve a body. No I can't prove they don't exist, but I don't play that game, you do. I deal with what I can prove exists, and choose to ignore that which is unprovable. It doesn't say murder, it says kill. You'd think if god wanted us to differentiate between the two he could make it clear? Oh yeah, but the church knows best.
araless 2 years ago
"none of them...had autopsy" I gave you the account of the CHEIF MEDICAL "dude" at Goa....Oh wait.... just "testimony" right?
"natural wasy to preserve a body" Quote from Doctor Cosmas Saraiva: "the limbs and other parts of the body were entire and clothed in their flesh in such a way that, according to the laws of medicine, they could not possibly have been preserved by any natural or artificial means" Going to put your trust in an expert my dear friend?'
"God wanted" Have to see Him?
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
is so useful. Because our knowledge (not absolute knowledge, but inferences based on evidence; assumptions) always evolves and grows. This guy did an autopsy in the 16th century, come on! This was primitive medical science! No, it doesn't say what not to kill, and so if god said it, and didn't bother to clear it up, then that is absolutely thou shalt not kill. Proof in the scientific context only means that it has an undeniable amount of evidence. In this case, some things are provable, and
araless 2 years ago
"some things are provable" ...How can anything be provable if you can only "assume" you exist? Don't you find that laughable?
"science hadn't begun yet" Science has been around as long as man... Just more "primitive" the farther you go back.
"dubious mythological figure" ....Jesus Christ? wow...
"every church makes the same claim" Not everyone, and does the fact that multiple ones do mean no one can be right? Multiple people can lay claim to the same "identity" are they both right?
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
which said "Proof in the scientific context only means that it has an undeniable amount of evidence. ", and reasonable assumptions can be made from that evidence. When I say science hadn't begun, I mean the organized rules of the scientific method, which has been the only method to arrive at the truth of things so far. "Dubious mythological figure" meaning god. Jesus Christ the man probably existed, but I certainly don't believe he was god. That subplot makes no sense to me. I would say,
araless 2 years ago
" only method to arrive at the truth" Not true, ancient man did figure alot out.
"meaning God" Oh, pardon me for not understanding that one :).
"subplot makes no sense to me" Please elaborate sir. Oh, by the way, what religion were your parents? If i may be so bold as to inquire.
"no one..agree on truth" Obviously some people agree or there would be as many religions as people.
"even come close" How do you know some haven't come close?
" don't believe them all" None can be right?
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
"dosen't say murder it says kill" lol Does it say WHAT not to kill?
"what i can prove exists" Ah but can you really "proove" it? We can always play the doubt game.
"ignore what is unpovable" So you ignore basically everything? Come now, we must be reasonable.
"Church knows best" I would put my "trust" in an institution established by God, wouldn't you? Or does God have to speak to you personally before you believe....Even though you would tell yourself you were just dreaming...
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
once again, I don't waste my time with those claims that are unprovable. If there is no evidence to back claims that a god exists except edited and translated witness testimony, from a primitive time when science hadn't begun yet, and of course to say "If there's no other explanation, it's god", I have issues accepting it as truth. I have even more issues with claims that this dubious mythological figure established a church. Not only because every church makes the same claim, but more
araless 2 years ago
I would like to see what saint you are talking about, and if you could point me in the direction of a site that would have findings from research done on it, that would be great. I would like to see for myself. Clearly, you must have done your research, because why else would you know how it could have happened. There is such thing as substantial evidence. However, it doesn't strictly come from your mind. Again, I would like to hear an argument for god's existence that hasn't been refuted.
araless 2 years ago
"what saint" there are many but here is one example Saint Francis Xavier. Buried december 4 1552 and packed with lime(no not the fruity kind) to increase the rate of decomposition. On Feburary 17, 1553 the casket was opened and he was found to be "perfectly preserved". In 1614 the body was again found to be "beautiful and whole". In december 30, 1974 issue of Newsweek Magazine described the body of the Saint as "surpizingly well preserved". Much earlier the chief medical authority in Goa said:
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
anyone put wholeheartedly their faith in something they can't know? Bloodletting is not a theory and was done in a more primitive time. Eggs and coffee being bad for you was not a theory that was peer reviewed and accepted the majority of academia. Science write their inferences based on evidence, using rigorous methodology to ensure objectivity. You have a misconstrued idea about science altogether. Many corpses have been found "surprisingly well preserved" but this does not point to god.
araless 2 years ago
"bloodletting...eggs...coffee" They were all considered FACT by the mainsteam. "the latest research suggests" and it turns out to be nonsense pure and simple, like most of the rest of science.
