Adam And Eve, Noah And The Origion Of Man

[Son of Belial]

I'm fascinated by the part in Job where God kills off (allows Satan to) all his family, takes away all his wealth then...after Job does what a good believer should...gives him a new wife, 20 new kids and all his wealth back. What does that say about the spiritual nature of this book?

[MaryLupin]

I'm fascinated by the part in Job where God kills off (allows Satan to) all his family, takes away all his wealth then...after Job does what a good believer should...gives him a new wife, 20 new kids and all his wealth back. What does that say about the spiritual nature of this book?

I have to say that my first reaction upon reading about Job's replacement family was to think how interesting that the writers of this text considered women and children replaceable commodities. Having had a son of mine die shortly after birth, I find it a touch offensive, I must admit.

[Redzeppelin]

I'm fascinated by the part in Job where God kills off (allows Satan to) all his family, takes away all his wealth then...after Job does what a good believer should...gives him a new wife, 20 new kids and all his wealth back. What does that say about the spiritual nature of this book?

I have to say that my first reaction upon reading about Job's replacement family was to think how interesting that the writers of this text considered women and children replaceable commodities. Having had a son of mine die shortly after birth, I find it a touch offensive, I must admit.

These are understandable criticisms; but I must add that we see death and loss very differently from a being who creates life. We who have no ability to create life (aside from conception) see it as the highest value - but isn't that partially because we don't understand death and we cannot "bring back" that which has passed on? We do not know what God knew about Job's family that caused Him to give such permission - but I believe that we humans sometimes look at God's plans and criticize them because His plan required a sacrifice of something that we interpret as unacceptable. I'm not downplaying the pain and suffering that goes along with catastrophic loss - but in the cosmic scheme of the attack on God's character that Satan has waged, there is much more at stake than the loss of Job's family - a loss which will eventually be restored. Death for God is never something final - the only final death is the "Second death" - the one that takes place in judgment where those who have continually refected the overtures of God will be given their will - annihilation (not His will - His was that everybody be saved) . The Bible makes it clear that the suffering we endure for a short time on this earth will evaporate in the light of an eternity in God's presence.

[MaryLupin]

the only final death is the "Second death" - the one that takes place in judgment where those who have continually refected the overtures of God will be given their will - annihilation (not His will - His was that everybody be saved)

Actually I am not offended (oddly enough) by god's behavior in this part of the story. God acts here much like we do with our pets. People routinely separate dog/cat/bird etc families, castrate and neuter them, kill them (with the best intentions) etc. We love our pets but because we feel as if we own then, we also feel that we have the right/obligation to order their lives. Perhaps what our pets feel about what we do mirrors what we feel about what god does (imagining for a moment that there is such a being.)

No, my offense is reserved for the writers of the text and its human characters.

[JCamilo]

You're right; therefore, our conversation appears to be at an end. I haven't asked you to accept my assumptions - I'm asking you to examine the logic of my assumptions given that God is who He is described to be.

That is what I am doing. I using logic - And the only support of God is God himself. It is not logically acceptable either if I am you, myself or any other person.

Pretend for a moment that that being I suggest is real - now follow my logic. What I find is that most atheists won't even dare play my game - why is that? You have an imagination - why not exercise it a bit to consider the logic of my argument?

That is not true as well. I was raised as catholic. I played this game before and in fact, it was the reading of the Bible and the feeling that it was no different from other works that I otherwise considered fictional that I considered: If Everything is possible, why would I opt for a option that for the simple chance that I was born inside a catholic culture says it is true?
The game was played but here the problem: When you are using an argument that is logical, the person proposing this argument is irrelevant. So, I do not need to be you, that would be accepting your subjectivness, not being objective.

why would this matter?

And this will be answered lately.

One of the biggest differences is that the Bible is the only creation narrative that establishes where things came from; in many other belief systems' mythology, matter is already here and is involved in the creation of the "god" figures - who generally do not behave like God, but more like a human with super powers.

That is not true. Matter is not present, only Chaos in the Theogony of Hesiod. And God do act like mortal all long the bible. He is angered, he is vengenceful, he is playful, he is proud, he have a kid, he talks - Human emotions and acts.
Another point is: How a divine being behaves is variable. Your God does not behave like other people god's, but there is no reason to suppose your god is more real that theirs.

The Catholic Church, as far as I am concerned, capitulated because it wants to argue apologetics on the Naturalist playing field. I'm not a Catholic so their position has zero validity with me, and Catholicism does not speak for all of Christianity.

With this Those books answer for the classification of Myth. I do not equate Myth as "lies" , it is a cultural trait for me, just to be clear.

If the Bible is RIGHT and God EXISTS then why would I even bother to to believe otherwise?

The Bible is not Right. Literal interpretation of the bible is not even praticised by the society that wrote it but we do know evidences that (not lack of it, unlike the claim about god) all living beings did not appeared at once, the numbers in Noah flood are not right, some texts and stories in the bible are predated by symerian/babylonian stories, etc. Those things should be enough for you to already not consider the bible as all right.

You know the truth: if God exists, then it is sheer foolishness to do anything but believe in Him.

If Zeus exists, then it is sheer foolishness to do anything but believe him.
This logic can be applied in this way and it would not be foolish because God would probally reward me for not being a fool and not taking any story for granted just because it is possible. He have several other things that would turn against me, but for being a fool, no. I suppose he will also understand my reasons very well.

Atheists make the supreme gamble when they deny His existence because they can't find Him on their terms (i.e. scientific Naturalism).

Atheists make no gamble. They do not play the game. You play the game, you refuse to believe in other 34848 probally deities to pick one.

I don't follow your second sentence.

Evolution does not work in life creation but the diversitification of the species so the origem of the first lifeform is not really linked to evolution.

