Adam And Eve, Noah And The Origion Of Man

**JCamilo** · 07-25-2007, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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.

This is getting boring and repetitive. Yes, in your list there was the scriptures. You just The Scriptures are evidences for God's so You did listed something to be the proof of itself.
As the other evidences- Just because you manage to put two things in one sentence it does not mean anything.
I won't even discuss my position but "complexity and purposeful" obviously suggest a creater , after all you already assigned without any shred of evidence the trait that you defend. It is pointless to argue if complexity do really suggest the need of a creator if you point things like this.
Another thing: You do not seem to have any idea what Evolution is.
The fact Evolution was noted in XVIII century. It is the species changes. It is a fact. Look a Wolf and a dog and you know domestication gave the oportunity for a specie's change. That is evolution.
Darwin (many others before him) proposed explanation for this fact - Darwin theory name is Natural Selection. The popularization of his work labels it as Theory of Evolution, but that is just a popular mistaken call, since there is several other theories that are added to Darwin initial discovery that explain Evolution, such as those in the genetic field.
Another mistaken is construction of Reality - Evolution does not deal with god and it is doing wonders to explain everything.

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.

1 - I already did. Your suposition that I can not use "suspension of disbilief" is a poor excuse for your own incapacity to think the bible just a book and see that everything is well explained as well if it is just a book.
2 - Intelectuals do not play such games because this is sophism and several intectuals dislike it a lot.
3 - The belief in god still make me think what is the problem with pigs. This also do not allow me to understand how an entire civilization claimed to be in several places and doing several things without a single archeological evidence. Just beliving in god does not help me at all.

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.

Irrelevant. No one is claiming to be 100% objective (except you that said there is a book that tell us exactly what is right) but that pretending to be two interlopers in a dialogue is NOT objectivism. Objectvism is the distance from personal bias and assuming one or another which is your proposition.
And I can not be 100% objective, but I can try.

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.

1 - You have no idea whata scientific hypothesis, theory or fact is. When a hypothesis is proven by some data (speculation is laughable) it turns in theory, so your first phrase is absolutely meaningless.
2 - Evolution is a fact. Do you see human controling breeding of cows to have stronger species ? Evolution in action. The most laughable attacks against evolution are "it is just a theory" and thinking it is related to fossiles and earth's age. (There is geological evolution, which was a big impulse to Darwin, but his work had no fossile research, he mostly used living animals he observed and colected).
3 - I already told you abiogenesis is not evolution, it is a bit annoying how you keep bringing this stuff up. It shows no disposition for debate, just for preaching. And I do not need to go back and see evolution happening, because genetics use it today and now. Or how a children inherit his parents's defenses, etc. It is right now.
4 - I am sure those evidences CAN be used by inteligent desing. Never denied it but Inteligent Desing is a theory that says the account of Genesis is poetic, mythical, etc and assume Evolution is real and God was only the source of life origem. In short, denial of the bible which is your defense so far.
5 - In short, You have no idea what evolution is.

Hesiod's poem doesn't = creation myth.

Hesiod poem is the principal Cosmogony of western literature, It is a creation Myth (It is laughable, it tells how the universe was created, how life was created, how the rules of universe are created and organized) and it seems that you have no idea what it is, so please, reffrain from trying to argue it.

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.

No, many have nothing of that. You seems to not know them and it is claiming it out of blue.

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.

Sorry, but if leaving woman mortals pregnant is not a divine trait, the father of Jesus certainly is very mundane. Also, that is the dude that killed all firstborn, innocent people included, once isnt? Or the same dude that had some crazy ideas about fathers having to kill their own kid? Wait, "Worship me or Die"? Beating with someone's life just for fun with a minor devil?

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

Let's say something, if X have traits of Y, then it is safe to say Y have traits of X also. Hence, If God gave us some of his traits, he have traits that are yours. So, he do have traits that are human, do not matter if he gave it to him because the other gods you dismiss are also those who gave the traits to the mortals in the other myths.

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.