"based on evidence...rigorous methodology" and yet so much of it ends up being shown to be wrong later....so much for rigorous.
"many corpses have been found "surpirising well preserved' but that does not point to god" That is all you have to say about Saint Francis?
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
Exactly why you can't trust witness testimony to prove supernatural claims. First of all, bloodletting was a medieval practice. Not scientific at all. Second, what scientist proposed a theory that coffee and eggs are bad for you? (Anyway, they are, to a degree.) It's okay to be wrong. Knowledge evolves. We know something now, it gets proved wrong or reworked, and we move on. Without this evolution, we would be in the dark ages. Yes, that's all I have to say about st. Francis. There are so many
araless 2 years ago
"can't trust ...testimony" Everything we know vicariously through others is because of their "testimony" and just because accounts differ alittle from person to person dosen't mean what ever they saw didn't happen sir.
"medieval practice" Yes of "science" at that time..
"coffe and eggs" It happens all the time, "the latest research shows" and then later..."well THIS latest research shows"... they are so often wrong.
"we know something now" ....Wait i thought we couldn't "know"?
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
of our universe, and knowing that even know; even with the most educated man in the world, we use inadequate metaphor to explain our reality. Of course illiterate laborers thousands of years ago are going to misrepresent the truth. Before we formed a successful scientific method, and a sophisticated set of rules for logical reasoning, we were prone to believe witches were casting spells, making people sick, and bloodletting was a safe practice. "They are so often wrong" - Exactly why skepticism
araless 2 years ago
"scientific method...set of rules" And yet they are still so often wrong to this day. Is it possible that people back then were right about some things?
"skepticism..useful" Yes of course, but a healthy one, not an absolute one.
"autopsy in the 16th century" So? He know the medical abilities back then and he said "now embalming or preservatives" and yet the body was still bloody after over a year.... Why won't you put your "trust" in this expert?
""undeniable...evidence" never happens..
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
to such profound questions? I do not have an absolute skepticism, to reiterate. Once again, there are other ways to preserve bodies without preservatives; the saint was still dead, and eventually his body did decompose fully (not much of a miracle); and once again, how does this point to god's interference? Undeniable evidence happens. Do you believe that our body is made of atoms? Why? Or that our heart is a cellular structure? Why? Apparently you didn't read my input on "proof"
araless 2 years ago
"God's interference" The fact that there have been more incorrupt bodies, and conincedently they where Saints of the Catholic Church, who in their lives were reported to have performed miracles.
"undeniable evidence happens" If your existance is an assumption how can anything possibly be "undeniable"?
"atoms...cellular structure" Yes, i believe them, why do you? Or are those things just "assumptions"? When i keep "doubting" everything it is to show you how you think about religion.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
How do you know that there were no incorrupt bodies of regular everyday average joes? Secondly, you have no idea if every single one of those bodies was without preservatives. You would need a case by case study. I undeniably exist. All my sensory input work in tandem to produce this reality, and others are in it, reinforcing it. It is extremely unlikely this is not real. Once again, there is only likelihoods, and if the evidence is not there, it is unlikely, and not worth consideration.
araless 2 years ago
"incorrupt...average Joes" There have been "well preserved" "joes" and they have natural explanations. St. Francis had been preserved in a way that "no artifcial or natural means" could answer for.
"case by case study" and most of the incorrupt Saints have had just that.
"i undeniably exist" wait... "there are only liklihoods" or " i assume i exist".... would you make up your mind please?
"evidence is not there" ....Most things start out that way, then they build evidence.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
explanation for this phenomena. I want to make this very clear for you. Saying I undeniably exist is saying that it is highly unlikely that I am having this conversation, thinking, and sensing and not actually in existence. It has been thousands of years, and there have been millions of separate cultures that have spontaneously invented a god or gods, none of them seem to have the same priorities. If none of these cultures can come up with evidence for god's existence, I doubt it is going
araless 2 years ago
"invented God(s)..none have..same priorities" I beg to differ, they have all had powers above man. That is something common to all. Furthermore how could all of mankind even come up with such a concept? Don't you think it is worth thinking about?