The two things you quoted Christians saying are an opinion and a piece of advice; neither are an "argument." Science has not diminished the value of religion; it thinks it has because it figured out a few of the world's mysteries erroneously attributed to God. "Hey - earthquakes don't come from God, so God must not exist!" OK - that's solid logic.

Never said it was solid logic, but since the biggest logic is "Hey, the Bible is Lord's word and everything there is his true" lose credibility, faith in god was shaken.

Certainly -but what is the dogmatic attitude is arrived at because of questioning?

Saying something is right is not being dogmatic. Saying it is right and nothing can change it, is.

Belief systems are not as open to critique per se because the statements of a divine being cannot really be subjected to human revision - "well, that can't be what God meant; I'm sure he actually meant this."

On the contrary, The only reason to believe they can not be revised is if you believe they are dogmas that do not need to be touched. If you do not believe it, they are just like anything else created by men.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

Agreeing maybe in one part but I disagree about talking about myself.

Faith in what?

Religious people have faith in religion of course. You said you have faith in god, so i am talking about it.

I'm not trying to prove God exists. I'm pointing out the assumption that atheists must make to believe as they do. Unicorns did not leave a comprehensive narrative that explains the origins of the universe, mankind, the emergence of sin, the solution for the problem and a moral law to live by.

Neither God left. The only evidence for God leaving such narrative it is the narrative itself. So far, he is like the unicorn something that does not exist for lack of any evidence positive for it.

But again: I'm not suggesting this makes God real. I'm pointing out the opposing team's assumptions that something does not exist (which requires that they have an exhaustive knowledge of all that does exist).

Not really. My existense can be proved without you knowing all that exist. My Existence is a trait of my being not of the knowledge of other beings.
While it is not an argument without merit - since there is a lot to know yet, everything is possible that is not your real argument. Your real argument is that "The God is believe is the only god" and "the bible is true". The truth of the bible can be tested, it is not such unknow field.

Because there is only one true God; the rest cannot be God.

And here is the importance of that thing about your god being a god that the majority of the world does not think it is true. A lot of people have several gods and they all talk what you do. There is no objetiveness and all arguments you build can be build to them.
The difference between your faith and the atheist lack of faith it is that the atheist does not believe in all gods, you do not believe in all god but one.
It is what shows the subjective experience of religion.

Science is objective within whatever framework it chooses to operate; the foundation of the "objectivity" of science, however, is that of Naturalism; so, from the beginning, the rule has been this pretty much since the Enlightenment: science must be objective and fair - and it will do so but inside the framework that posits that only what is measureable or observable will be considered valid evidence. So, no matter how "objective" science may be, it has already - from the beginning - established groundrules that eliminate God as a possibility.

Not true, Science was objective before questioning God before. And it is higher degree of objetiveness because it works despite the belief of anyone. I can deny (I can not, I am not a scientist to do so, it is only an example), the black hole theory either I liked it at first, either I believe in god, either I am atheist in the same way you can with any believe you have. The results will be equally measured by the same standard which is not true in Religious beliefs that at some point ask - and I bet you agree - a Turn of Faith that does not opperated independent of the person proposing it.
That is objetiveness - I do not deny some people even think science as perfectly objective, I just say it is more objective.

[Redzeppelin]

That is what I am doing. I using logic - And the only support of God is God himself. It is not logically acceptable either if I am you, myself or any other person.

Nature supports the existence of God; the existence of morality supports the existence of God; the fact that matter is not self-existant supports the existence of God; the fact that the universe is not infinite in terms of time supports the existence of God; most of the complex systems and developements in nature support the existence of God; the fact that life cannot come from nothing supports the existence of God; the occurrence of miracles supports the existence of God. The veracity of scripture supports the existence of God.

That is not true as well. I was raised as catholic. I played this game before and in fact, it was the reading of the Bible and the feeling that it was no different from other works that I otherwise considered fictional that I considered: If Everything is possible, why would I opt for a option that for the simple chance that I was born inside a catholic culture says it is true?
The game was played but here the problem: When you are using an argument that is logical, the person proposing this argument is irrelevant. So, I do not need to be you, that would be accepting your subjectivness, not being objective.

As expected - you won't play along either. I'm not asking you to believe in God - I'm asking you to engage in a logical exercise that - given that God exists and exists as He is described in the Bible - certain things become very feasible based on logic applied to the "givens." Science plays this hypothetical game when it postulates evolution - but atheists won't play the game of allowing some "givens" in order to check my logic.

That is not true. Matter is not present, only Chaos in the Theogony of Hesiod.

I cannot comment on this incomprehensible sentence. Care to restate it?

And God do act like mortal all long the bible. He is angered, he is vengenceful, he is playful, he is proud, he have a kid, he talks - Human emotions and acts.

Our emotions are a reflection of His (not vice versa) - but His are not contaminated by our selfish judgment; God is completely just in whatever emotion He experiences. That's why Genesis says we were created in the "image" of God - not physically, but in that we share some of His characteristics.

Another point is: How a divine being behaves is variable. Your God does not behave like other people god's, but there is no reason to suppose your god is more real that theirs.

No reason for you or they perhaps; plenty for me. "God" must have certain characteristics to answer for how the universe and human nature are constructed; not every "god" put forth fills the requirements of the God necessary for the universe we inhabit.

The Bible is not Right.

In your opinion. So?

Literal interpretation of the bible is not even praticised by the society that wrote it but we do know evidences that (not lack of it, unlike the claim about god) all living beings did not appeared at once, the numbers in Noah flood are not right, some texts and stories in the bible are predated by symerian/babylonian stories, etc. Those things should be enough for you to already not consider the bible as all right.

OK - so you're convinced by science of certain things that I'm not buying. So? Why does it matter to you if I take Genesis literally? You can't "cut and paste" the Bible: either it's all correct or it's all false because it is a self-referential work. Once you dismiss part of it, the rest falls down as well.