Sorry, your argument is simplist and easy to be show to befalacious, that is all.

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.

Meaning, there is two versions and in the book there is absolutely no refenrece to themes/chrnology - it is only a defense mechanism to see the book that have contradictions.

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

Isnt it funny ? Both Luke and Mathew talk about Joseph and not Mary. However, some other book had to add the invention about Heli so they can defend about this critic. The Bible had to be corrected, so funny.

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.

There is not evidence that they are eyewitness reporting - except for Mathew that the tradition puts as the probally apostle, although something never proved. Luke certainly was not eyewitness report. But they do not differ slightly. They have no idea even where Jesus went.
And do not invent things - If 100 people describe the same fact they would have different style but describe the same fact. The gospels describe different facts - that is the hallmark of oral tradition and legends.

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

The fact that they kept writing in the same way they wrote the books of the bible, leaving registers and registers about it?

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.

Wake up, those who unificated the bible are the latter christians. The Jews do not even reckon the NT books and keep using the OT. And stop talking about my lack of knowledge while you think the quotations (Jesus was obviously , as the writers, educated and they know the OT books) make the whole book truth or false is giatic leap of logic that few can see before.

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.

Sorry, the Muses are agents and created by Zeus to inspire Mortals. It was his order to have them that way and - since that poetry was born from religious cerimonies - they are view as equating the persmission of Zeus, since he was usually - Hesiod do it, for allowing it. Errrm, next?

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.

And still depository of human knowledge and thus it may be all a trick God did to lure us. Behold.

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.

Again, Your gamble is a joke and pure sophistry. I already showed how it turns to nothing I am getting tired with the preaching.

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.

When Zeus acted he was his own source. No difference.

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.

Preaching stuff - The purpose of Zeus showing power was the authenticates his position of God Rulers. No difference.

3. Character of miracle is good - miracle displays a benevolent character.

>< , such as killing a tree for not having fruits when it was not time for it?
Such miracles as turning people in salt, destroying a city, killing first-borns , etc?
Errr, Read the bible and let's find if all feats of wonder of the biblical characters are benevolent.

With other "gods":
1. Their purpose is not benevolent but self-serving.

Yes, I suppose that Budda is self-serving.

2. The power to do the miracle is attributed to the individual performing the miracle.

Unknowledgable claim. When Zeus performed he never said it was someone else doing.

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

Perhaps because the God of Buddist is not a tyrant over-ruling people. But what about Hinduism ? Jewish (Jesus is irrelevant to them) ? Muslims? And there goes ?

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.

So, next time you decide to call me immoral like you did, you should keep your opinion to yourself.

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?

oK, so do you agree that OT God is unlike the NT, not forgiving, temperamental and judgmental. We can move ahead.

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.

They do not even know when the gospels are written. In 70-120 they are not even selected! I know that was some flunke statistic...

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.

Which means Zeus exist. I knew I was write about the old bearbed guy all 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.

Yes, Alexander was a example of today's individuals but I love to see this prophecy and not the interpretation of it.
By the way, as Sto.Agostine Virgil predicted Jesus. Virgil worshiped Jupiter, Jupiter is real.

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.

I proved to you that I know light exist because the inherent proofs light provide. Your statment is illogical but so is most of the text.

So? Majority doesn't equal legitimacy.

No, but that would be good to know how many people think the bible is just a book like you do with their sacred texts and gods.
That is good to see that your argument is not tolerant of the others as you claim to be and that the faults you label to atheists are actually faults of extreme religious people that seems to be fine to condem atheist for their lack of faith in their religious but forget they lack the faith in all other religions.

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

You mix up the critic to objectivism as impossibility. Objectivism is possible. Being fanatic for it is a mistake however.

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

Atheism that we follow today was not born from Naturalism and Science does not deny the possibility of God, that is false.(You deny this all the time when you deny all other gods, but anyways). Science just say: God does not exist, because we have no evidence for it. If we found the evidence this will change.

**Redzeppelin** · 07-25-2007, 03:51 PM