"none..come up with evidence" ...Most people view the universe as "evidence". Then you have miracles, supernatural occurances, at the very least they tend to point to the Divine, would you at least agree that it is reasonable to believe so?
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
"not worth considering" Just because it dosen't have evidence dosen't mean it isen't worth considering. We don't have "evidence" that there is life on Mars, dose that mean we shouldn't consider it?
Again, may i ask as to the religion of your parents good sir? Merely curious.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
to happen. It is reasonable to think there is life elsewhere, and there is plenty of evidence to support that claim. I meant to respond to all of your posts, but I ran out of time. I meant to come back to it, but you had already replied. My parents were jehovah's witnesses for a while, and then my mom went to a more deistic/agnostic/spiritual philosophy, as did my dad, and recently he's been researching Wicca. My friends growing up were catholic and christian, and my family here is mormon.
araless 2 years ago
"I ran out of time" I understand that quite well, happens to me too.
"you had already replied" I hate it when that happens lol
"parents were" Understood. So did you have their faith for awhile and then shrug it off? Have a very good day my friend.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
I do think it is worth thinking about. It is worth some research. And we have found systems in our brain that are responsible for religious belief, and it's very easy to see how religion can form and be sustained. The universe is not evidence of any sentient, moral, eternal being. Miracles do not necessarily point to any god, especially not the Judeo-Christian god. "Supernatural occurances"? Like? None of this reasonably points to god. Since I was a small child, no one could answer my
araless 2 years ago
"supernatural occurances? like?" ....What? Ever heard of demonic possession? And not a psycological problem can't answer for everything associated with it.
"none..reasonably points to God" God is the reasonable answer, what is your "reasonable" alternative? "well we just don't know yet" Well that is convenient.
"no one could answer" How many people did you ask? Just because the ones you asked did have the answers you wanted dosen't mean that they were wrong or that none had the answers.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
questions about god to my satisfaction. Of course I assumed there was a god, because everyone I knew said there was. I prayed, and nothing happened. I never heard any voice of god. I never felt any spiritual ecstasy. Then I started noticing how ridiculous the rituals were, and how contradictory the scripture was, and how blatantly offensive the church services were. I also saw how unquestioningly a child will accept these beliefs wholeheartedly.
araless 2 years ago
"i prayed, nothing happend" You don't really know weather or not your prayers helped. Besides we don't get everything we want.
"never heard the voice of god" You won't believe until He talks to you?
"never felt spiritual ecstasy" Me neither, what's your point?
"contradictory..scriptures" A "contradicion" can just be a misunderstanding on your part dear sir.
"blantantly offensive" What do you mean?
"child will accept" Yes but children grow up and decide for themselves. Good day sir
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
"I doctor Cosmas Saraiva, physician to the Senhor Viceroy, have been to examine the body of Father Maser Francis, brought to this city of Goa. I felt and pressed all the members of the body with my fingers, but paid special attention to the abdominal region and made certain that the intestines where in their natural position. There had been no embalming of any kind nor had any artificial preservative agents been used. I observed a wound in the left near the heart and asked on of the Society....
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
.....who was with me to put his fingers into it. When he withdrew them they were covered in blood which i smelt and found to be absolutely untainted. The limbs and other parts of the body were entire and clothed in their flesh in such a way that, according to the laws of medicine, they could not possibly have been preserved by natural or artificial means, seeing that father Francis had been dead and buried for about a year and a half. I have affirm on oath that what i have written above is true
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
"substantial evidence" yes my dear friend, that is what we want. Not "absolute" evidence for anyone can say "well maybe an alien did it" or some such thing. We should accept what is reasonable. Many miracles, existance, and more point to a Supreme being, isen't that atleast somewhat reasonable?