If Zeus exists, then it is sheer foolishness to do anything but believe him.
This logic can be applied in this way and it would not be foolish because God would probally reward me for not being a fool and not taking any story for granted just because it is possible. He have several other things that would turn against me, but for being a fool, no. I suppose he will also understand my reasons very well.

Zeus does not fit the requirements of the God necessary to exist for the construction of the universe; as well, Zeus did not leave us a written record of his law and his experiences with humanity; Zeus did not leave us a written record that referred to actual people, locations and events that occurred in history.

The Bible states clearly that human knowledge is doomed to failure:

1 Corinthians 1:19
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

Atheists make no gamble. They do not play the game. You play the game, you refuse to believe in other 34848 probally deities to pick one.

Atheists engage in the ultimate gamble because if they're right - I only have my earthly consequences of living a lie. If I'm right, the consequences for the atheist are eternal. The other so-called 34848 deities are not real - none of them claimed the power that Christ did; none of them claimed to be the only path to heaven. None of them possessed the power to do what Christ did.

Evolution does not work in life creation but the diversitification of the species so the origem of the first lifeform is not really linked to evolution.

Evolution is a desperate attempt to try and explain God away so that we can live a more guilt-free life for our misbehaviors.

Saying something is right is not being dogmatic. Saying it is right and nothing can change it, is.

Well, I guess God is dogmatic because He made it clear that He doesn't change and that His words shall not pass away (Matthew 24:35).

On the contrary, The only reason to believe they can not be revised is if you believe they are dogmas that do not need to be touched. If you do not believe it, they are just like anything else created by men.

Only feasible if they were only created by men - but if God did the creating - oops.

Neither God left. The only evidence for God leaving such narrative it is the narrative itself. So far, he is like the unicorn something that does not exist for lack of any evidence positive for it.

The textual integrity of the NT (99.5% - highest in ancient texts) and the Bible's ability to predict the future (as it has done a number of times) supports its veracity.

Not really. My existense can be proved without you knowing all that exist. My Existence is a trait of my being not of the knowledge of other beings.

To say something does not exist because you can't see it or find it is to suggest that you have an exhaustive knowledge of what is. Whether or not you exist is irrelevant to that point.

And here is the importance of that thing about your god being a god that the majority of the world does not think it is true. A lot of people have several gods and they all talk what you do. There is no objetiveness and all arguments you build can be build to them.
The difference between your faith and the atheist lack of faith it is that the atheist does not believe in all gods, you do not believe in all god but one.
It is what shows the subjective experience of religion.

"Majority" eh? Where do you get your numbers from? Much of the rest of this paragraph I cannot follow. Sorry.

Not true, Science was objective before questioning God before. And it is higher degree of objetiveness because it works despite the belief of anyone. I can deny (I can not, I am not a scientist to do so, it is only an example), the black hole theory either I liked it at first, either I believe in god, either I am atheist in the same way you can with any believe you have. The results will be equally measured by the same standard which is not true in Religious beliefs that at some point ask - and I bet you agree - a Turn of Faith that does not opperated independent of the person proposing it.
That is objetiveness - I do not deny some people even think science as perfectly objective, I just say it is more objective.

I'm sorry, my friend, but you clearly do not understand how philosophical foundations work: all beliefs are circular in nature - we all chose a world-view that seems reasonable and then find support for it. People who are "logically argued" into leaving Christianity or joining it were already in doubt before the arguments showed up. There is no such thing as true objectivity in human beings, and atheists - despite their endless self-aggrandizing ideas that they are "clear-sighted" and "open-minded" via their rejection of the spiritual world of God is an absurdity of the highest order; it makes them equally as blind as the Christian - perhaps moreso - because the Christian will gladly admit that he views the world through the lense of Jesus Christ; the atheist wishes to believe that he wears no "lenses" at all. That is wrong - and to not be able to recognize that is the worst blindness of all.

[DeathAngel]

"Where did we originate from"

1) theory: evolution, from the dna strands and whatever else evolved and became biggerer beings

2) humans came from monkey-like things over time=evolution

well that's from a scientific standpoint,

the religious standpoint...uh i dunno
the whole adam n eve things just simply confuses me,
what if they were both blonde?
what if they were black haired,
what if adam was a black man!?

i dunno...

[JCamilo]

Nature supports the existence of God
the existence of morality supports the existence of God; the fact that matter is not self-existant supports the existence of God; the fact that the universe is not infinite in terms of time supports the existence of God; most of the complex systems and developements in nature support the existence of God; the fact that life cannot come from nothing supports the existence of God; the occurrence of miracles supports the existence of God. The veracity of scripture supports the existence of God.

What are those supports? By the way, Do you understand a logical principle that something can not logically be evidence of his own veracity ? When We question God's existence, the veracity of the only place that claimed his existence is questioned, so it can not be supported by it.

As expected - you won't play along either. I'm not asking you to believe in God - I'm asking you to engage in a logical exercise that - given that God exists and exists as He is described in the Bible - certain things become very feasible based on logic applied to the "givens."

Ridiculous. There is no need of such play while I have been there for real. And Objectivism is not thinking of both side, this is assuming both side's bias - Objectivism is following the logical argument that can be proved besides both sides.

Science plays this hypothetical game when it postulates evolution - but atheists won't play the game of allowing some "givens" in order to check my logic.

Evolution is a fact. It is not hypothetical. Charles Darwin did not played a game, he proposed a hypothesis that was tested by others, not himself.

I cannot comment on this incomprehensible sentence. Care to restate it?

You claimed most cosmogonies have already matter and not something that exist previously to matter- It is not true. Hesiod (Greek Poet) wrote a poem named Teogony and there the creation starts with Chaos, without matter. By the way, Hesiod claims -as All religious texts in the world, that he was divine inspired and there he presents what Zeus decreted - besides many things - that are his teachings and all feats. So, Zeus left writings as well.

