quote:Originally posted by TSN: Sorry, but, out of context, that statement is just too useful.
It was intentional, y'know.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Because I believe that your "valid" answers are nothing more than primitive superstitions that people have desperately clung onto for the past four thousand years for the simple fear that the lack of some higher being somehow invalidates their life.
Which you have no logical reason to believe.
Christianity has absolutely no basis without the Bible as its proof.
Agreed. But again, what point are you trying to draw from this?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Which you have no logical reason to believe.
The hell...? Very amusing that you're trying to invoke logic in this argument.
quote:Christianity has absolutely no basis without the Bible as its proof.
Agreed. But again, what point are you trying to draw from this?
Do I have to spell it all out for you? I'm saying that since the Bible and the Christian God are so closely linked, it's basically circular logic. Furthermore, if you remove one, the other must go as well.
I have applied the skills that I have learned as a History student (as well as some other things) to consider the Bible as a historical document. And I see a whole lot of reasons why the Bible cannot be a factual document. (Lack of external corroborating evidence for the really key issues, for one.) Furthermore, I see a large number of inconsistencies in several aspects of Christian theology.
Quite simply, I find religion to be highly illogical. And despite the exhortations for "faith," I maintain that even faith must bow to logic and consistency.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm saying that since the Bible and the Christian God are so closely linked, it's basically circular logic.
And I'm saying that this is not true. Yes, they support each other, but they're also the most viable theory for the nature of the world. I don't use them to back each other up, I use the world we see to support them both.
I see a whole lot of reasons why the Bible cannot be a factual document.
Do tell.
Lack of external corroborating evidence for the really key issues, for one.
A) such as?
B) lack of external evidence, even if that were the case, would not be a reason why it MUST NOT be a factual document.
Furthermore, I see a large number of inconsistencies in several aspects of Christian theology.
Again, such as?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
As for the whole laws of physics thing, look at it this way: blah
This a prime example of why the practice of homeschooling should be banned. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's people with no background in physics and no understanding of its laws and concepts WHATSOEVER who spew forth meaningless arcane gibberish. There is absolutely NO contradiction.
"Entropy must always increase as time moves forwards."
No, entropy must increase as the number of possible quantum states in which the system can BE increases. First class of STATISTICAL MECHANICS.
"Therefore, there must have been a point when entropy approached zero at some point in the past."
1) If time is infinite, entropy has a positive limit value as it approaches negative infinity.
2) If time is not infinite, the vertical offset is sufficiently large to ensure positive entropy.
"Before that point, that law of physics could not exist, because the universe would have non-increasing entropy."
Entropy CAN decrease in certain systems (like singularities) over a short timespan. First class of THERMODYNAMICS.
"So where'd the law come from?"
Random chance. Why is the gravitational constant 6.672 * 10^-11 nm^2/km^2? Why is the speed of light 299792 km/s? Why is the Planck constant 6.63 x 10^-34 J*s? Because together they form a stable configuration. One out of infinite combinations of variables. The universe works the way it does, get used to it.
"Similarly, if you argued that the universe didn't exist at all before that point (or before ANY point), then again, where did it come from?"
Damned if I know. A quantum fluctuation in an n-dimensional superspace. A collision between a shadow universe and our own. What I do know is that you do not accomplish ANYTHING by entering god into the equation.
"Mass/energy can neither be created nor destroyed."
The TOTAL energy of the universe could be zero, allowing it to spontaneously initiate. It might exist for an infinite duration of time, but renew itself right after each inflationairy phase via a collapsing Higgs-field.
"We have a structured universe that supposedly formed from an unexplained chaotic explosion, in defiance of entropy once again."
See above.
"The basic question is, where did all the order come from?"
See above.
Beyond my ability to comprehend in it's entirity. That doesn't mean I can't have an abstract idea of it, or know the important parts.
WRONG. You neither have a way of knowing the important parts, nor do you have a way of knowing WHAT those important parts ARE.
See, the thing about deities is that you have NO way of knowing ANYTHING about their nature. If you pretend otherwise, you start treading down the slippery slope of HUMAN PERSPECTIVE. You are not EXPECTED to comprehend.
And yet you deny other, perfectly valid answers...
So. Do. You.
quote:Is it not better to place a question mark upon a problem while seeking an answer than to put the label 'God' there and consider the matter closed?
But hey, labeling is easier. And as an added bonus, it neatly masks those annoying holes in your knowledge!
What you call a perfectly valid answer, I call an implausible argument using invalid inference. If god is eternal (i.e. didn't somehow come into being along with EVERYTHING else), it MUST necessarily exist OUTSIDE the spacetime continuum. You CAN'T conveniently ignore the obvious fallacy involved here (i.e. the fact that such existence is IMPOSSIBLE, omnipotence or not) regarding the origin of the universe yet MAINTAIN the aforementionted distinction.
Which you have no logical reason to believe.