"arguments...refuted" How can they be refuted unless you can "proove" them wrong? Someone simply not accepting an argument isen't the same as "refuting" it sir. Have a good day.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
. . . neither does anything else. Sure, you could tack god onto anything at all. If we found a new species tomorrow, you could say "god just created it yesterday", and how could anyone prove you wrong? What is fact, is that there is a new creature that we know nothing about. Everything else is conjecture. Any philosophical argument for the existence of god has been refuted to do its illogicality. I hope I wasn't too sloppy here, have a good day as well sir.
araless 2 years ago
"existance..neither does anything else" .......
"could tack God into anything" Maybe, but there are some things that only Supreme Power can answer.
"everything else is conjecture" Yes but could some of the conjecture turn out to be right?
"refuted to do its illogicality" How is seeing creation and comming to the conclusion that something brought it to be illogical, my dear friend?
"Hope i wasn't to sloppy here" Not sloppy at all good sir, have a great day.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
There is nothing in this universe that only a supreme power can answer. That is an ancient answer in a modern age. Some of the conjecture may turn out to be right, but it's unverifiable, so I tend to not put much stock in it. Something indeed brought it to be, but an infinite creature that wants humans on this insignificant speck called earth in this tiny dust cloud out of trillions called the milky way to glorify him with trinkets and words??? I don't think so. Thank you, friend and good night.
araless 2 years ago
"ancient answer in a modern age" And that ancient answer is just as logical today as back then.
"unverifiable" Did the DoDo once exist? Can you verify it? If you can't does that mean you shouldn't believe it did?
"Infinite creature wants humans" That is where His love comes in, it is for us to be eternally happy aswell, wouldn't you want to be happy for eternity? Thank you for your comments good sir, and goodnight to you aswell.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
because it's not factually true. Men started this church based on teachings and writings of other men. All other claims are pure conjecture. Once again, I invite you to offer me a sound logical argument for the existence of god, because you have not so far. Yes, I can verify it. There are photographs, many separate corroborating testimonies (that don't ask me to believe something outside of the realm of possibility), sketches, bones, and numerous scientific studies done about them and their
araless 2 years ago
"me started the church" Yes, in a manner , since Jesus was a man. He was also God though and so it wasen't just started by men.
"i can verify it... photographs" Those can be faked.
"corroborating testimonies" wait testimonies are unreliable aren't they?
"sketches" There are "sketches" of Jesus too.
"bones" Those can be faked lol. Just need some plaster and molds.
"scientific studies done about them" But wasen't that back in history? You can't trust history remember? ...doubt game
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
if no one can agree on the truth of something, or even come close, and every single culture has independently come up with a different theory on the subject, then I don't believe any of them. I'm not playing the absolute skeptic card, you are, and I'm convinced of the dodo's existence. It seems you do not wish to retain my opinions, which is fine. I guess I'll repeat myself. Historical accounts CAN be trusted, but I cannot accept them to prove supernatural claims. Jesus did not start the church.
araless 2 years ago
"absolute skeptic card..you are" You don't see what i am doing? You keep saying, about things you don't believe in, "they can't be trusted" "eyewitness testimony is not good enough" etc, so i was saying you could do the same with the Dodo for example.
"historical..CAN be trusted" Okay, good, now why can't they be accurate for supernatural claims? Is it even possible?
"Jesus..not start..church" I am sorry but that is incorrect. " go ye and teach all nations" for example.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
"logical argument for the existence of God' Okeedokee how'a'bout when an effect is better know to us then its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existance of its proper cause can be demonstrated so long as its effects are better know to us; because, since every effect depends upon it's cause, if the effect exsists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existance of God, in so far as it is not self evident to us, can be seen from the effects.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
in line with what the roman catholic church expects. The argument you've presented is immediately fallacious. "Every effect must have a cause, therefore god exists." Your premise does not necessitate the conclusion. Give me an argument that necessitates the existence of god. Thank you for the exchange, I anticipate your response.
araless 2 years ago
"immediatley fallacious" No, my point wasen't that it was "absolute proof for God" But merely a reasonable argument. It is reasonable to assume there is an Supreme Power, that brought this universe to be. Don't you think?