Our emotions are a reflection of His (not vice versa) - but His are not contaminated by our selfish judgment; God is completely just in whatever emotion He experiences. That's why Genesis says we were created in the "image" of God - not physically, but in that we share some of His characteristics.

If we share some of his characteristics, this means he also have human characteristics. With this I believe I have dismissed our claim that God does not act like human like all other gods.

No reason for you or they perhaps; plenty for me. "God" must have certain characteristics to answer for how the universe and human nature are constructed; not every "god" put forth fills the requirements of the God necessary for the universe we inhabit.

Obviously this is circular - God have certains traits. To exist you must have certain traits. God is real.

OK - so you're convinced by science of certain things that I'm not buying.

Actually I was conviced by the bible. I noticed a strange trend of two creation sequences (already cited here), different genealogies for Jesus and disciplies that cann't agree where and what he did at sametime. I obviously noticed the bible wasn't so trusthable when I first read it when I was a teenager. Not by science.

So? Why does it matter to you if I take Genesis literally? You can't "cut and paste" the Bible: either it's all correct or it's all false because it is a self-referential work. Once you dismiss part of it, the rest falls down as well.

I do not matter if You take it -as I said, we do not need to discuss because you resume it all to what you believe. However we are having an argument and I know not even those who wrote the book believed in biblical literalism but that the bible could generate several different interpretations. I found them very wise as any text generate several different interpretations.
And the second part? Ridiculous. I dismiss the truth of genisis creation routine but I really think they are accurate about having a Herodes or a Pilatos.

Zeus does not fit the requirements of the God necessary to exist for the construction of the universe; as well, Zeus did not leave us a written record of his law and his experiences with humanity; Zeus did not leave us a written record that referred to actual people, locations and events that occurred in history.

Neither god. The bible was writen by humans that claimed divine inspiration, just like Homer and Hesiod (and several other writers who left a record of Zeus laws and experiences) and so did Brahma, Budda, etc.

The Bible states clearly that human knowledge is doomed to failure:

1 Corinthians 1:19
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

So, you are doomed to failure? Or it is the Bible, a depository of human Knowledge ?
I must repeat, there is no evidence is quoting what is doubted.

Atheists engage in the ultimate gamble because if they're right - I only have my earthly consequences of living a lie. If I'm right, the consequences for the atheist are eternal.

Religious people engage in the ultimate gamble, because if they're right - I only have my earthly consequences of living a lie. If I am right, the consequences for the religious ar eternal.
Your quote can be turned against itself, it means nothing.

The other so-called 34848 deities are not real - none of them claimed the power that Christ did; none of them claimed to be the only path to heaven. None of them possessed the power to do what Christ did.

Sorry, but some of the probally deites have all the power Christ did. Prophecies ? That was what humans did in greece or germany. Coming back to life? Buda and Mithras keep doing it. Healing ? Our doctors do it today. What else?

Evolution is a desperate attempt to try and explain God away so that we can live a more guilt-free life for our misbehaviors.

That quote is silly, ridiculous and childish. Evolution is a fact. The theory that explains this fact named by Darwin Natural Selection does not states that God does not exist, it does not say his name a single time because Darwin, although turned to be atheist with time, did not wanted to upset his wife, a religious woman and avoided the subjected.
I have a life clean without misbehaviors without god so please, do not suppose your moral highground over me or any atheist because you have a religion. Let our acts talk by us and let's see how ethical we are or not.

Well, I guess God is dogmatic because He made it clear that He doesn't change and that His words shall not pass away (Matthew 24:35).

It is funky, because God promissed Abraham to spare Sodomo in Gomorra case a just man was found, inst? And one was and even so, God keep his act? And wait, the God of NT is slightly different from the god of NT, isnt so?

The textual integrity of the NT (99.5% - highest in ancient texts) and the Bible's ability to predict the future (as it has done a number of times) supports its veracity.

What is textual integrity ? What criteria is this one and how it make it more real than the Divine Comedy (100% integrity, a record!)
And I recall Bible did not predicted any future except those writen after the happened in the very own bible.

To say something does not exist because you can't see it or find it is to suggest that you have an exhaustive knowledge of what is. Whether or not you exist is irrelevant to that point.

No, the understanding of something does not equate with the perception of existence. I do not understand Radiation, I know it exist. Your proposal is not logical.
Plus, let me remind you - You claiming 34484 other deities do not exist without having the knowledge of what is is valid from me claiming 34489 ?

"Majority" eh? Where do you get your numbers from? Much of the rest of this paragraph I cannot follow. Sorry.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...y_Religion.png
As you see, no religion is supported by the majority of the population.

I'm sorry, my friend, but you clearly do not understand how philosophical foundations work: all beliefs are circular in nature - we all chose a world-view that seems reasonable and then find support for it.

I think that was covered 3 posts ago. I am well aware that all phylosophical systems use a principle that starts with an assumed truth. But Science objectivity is not this principle and it is a way it was assume to work.
its every simple: My opinion does not matter. I must present evidences so Everyone else in the world, now and in the future, will be able to test my results and disagree or agree with me. It is objective because it propose a system which result is judged by outsider sources than the disclaimer. You seem to think objectivity is accepting all the possibilities of a claim as truth and not testing against it.

People who are "logically argued" into leaving Christianity or joining it were already in doubt before the arguments showed up. There is no such thing as true objectivity in human beings, and atheists - despite their endless self-aggrandizing ideas that they are "clear-sighted" and "open-minded" via their rejection of the spiritual world of God is an absurdity of the highest order; it makes them equally as blind as the Christian - perhaps moreso - because the Christian will gladly admit that he views the world through the lense of Jesus Christ; the atheist wishes to believe that he wears no "lenses" at all. That is wrong - and to not be able to recognize that is the worst blindness of all.