"argument that necessitates the existence of God" If we could prove with absolute certainty that there was a God, then we wouldn't have "faith" so much as knowledge, my point , dear sir, is that it is at least reasonable to believe in God. Thank you aswell.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
extinction, so I think I can trust that the dodo existed. His love? His love?! Let's say he exists. He asks you to give up your entire life simply to glorify his existence, and if you fail to do it properly, following the correct procedures out of millions, without his aid at all, and if you do it the wrong way, you are damned to an eternity in hell. What kind of love are you used to? What makes you so sure you are destined for paradise? Apparently you believe I'm certainly not.
araless 2 years ago
""simply to glorify his existence" No, it is also for you to be happy for eternity.
"correct procedures out of millions" It isen't really very hard to follow your conscience.
"without His aid" He wouldn't give us a task we can't perform because that wouldn't be "just". Furthermore have you ever heard of the concept of "grace"?
"you..destined...paradise" I am not "sure" but i can only do my best, and trust in God.
"i'm certainly not" Not at all, do you follow your conscience?
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
But the only way for you to be happy for eternity is to glorify his existence for the entirety of your own. Seeing as how every conscience is different, depending on the brain it's housed in, following it is not adequate procedure to get into heaven, especially according to YOUR church. Once again, according to god and Jesus in your book, and to the church, it is not adequate to just do what you think is right in order to make it into heaven. If you have a different idea, it is certainly not
araless 2 years ago
"glorify His existence" Yes, we glorify him, but that dosen't mean we wouldn't be happy too.
"according to YOUR church" I have told you repeatedly what my church teaches sir.
"just do what you think is right" If you are brought up not knowing any better (through no fault of your own) then it IS good enough. That is the teaching of the Church. Baptism of desire my friend.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
"Does that make it good?" The point that I'm making is that "good" and "evil" are determined by man. If the entire population thinks something is "good", then who's to say it's not? Of course, by our standards, that's not "good" at all. But it might have been four hundred years ago. Yes, I take that stance on all history. You cannot prove a supernatural claim through historical evidence. People did drink kool-aid knowing it was poison. Islamic martyrs do set off a bomb knowing it will explode.
araless 2 years ago
"determined by man" So you can't have a problem with anything unless the majority or the king tells you it is "wrong" then right?
"history" That is not reasonable at all.
"you cannot provesupernatural" Well if you can't proove anything else why would you be able to prove supernatural either?
"people drink kool-aid" How do you know they "knew"? Did you interview them before they died? Or are you trusting other peoples words? Besides, some people are mentally unstabe, you know, cultists.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
sustains our existence cannot be proven through ancient witness testimony, I've made my stance clear here, and I hold that stance with every historical miracle claim. I think that's perfectly reasonable. I don't think anyone should blindly hold on to absolute knowledge. You should always be willing to accept a new theory, even if it goes against what you believe, if the evidence is there to prove it. Why are cultists mentally unstable?
araless 2 years ago
"i hold..stance...historical miracle" How long before something becomes "history" 1 hour or a few days? Because what you just said to me is "history" now....
"perfectly reasonable" Not really. You think it is reasonable to deny EVERYTHING you don't like.
"evidence...to prove it" Evidence? you mean eyewitness testimony? Or the word of scientists? You would have to see it yourslef... and then you might be hallucinating.
"mentally unstable" Following a nobody for no reason is "unstable".
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
could go gather the facts myself and check the outcome against the experts. If you want to play the doubting game, I suggest you start with your own beliefs. You know how often a peer reviewed theory gains popularity, being mistaken? Legitimate scientific research is done with strict criteria to keep it unbiased. Unlike writing down what you think happened. Of course what I said becomes history once it leaves our present, but I'm not claiming to have seen a building float away, or my dog come
araless 2 years ago
"i could go gather the facts" You can't go back in time so history is all fiction i guess... and until you "gather all the facts " then you will just have to be in the dark won't you?
"start with your own beliefs" I am not the one doubting anything and everything. You are.
"being mistaken" You mean like blood letting? or Eggs are bad for you? or Coffee is bad for you then oh wait, it turns out..... lol
"writing down what you think happened" isen't that all science? What they "think"?
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
know." - except that they know how the universe, life, concsiousness, conscience, and language all came to be. History is dependent on corroborating testimony, pictures, photos, videos, recorded sound. We have nothing else to go on. Miracles cannot be proved through only witness testimony that doesn't even match up 100 percent. True, I do doubt everything. Why not? We have a faulty sensory system, we live in a manipulative world full of suggestion, lies, and mistakes. Why in the world would
araless 2 years ago
"they know" Saying i know something happend isen't the same as knowing how it all works. I know this computer works but i don't understand everything about computer programing and electricity....
"pictures, photos, vidoes, recorded sound" Which can all be faked.....
"match up 100 percent" No testimony ever "matches up" down to exact detail because people see things differently. Does that mean what they saw couldn't have been? You take doubt to far.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
in the last few hundred years. Yes, everyone has reasons for believing. Social pressure being a huge one, comfort being I think a close second. You get your information from an ancient book, and theologians study this ancient book to become an "expert" on it. How do you know this comp. works? Because it's real and in front of you. How do you know "divine power" works? Because you read it somewhere. Yes, it all can be faked, but it's all we have to go on. "people see things differently".
araless 2 years ago
"you get your information from an ancient book"....That "book" is one aspect of the Faith.
"it's real and infront of you" so if it was behind me and i was blind then it wouldn't be real? Just because you can't see or touch something dosen't mean it isen't real sir.
"read it somewhere".... Reason, miracles, etc....
"it's all we have to go on" SPOT ON! We should go with what is reasonable.... And there is one REASONABLE answer to miracles, existance and so on....
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
where there is none, and placing luck in an indifferent system. Right, it is an aspect of faith, which I don't believe leads anyone to the truth of the universe. That's not what I was implying. You know a comp. is real because it's detectable. We can learn how it works if we can detect it. Please use my quotes in context. It's all we have to go on for history. Written testimony cannot be relied on for accurate scientific knowledge. Knowing that people in the past had a different understanding
araless 2 years ago
"all we have to go on" Yes, and it is reasonable to believe much of it.
"written testimony cannot be relied on for accurate scientific knowlege" I disagree and anyway, as you we agreed, we have to go with what is reasonable, and it isen't reasonable to disregard all "written testimoy".
"misrepresent the truth" Or maybe they were precisly right? They were "primitive" back then and we will be looked on in the same way given enough time.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
quote, but please pay attention to the context. Yes, we will be looked at as primitive, because we are to a later generation. Our beliefs will largely be looked at as wrong, I'm sure, and our knowledge will be recognized for what it is - pitiful and strongly lacking; the same way we can justifiably look back on cultures thousands of years ago. We will always be wrong from time to time. Why, being wrong with more sophisticated knowledge and technology, would these early civilizations be right
araless 2 years ago
"our beliefs...will be looked at as wrong" Well then why believe them if they are wrong?
"why,..would these early civilizations be right to such a profound question" Because God's existance is not a scientific question. Further more, is it just possible that God Himself instructed some of His creatures?
"body with preservatives" Which the doctor said were not used.
"decompose fully" Not true.
"miracle" ....Did you completely ingnore the quote from the doctor.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
There are only likelihoods. We should believe in what is MOST likely based on our current knowledge. The creation of the universe, the matter of wills, "first humans", these are all questions that have, can, and will be probed by scientific method. Further, even if god did exist, (based on current knowledge) it is more likely he simply punched in the laws of the universe, and let it unravel itself. As I said, there are other ways to keep a corpse well preserved, and it did decompose fully.
araless 2 years ago
"there are only likelihoods" Is that a fact or a likelihood? Come now, some things are fact.
""questions that have, can, and will be probed" That dosen't mean they will come up with the right answers.
"He..punched in the laws" Well then i assume you mean he created the laws. Well we are getting somewhere then.
"corpse well preserved" His condition trancended "well preserved" at that time.
"decompse fully" (assumeing) even so, that dosen't detract from earlier.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
a book. I couldn't expect them to know any more about god than me. "Some things are fact". No. There are only likelihoods."doesn't mean they will come up with . . right answers" - they are most likely to. "condition transcended 'well preserved'" There are still natural ways to preserve a body. If it decomposed, what would be the point of this "miracle". Why? "no artificial or natural means could answer for" - Again, it was the 16th century. I doubt they would come up with a comprehensive
araless 2 years ago
"know any more about God then me" Why not? They have "spent" their whole lives thinking about it, studing miracles etc. Sounds prideful to me.