You have a problem - Science is not atheist or religious. Science is a system created by most part by religious scientists. Your accusation is funny as no one is claiming true objectivity and we can certainly point when one is being just subjectivy and the only explanation they give as you do "God is real because the bible says so. The bible is real because God says so. So, both God and Bible are real".
I also need to point your argument that atheists and scientists are to believe only in what is empiric and that is a flaw works on you also as you use the empiric evidence of the bible as evidence for God.

[PrinceMyshkin]

It seems to me that those who believe in the God(s) - one, three or three in one - of the Old and New Testaments have a one-third chance at best of being right:

1) There is a God and the Bible is divinely inspired by him. Any apparent inconsistencies in the Bible are the result of its having passed through human hands which may have mistranslated portions of it or added or subtracted portions. Any contradictions between the Biblical account of creation and subsequent events and what has been measured and proven by science is either a) because the Bible is in part metaphorical or b) science has omitted to take into account those invisible or unmeasurable influences of God

2) There is a sentient superhuman force but we know nothing of its nature, work or intentions because the Bible is wholly the work of human authors.

3) There is no God. The Bible is ingenious fiction. Science, however incomplete or imperfect, is our only guide to understanding the past, present and future of our cosmos.

[Redzeppelin]

What are those supports? By the way, Do you understand a logical principle that something can not logically be evidence of his own veracity ? When We question God's existence, the veracity of the only place that claimed his existence is questioned, so it can not be supported by it.

Nothing I said is guilty of the charge this convoluted sentence puts forth. An example: the complexity and purposeful design of nature suggests a creater or designer - Christians take this to be evidence of God; atheists say that the complexity and design of nature occur randomly, through massive lengths of time. Either one could be correct - but the behavior of nature indicates that the evolutionary theory (not fact, my friend) cannot account for the construction of reality. That's one example.

Ridiculous. There is no need of such play while I have been there for real. And Objectivism is not thinking of both side, this is assuming both side's bias - Objectivism is following the logical argument that can be proved besides both sides.

Most intellectuals aren't afraid of some hypothetical discussion. People tell me I'm this or that because of what I believe so I try to get them to follow out my logic by engaging in a hypothetical discussion that goes something like this: "Given that God exists, and given that He possesses the characteristic that the Bible attributes to Him, does it not make sense that I believe the things I do?" What I find is that most non-believers will bypass that discussion and tell me things like you have, or they will tell me "But God doesn't exist so there's no point in discussing this" - which simply tells me that they may indeed realize that - based on the givens, that my logic is sound.

Humans cannot be 100% objective. Our upbringing and cultural variables has engendered within each of us certain biases and subjective "filters" through which we view the world. Some of us acknowledge this; many of us don't.

Evolution is a fact. It is not hypothetical. Charles Darwin did not played a game, he proposed a hypothesis that was tested by others, not himself.

Evolution is a hyothesis that scientists believe they have proven via some fossils, some speculation and some suggested ages of the earth. Evolution cannot be established as "fact" simply by virtue that we can not go back and confirm abiogenesis or evolutionary changes. Those things cannot be proven - they can only be inferred by evidence - evidence which also can be used to argue for intelligent design. In short: you're wrong.

You claimed most cosmogonies have already matter and not something that exist previously to matter- It is not true. Hesiod (Greek Poet) wrote a poem named Teogony and there the creation starts with Chaos, without matter. By the way, Hesiod claims -as All religious texts in the world, that he was divine inspired and there he presents what Zeus decreted - besides many things - that are his teachings and all feats. So, Zeus left writings as well.

Hesiod's poem doesn't = creation myth. Most mythological cosmologies already contain matter within them from which everything else comes; only the Christian creation story establishes that before creation, there was only God and all that exists He created. Zeus cannot be God because he behaved like a depraved human whose primary goal in life was to get laid. Sorry - no being of that character could serve as a Divine Guide for humanity.

If we share some of his characteristics, this means he also have human characteristics. With this I believe I have dismissed our claim that God does not act like human like all other gods.

We share characteristics because He gave us some of His - not vice versa. I already said this quite clearly once.

Obviously this is circular - God have certains traits. To exist you must have certain traits. God is real.

You have simplified my comments in order to make them fallacious. The construction of the universe argues for a creator of a certain character. That's what I said and I was quite clear.

Actually I was conviced by the bible. I noticed a strange trend of two creation sequences (already cited here), different genealogies for Jesus and disciplies that cann't agree where and what he did at sametime. I obviously noticed the bible wasn't so trusthable when I first read it when I was a teenager. Not by science.

Maybe you should have a) spent a bit more time in study, or b) consulted someone knowledgeable about your questions.

1. The two creations sequences do not contradict each other; they offer two variations of the story - one chronological, the other thematic in nature.

2. The genealogies for Jesus are through Mary and Joseph's separate family lines - since our ancestry is established by our two parents.

3. The Gospels do not contradict each other - it is generally considered to be in favor of the veracity of the scriptures that the apostles accounts differ slightly - which is the hallmark of eyewitness reporting; scholarship indicates that identical gospels would actually work against their claim of being eyewitness accounts.

Next?

I do not matter if You take it -as I said, we do not need to discuss because you resume it all to what you believe. However we are having an argument and I know not even those who wrote the book believed in biblical literalism but that the bible could generate several different interpretations. I found them very wise as any text generate several different interpretations.

How do you know what the ancient Jews believed in terms of the Bible?

And the second part? Ridiculous. I dismiss the truth of genisis creation routine but I really think they are accurate about having a Herodes or a Pilatos.

Here's where you reveal your lack of understanding of the Bible: it is a unified whole - a work that is self-referential: Jesus himself refers to creation (Mark 10:6) as well as Noah (Matt 24:37-8). It all ties together - once you dismiss part of it as untrue (especially any part that has to do with God Himself) the entire thing becomes worthless.