"there are still natual ways" Not to preserve in that condition.
"what would be the point" So because the phenomena stopped then it might as well not happend? Apply that logic to other things and see what you come up with.
"16th century" They had a decent understanding of human decomposition at that time....
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
own a computer was thanks to some bishops? Or scholars? You're being clever, and I enjoy it, but our language is set up for metaphor and hyperbole. I would not be able to hold a conversation effectively, and convey my thoughts correctly if I had to qualify every statement. Just know that if I sound absolute about something, it just means I find it extremely likely to be the case based on the evidence I've encountered. Anyway. My point is that if all they've done is thought about the
araless 2 years ago
"just as much can be learned through human reason" I didn't say that, but you are severly underestimating human comprension. Where would science be without human though and reson behind it?
"progressed our species" Contemplation about God makes Him more understandable thereby leading to more converts wich would tend to lead to less strife which would "advance" our species. Agreed?
"technology" Where did i say bishops and or the Church invented computers?
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
Innate human thought and reason were only evolved to handle our human environments. They are not adequate to properly comprehend the truth of our universe. This is why we've come up with tools to help us, like the sciences and logic. There is no link between religiosity and contentment, so I cannot agree that converting leads to less strife. In fact, religious conflicts have led to a lot of wars and conflict. "Where did I say bishops . . . invented computers" - my point was that technology
araless 2 years ago
"point was, longetvity..efficience...comfort" First, most of those advancements have been made by religious people. Furthermore our beloved technology has lead to the most destructive ablities imaginable, hardly healthy. Religion isen't about making your couch more comforable, it is about serving God.
"only likelihoods" Is that a fact or a likelihood? See the contradiciton?
"presupposition that God exists" Nonsense, If God appeared to you, your "presuppositions" wouldn't matter much.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
any of their theories, and was not a conclusion drawn from any of their work. We're not talking about couches here!!! The destructive abilities are a byproduct of this advancement, which science itself cannot be held responsible for. That is another issue altogether. However, religious conflicts have been the direct result of fervent religious zeal. "see the contradiction?" We already discussed this. "If god appeared to you" - did god appear to you?
araless 2 years ago
"couches" ...You were comparing science with religion... Apples and Oranges...
"distructive abilities...byproduct" All the good stuff was intended, but none of the bad? Really?
"religious conflict" I see, so you can't hold science accountable for what people do in the name of science, but you can hold all religion accountable for what some people do in its name... interesting.
"contradiction" Yes, because there are facts, not only liklihoods.
"God appear to you" Does it matter?
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
era of the 1500's is not going to give me a satisfactory answer on the subject of miracles, especially with such a mundane one. Religion is the earliest science, they're not apples and oranges. Please give me an example of a destructive ability given to us in the name of science and not an unintentional byproduct of scientific discovery given to us in the name of nationalistic conquest. Also, give a "fact". You said that if god appears to you, a presupposition is irrelevant. Did god appear to
araless 2 years ago
"religion..earlist science" Only in a vague notion...mabye. Religion deals with what we can't see and touch and therefore isen't "real science" now is it?
"name of science" How about Nukes?
"unintentional byproduct" Look at the military today.... You think all of those developments are "accidents"? I find it ammusing how science is never to blame, just people using it wrong but for some reason the same standard dosen't apply to religion. Couldn't people be using it wrong? So to speak.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
a more involved and eloquent explanation, and once again, if you are curious, please do research for yourself. There is no evidence that time is a property anywhere else but this universe. It may be, but no one knows that. "Religion deals with what we can't see and touch" - wrong. Religion attempts to explain what we can see and touch with through what we can't. Why is there a universe? God. Why is there evil? Satan. Why is there suffering? Original sin. Why are we here? To worship god. What
araless 2 years ago
"it may be" Yes indeed. The way i see it is there "may" have been a TIME when the universe wasen't in existance.
"wrong (religion" ...First, i didn't say religion ONLY delt with the spiritual, that is the most important aspect of it. Besides, do you think science can answer for evil? Religion dosen't try to "scientifically" answer these questions. It answers them in a more profound and, quite frankly, important way. For instance is it more important to know about gravity or God?