Neither god. The bible was writen by humans that claimed divine inspiration, just like Homer and Hesiod (and several other writers who left a record of Zeus laws and experiences) and so did Brahma, Budda, etc.

The "divine inspiration" that ancient poets claimed was possession by the "muse" - not inspiration by the god Zeus because Zeus did not inspire art - the muses did. It was a sort of "divine madness" - not the same thing as Divine Inspiration. Sorry.

So, you are doomed to failure? Or it is the Bible, a depository of human Knowledge ?

In my attempt to answer the questions of this world outside of the framework of God? Yes, absolutely.

No - the Bible is a divinely inspired document of the character of God.

I must repeat, there is no evidence is quoting what is doubted.

Incomprehensible sentence.

Religious people engage in the ultimate gamble, because if they're right - I only have my earthly consequences of living a lie. If I am right, the consequences for the religious ar eternal.
Your quote can be turned against itself, it means nothing.

Makes zero sense. The issue of whether or not there is a God turns ultimately on what happens when we die; if atheism is correct, then nothing happens when I die and I could have lived any kind of life I wanted without eternal repercussions. If Christianity is right, then something does happen when I die and the kind of life I led and whom I chose to serve DID matter.

Sorry, but some of the probally deites have all the power Christ did. Prophecies ? That was what humans did in greece or germany. Coming back to life? Buda and Mithras keep doing it. Healing ? Our doctors do it today. What else?

The primary difference between the miracles of Christ and other "gods" is this:

With Christ:
1. The source of the miracle is God alone - God gets the credit.
2. The purpose of the miracle is to authenticate Jesus' claim to be the "Son of Man " (a messianic title) - authenticates the claims of the miracle worker.
3. Character of miracle is good - miracle displays a benevolent character.

With other "gods":
1. Their purpose is not benevolent but self-serving.
2. The power to do the miracle is attributed to the individual performing the miracle.

Buddhist miracles tend to focus on the aggrandizement of the individual while the biblical miracles glorify a benevolent, transcendant God.

That quote is silly, ridiculous and childish. Evolution is a fact. The theory that explains this fact named by Darwin Natural Selection does not states that God does not exist, it does not say his name a single time because Darwin, although turned to be atheist with time, did not wanted to upset his wife, a religious woman and avoided the subjected.
I have a life clean without misbehaviors without god so please, do not suppose your moral highground over me or any atheist because you have a religion. Let our acts talk by us and let's see how ethical we are or not.

Evolution is not a fact.

I gave an opinion - I'd appreciate a respectful response rather than name-calling - that's how educated, mature people disagree on a point. Thank-you.

It is funky, because God promissed Abraham to spare Sodomo in Gomorra case a just man was found, inst? And one was and even so, God keep his act? And wait, the God of NT is slightly different from the god of NT, isnt so?

James Brown is "funky" - my comment was decidedly much more lacking in rhythm.

If you will check the end of Genesis 18, you will discover that the negotiations between God and Abraham ended here:

32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"
He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."

Apparently, 10 righteous men could not be found. Next?

What is textual integrity ? What criteria is this one and how it make it more real than the Divine Comedy (100% integrity, a record!)
And I recall Bible did not predicted any future except those writen after the happened in the very own bible.

1. Textual integrity is determined by how much of the copies of a text agree with each other in terms of language, words, even punctuation. Here:

During a 50 year time span (AD 70-120), there were 5500 original language copies of the New Testament generated. These copies demonstrate agreement 99.5% of the time. No other ancient text comes even close to that. The Divine Comedy was writen a thousand years later - please. Let's not compare a medieval text with an ancient text.

In contrast, Homer's Illiad has 643 copies generated over a 500 year time span and possesses the second highest integrity: the texts agree with each other 95% of the time.

2. One example of Biblical prophecy: The book of Daniel was written towards the end of the 6th century BC, 200 years before the birth of Alexandar the Great; the book of Daniel accurately predicts in chapter 11 the breakup of Alexandar's empire. This could not have be "written into" Daniel after the fact because the canon of the Tanakh (the Jewish scriptures) had closed 100 years after the death of Daniel and the text was firmly established. There are no alternate versions of Daniel that have a different 11th chapter.

No, the understanding of something does not equate with the perception of existence. I do not understand Radiation, I know it exist. Your proposal is not logical.

Once again, you're not reading me very closely; I did not say you "understand" everything in reality - but to claim something doesn't exist because you can't see it or see no proof of it suggests that you have an exhaustive knowledge of all that is in reality. The statement is logical - you may just not get it.

Plus, let me remind you - You claiming 34484 other deities do not exist without having the knowledge of what is is valid from me claiming 34489 ?

The other deities do not fit the criteria that our universe requires in terms of a divine creator.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...y_Religion.png
As you see, no religion is supported by the majority of the population.

So? Majority doesn't equal legitimacy.

I think that was covered 3 posts ago. I am well aware that all phylosophical systems use a principle that starts with an assumed truth. But Science objectivity is not this principle and it is a way it was assume to work.
its every simple: My opinion does not matter. I must present evidences so Everyone else in the world, now and in the future, will be able to test my results and disagree or agree with me. It is objective because it propose a system which result is judged by outsider sources than the disclaimer. You seem to think objectivity is accepting all the possibilities of a claim as truth and not testing against it.

No: I'm denying that any philosophic world-view (including atheism) is objective in how it views reality.

You have a problem - Science is not atheist or religious. Science is a system created by most part by religious scientists. Your accusation is funny as no one is claiming true objectivity and we can certainly point when one is being just subjectivy and the only explanation they give as you do "God is real because the bible says so. The bible is real because God says so. So, both God and Bible are real".
I also need to point your argument that atheists and scientists are to believe only in what is empiric and that is a flaw works on you also as you use the empiric evidence of the bible as evidence for God.

Natruralism (the dominant philosophy of science) is atheistic in nature because it denies the possibility of God.

[Dark Star]

We've been over this before in various topics on evolution. A scientific theory is not the same as a layman's theory. It does not mean 'a guess'. And evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis. From Wiki: "In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity."

In essence: Evolution occurs, this is a fact. We have directly observed it occurring, and the fossil record provides mountains of proof in addition to this. The theory of evolution explains how it happens and makes predictions about what will occur in the future so it is not too far off base to refer to the theory of evolution as a 'fact'.

Also, I wish you would quit conflating evolution with abiogenesis. That's like saying 'I've found flaws in the big bang theory and therefore evolution is wrong.' The hypothesis of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are two separate entities. That both happen to exist within the field of biology does not make them intrinsically tied together. The theory of evolution explains how things happened; how they began is irrelevant to the theory.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Nothing I said is guilty of the charge this convoluted sentence puts forth.

What is the point of carping at the poster's writing style? If you don't understand his point, ask for clarification.

An example: the complexity and purposeful design of nature suggests a creater or designer - Christians take this to be evidence of God; atheists say that the complexity and design of nature occur randomly, through massive lengths of time. Either one could be correct - but the behavior of nature indicates that the evolutionary theory (not fact, my friend) cannot account for the construction of reality. That's one example.

On the other hand, the prevalence of Malaria, Polio (until it was virtually eliminated via the application of 'naturalistic' science), Mongoloidism, Lou Gehrig's disease, &c., &c., tsunamis, earthquakes, tornadoes, &c. &c. argue against a creator (note proper spelling) or designer other than an inept or malignant one.

Most intellectuals aren't afraid of some hypothetical discussion. People tell me I'm this or that because of what I believe so I try to get them to follow out my logic by engaging in a hypothetical discussion that goes something like this: "Given that God exists, and given that He possesses the characteristic that the Bible attributes to Him, does it not make sense that I believe the things I do?" What I find is that most non-believers will bypass that discussion and tell me things like you have, or they will tell me "But God doesn't exist so there's no point in discussing this" - which simply tells me that they may indeed realize that - based on the givens, that my logic is sound.

But you cannot or will not provide the rock on which your beliefs rest, other than a set of books that are demonstrated by Biblical scholars to have been written by diverse hands and to have been altered by many translations of an original that is not known.

Humans cannot be 100% objective. Our upbringing and cultural variables has engendered within each of us certain biases and subjective "filters" through which we view the world. Some of us acknowledge this; many of us don't.

And some of us mistake these filters for the most pristine of optics. (cf your signature quotation.)

[QUOTE]Hesiod's poem doesn't = creation myth. Most mythological cosmologies already contain matter within them from which everything else comes;

Scholars have traced the roots of many of the Old Testament stories to the ancient, pagan myths of the ancient Mesopotamian cultures. In the Fertile Crescent, the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in present-day Iraq, gave birth to some of the worlds first civilizations.
In this early flowering of civilization, many religious myths abounded, seeking
to explain what was then unexplainable. From this context comes the oldest
complete literary work we have, the age of which we are certain, dating back at least 7,000 years. The Epic of Gilgamesh is a lengthy narrative of heroic
mythology that incorporates many of the religious myths of Mesopotamia, and it is the earliest complete literary work that has survived.

Many of the stories in that epic were eventually incorporated into the book of Genesis. Borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh are stories of the creation of man in a wondrous garden, the introduction of evil into a naive world, and the story of a great flood brought on by the wickedness of man, that flooded the whole world.

For more see: http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

Here's where you reveal your lack of understanding of the Bible: it is a unified whole - a work that is self-referential

As much so as a work by some 150 authors could be, patched over, stitched, added and deleted to by e.g. Constantine and the various ecumenical councils, where various groups fought for their respective interpretations and emendations.

The "divine inspiration" that ancient poets claimed was possession by the "muse" - not inspiration by the god Zeus because Zeus did not inspire art - the muses did. It was a sort of "divine madness" - not the same thing as Divine Inspiration. Sorry.

The difference being?

Next.

No - the Bible is a divinely inspired document of the character of God.

According to ther Bible itself.

Next.

The issue of whether or not there is a God turns ultimately on what happens when we die; if atheism is correct, then nothing happens when I die and I could have lived any kind of life I wanted without eternal repercussions.

Assuming of course that you cared nothing about he example you set for you children, your students, your neighbours.

If Christianity is right, then something does happen when I die and the kind of life I led and whom I chose to serve DID matter.

As it is in primary and high-school, where your advancement is contingent on your ability to parrot the teachings you have had and to please the standards of your teachers. Is it not time for us as a species to graduate and begin to think for ourselves, ab ovo?

If you will check the end of Genesis 18, you will discover that the negotiations between God and Abraham ended here:

Consult also his negotiations (or rather the lack thereof) when called upon to sacrifice Isaac.

Next?

[NikolaiI]

Yess, you have some good points, Myshkin. For instance, why is the only reason for doing the right thing to avoid suffering eternal consequences for yourself? Isn't that a bit psychopathic? I mean if it wasn't for that you wouldn't care about anyone? If Hinduism is the right religion, then that is not true devotion to God. As pantheists say, when you hurt others you are hurting yourself. I think a morality based on understanding and empathy is better.

Now I shall go sleep a long sleep, since my posts and points are so seldom replied to or heeded.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Yess, you have some good points, Myshkin. For instance, why is the only reason for doing the right thing to avoid suffering eternal consequences for yourself? Isn't that a bit psychopathic? I mean if it wasn't for that you wouldn't care about anyone? If Hinduism is the right religion, then that is not true devotion to God. As pantheists say, when you hurt others you are hurting yourself. I think a morality based on understanding and empathy is better.

Now I shall go sleep a long sleep, since my posts and points are so seldom replied to or heeded.