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
Give me one spiritual question that science will never be able to answer? Also, give me an example of science "resigning its beliefs to oblivion". Invariable in this case meaning you can't change any of the components of the explanation to fit a situation, the theory either matches observation or doesn't, there's no sliding away. "Yet the number of things it got wrong" - Like . . ? Once again, how else without science are you living in an insulated home with electricity on a computer? Give
araless 2 years ago
"science will never...answer" How about the purpose of man? Furthermore you can't proove they will be able to answer alot of questions, just like i can't proove they can't.
"oblivion" ....Ever studied history and science? Alchemy for example.
"change to fit situation" For example?
"things got wrong...like?" Seriously? Just look at medical science for one. How about the surgeon general saying smoking was good for you and now smoking will kill you....lol
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
What is the purpose of porpoises? What is the purpose of rocks? What is the purpose of the sun? Why does there have to be a purpose for everything? This is that assumption that everything must have some intention behind it, which I reject outright. Alchemy was not real chemistry, and I cannot classify that as a real science. Every religion changes their story to accommodate scientific fact once it is found. For example - 7 days to 6000 years, once we realized it is ridiculous to believe
araless 2 years ago
"purpose" It strikes me as less then logical to say things DON'T need a purpose. Can you think of anything man-made that dosen't have a purpose?
"Alchemy..not..chemistry" It was a real area of science becase they did scientific research into it, and they failed... Besides that was one example.
"Changes...story" Incorrect, the church has alwasy held that the "6 days" were not necessarily to be taken literally. How could there have been our standard days if the sun didn't exist?
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
"can you think of anything man-made" - Clearly you see the problem with this statement? Nature is not man-made. the universe is not man-made. Of course man-made things serve a purpose, because we had intent to create it to serve a purpose! Alchemy was attempted before the scientific method was solidified, and of course failed, because it wasn't based on the reality of the universe. If the 6 days portion of the story, which is right after the introduction of the deity, is allegory, why can't the
araless 2 years ago
"man-made" The point was that if everything that exists because of man has a purpose how is it that everything else wouldn't? Seems strange.
"Alchemy" Was scientific research. It failed. Just like alot of other scientific theories. It was still science.
"deity be allegory" What could a supreme being be allegory for? A "day" can be a metaphore for a period of time. Is God allegory for...what luck? lol Again, some is metaphor, some is literal........
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
"Seems strange." - It doesn't seem strange to me at all. You think that just because we have the ability to create things that serve a purpose, everything that exists must have a purpose? I don't follow your logic. Let's say alchemy could be classified as science, so what? We grew up and learned alchemy was nonsense. God in the OT could be used in the same metaphorical sense as Einstein used it. As the energy that has become everything and all of us.
araless 2 years ago
purpose" I think that if it didn't have a purpose it wouldn't exist. Silly isen't it?
"So what" Just more stuff science got wrong....obviously.
"God..metaphorical" Lol So energy was what gave us the ten commandments and the rest of the bible? God's existance wasen't metaphorical, the "how He did it" was, or at least could be. Strangely, some things were metaphors, some things were different manners of speaking. Try explaing something complicated to a child without metahpors... Understand?
gtkpaladin 2 years ago
Comment removed
araless 2 years ago
Just curious - what purpose do you think the galaxy has? What purpose do black holes have? What purpose does a grain of sand have? "more stuff science got wrong" - yeah . . . Once again, so what? You will get things wrong on the road to knowledge. "So energy gave us the ten commandments" - What?! That's absolutely silly. Men gave us the ten commandments, and men wrote the rest of the bible, having been taught to interpret the creation myth literally.
araless 2 years ago
"purpose..galaxy" The purpose is to be the massive housing unit for God's creatures.
"black holes" You believe in black holes? Ever seen one?
"Grain of sand" The same purpose one cell has, to contribute to the whole.
"So what" Just saying your beloved science has a terrible track record. So why so much fai.. i mean trust?
"men gave..commandments" And there is no way that IF God existed He couldn't have given them right?
"literally"It was NEVER Church law for it to be literal.
gtkpaladin 2 years ago