Wonderfully well put! Those who would do wicked were it not for their fear of eternal damnation have pretty patchy souls anyway. And what would better firm up our moral muscles than to choose to act kindly, humanely for no better reason than we have recognized the humanity in others - which is to say their capacity for suffering as we do?

[Redzeppelin]

We've been over this before in various topics on evolution. A scientific theory is not the same as a layman's theory. It does not mean 'a guess'. And evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis. From Wiki: "In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity."

Excuse my sloppiness.

I dislike it when people use gravity in reference to the "factuality" of evolution when gravity is here, now to observe and test and study; abiogenesis and evolution are not. What we have is the equivalent of a crime scene - lots of clues, but we didn't witness the murder and as such we do not know exactly what happened because the evidence is far from equivocal.

n essence: Evolution occurs, this is a fact. We have directly observed it occurring, and the fossil record provides mountains of proof in addition to this. The theory of evolution explains how it happens and makes predictions about what will occur in the future so it is not too far off base to refer to the theory of evolution as a 'fact'.

Evolution is occurring? Where? The fossil record shows us an outline of a creature that once was. That in and of itself is conclusive only of the fact that a creature that once was now no longer is.

Also, I wish you would quit conflating evolution with abiogenesis. That's like saying 'I've found flaws in the big bang theory and therefore evolution is wrong.' The hypothesis of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are two separate entities. That both happen to exist within the field of biology does not make them intrinsically tied together. The theory of evolution explains how things happened; how they began is irrelevant to the theory.

Forgive my sloppiness.

Without abiogenesis, evolutionists go where to explain the beginning of life? You can separate them if you wish, but where did evolution come from?

What is the point of carping at the poster's writing style? If you don't understand his point, ask for clarification.

Frankly, my friend, Mary doesn't need your help. I did let him/her know I didn't understand what s/he was writing. Spare me your advice, please.

On the other hand, the prevalence of Malaria, Polio (until it was virtually eliminated via the application of 'naturalistic' science), Mongoloidism, Lou Gehrig's disease, &c., &c., tsunamis, earthquakes, tornadoes, &c. &c. argue against a creator (note proper spelling) or designer other than an inept or malignant one.

Sin does terrible things to reality, doesn't it?

But you cannot or will not provide the rock on which your beliefs rest, other than a set of books that are demonstrated by Biblical scholars to have been written by diverse hands and to have been altered by many translations of an original that is not known.

You apparently did not read my lenghty response to JCamilo, so here:

1. Textual integrity is determined by how much of the copies of a text agree with each other in terms of language, words, even punctuation. Here:

During a 50 year time span (AD 70-120), there were 5500 original language copies of the New Testament generated. These copies demonstrate agreement 99.5% of the time. No other ancient text comes even close to that.

In contrast, Homer's Illiad has 643 copies generated over a 500 year time span and possesses the second highest integrity: the texts agree with each other 95% of the time.

I can explain similar measures that indicate the validity of the OT as well, if you wish.

And some of us mistake these filters for the most pristine of optics. (cf your signature quotation.)

All of us do that - that's human nature. (Still hung up on my signature, huh?)

Scholars have traced the roots of many of the Old Testament stories to the ancient, pagan myths of the ancient Mesopotamian cultures. In the Fertile Crescent, the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in present-day Iraq, gave birth to some of the worlds first civilizations.

In this early flowering of civilization, many religious myths abounded, seeking
to explain what was then unexplainable. From this context comes the oldest
complete literary work we have, the age of which we are certain, dating back at least 7,000 years. The Epic of Gilgamesh is a lengthy narrative of heroic
mythology that incorporates many of the religious myths of Mesopotamia, and it is the earliest complete literary work that has survived.

Many of the stories in that epic were eventually incorporated into the book of Genesis. Borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh are stories of the creation of man in a wondrous garden, the introduction of evil into a naive world, and the story of a great flood brought on by the wickedness of man, that flooded the whole world.[/INDENT]

For more see: http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

As much so as a work by some 150 authors could be, patched over, stitched, added and deleted to by e.g. Constantine and the various ecumenical councils, where various groups fought for their respective interpretations and emendations.

Is all this supposed to disprove something I believe? I'm OK with the fact that these things convince you of something.

The difference being?

None to you; the world to me.

According to ther Bible itself.

Said as if there was something wrong with that.

Assuming of course that you cared nothing about he example you set for you children, your students, your neighbours.

Such things, while important, pale next to the reality of eternal consequences - which was the point I was making and the point you decided to ignore to construct this strawman attack.

As it is in primary and high-school, where your advancement is contingent on your ability to parrot the teachings you have had and to please the standards of your teachers. Is it not time for us as a species to graduate and begin to think for ourselves, ab ovo?

Do you teach? I do and I don't recall teaching my students any of this silliness. I teach my students to think for themselves. Your implication that I do not think for myself is tired, repetitive and patronizing. I'd prefer you argue more than insult.

Consult also his negotiations (or rather the lack thereof) when called upon to sacrifice Isaac.

You ought not talk about stories that concern issues you clearly do not understand.

Once again, you ignore the point to commit another strawman attack.

why is the only reason for doing the right thing to avoid suffering eternal consequences for yourself? Isn't that a bit psychopathic?

Who said this? I didn't. I was making a point about the "cost" of believing in God or atheism. No reference was made to "doing the right thing to avoid...eternal consequences." Re-read my post.

I mean if it wasn't for that you wouldn't care about anyone? If Hinduism is the right religion, then that is not true devotion to God. As pantheists say, when you hurt others you are hurting yourself. I think a morality based on understanding and empathy is better.

Hinduism cannot be the "true" religion because it gives a picture of God that is a) contradictory to scripture, and b) the picture of God it gives makes God a non-transcendant being, one without a moral will.

Now I shall go sleep a long sleep, since my posts and points are so seldom replied to or heeded.

I'm sorry my friend. Sleep well.