He has EVERY logical reason to. If you're going to argue logic, I strongly suggest you first make sure your own is impeccable... lest it STRAINS your credibility.
Why do I get the feeling this falls on deaf ears?
[ December 24, 2002, 16:09: Message edited by: E. Cartman ]
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: I see a whole lot of reasons why the Bible cannot be a factual document.
Do tell.
I already have told. Or do you have short-term memory problems?
quote:Furthermore, I see a large number of inconsistencies in several aspects of Christian theology.
Again, such as?
Must I post absolutely everything in one message for you to look at it all?
Omega, I'm trying very, very hard here to remain civil. Therefore, I refuse to argue any further. I respect your choice to believe otherwise, and I take offense at your insistence that I may not believe what I choose to. I find it sad that you refuse to acknowledge my arguments when I've presented several facets of it over the past eight or nine pages worth of posts.
A reasonable argument is impossible when one side has his fingers stuck in his ears and is humming very loudly...
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Now you know where the "automatically derisive" attitude comes from.
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I award Cartman all points, since he has an understanding of physics which obviously postdates 1975.
Omega, whatever source of physics info you're using is seriously outdated.
I knew there was a reason I wanted to write down the titles of the new physics texts I got for Mithrasfest.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Right now I want to get a sounding to make sure I know where the line of scientific knowledge lies here in this thread...
Many so-called "creation scientists" (I put it in quotes, as it's a mutually-exclusive oxymoron) I've seen get published seem to have an elementary-school understanding of the heirarchy of science -- the notion that when you come up with an idea it's a theory, while you test it it's a hypothesis, and when it's proved it's a law...
Reality don't work that way, Chumley. Those who actually live and work science understand a bit better than the layman. The only laws are the incontravertable and immutable physical forces acting on us, like the Law of Universal Gravitation. There's an unfortunate tendancy among the lay-readership to dismiss anything with "Theory" in front of it as an unproved hypothesis. The Theory of Evolution has long since been proved by direct observation and experiment. Move on. The General and Special Theories of Relativity have been proved quite solidly in many labs over many years, and we're now having fun using the frames they provide to find the loopholes.
The preceding has been to forestall any "evolution is just a theory" horse-hockey.
What came before the Big Bang (if that theory ends up holding its own) is an unanswerable question at our current state of knowledge and science. Calling it God and turning your brain off advances Humanity not at all.
There's mounting evidence that the Great Flood was nothing more than the Atlantic Ocean rising high enough after the last ice age to overflow the pass/strait of Gibraltar.
I mean, heck, most of Jesus' popularity is due to the gangbusters marketing efforts of the early Legitimate (post-Constantine) Christian church. Co-opting local pagan festivals and feast days and re-dedicating them to Christian saints and the Son of Man was a wonderful way to keep everyone's superstitions firmly loged in place.
I do celebrate the Twelve Days of Christmas, but not as the birth of Jesus, just as it was originally intended -- an excuse to party to welcome back the sun after the longest night of the year. Indeed, if you want to get technical (which I love to do), there was no Jesus. His name was Joshua, and he was born in April, most likely. Yeshua ben Yosef in Hebrew, which got corrupted to Iesus in the first Greek editions of the New Testament -- the Greeks having no 'sh' sound in their alphabet, and also adding the male 'us' patronymic to his name.
We also don't know God's name. That knowledge is almost certainly completely lost. It was forbidden for the Hebrew priests to write His Name, so the 'YHVE' letters were placeholders which meant, essentially, "this is where you speak the Lord's Name". However, not many Jewish priests survived the repeated enslavements, massacres, and general scattering of their people over the millennia long enough to ensure the complete verbal knowledge passed to their inheritors before their deaths. When all you have to go on is the text, without the ciphers... *shrug*
Most of that comes from a deep annoyance at seeing so many people glorifying Jesus and all but ignoring his teachings. I wince every time I see a "What Would Jesus Do?" bumper sticker, as what Jesus would do is about the most readily-accessible bit of information we have access to in the English-speaking world, and quite a few of the non-English nations, as well. My friend's girlfriend occasionally hits a tough choice in her life and prays to Jesus for guidance. His guidance is already there in print in the Gospels. If she were meditating on his teachings, I could handle that. But waiting for a touch of his divine hand is what she's talking about, and until I see some corroborating evidence of the Old Testament stories, I'm gonna chalk most of the acts of God up to exaggeration and big-fish stories (ha-ha).
I'll stop now and give someone else a chance to chime in.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I know. I don't doubt it. It just seems one side has trouble hearing. And considering one side has facts, and the other only has opinions... *shrug* Human beings are addicted to being right. Most people alive today would rather die than admit the possibility that they might be wrong. It takes a certain courage to let go of preconceptions and let the facts lead you where they will. And considering religion's biggest draw is as a security blanket and thumb for the soul, I don't think that courage is to be found much in that crowd...
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Camouflaging as a complete non sequitur and a partial reply to an earlier point at the same time, I hereby bring forth my utter distaste of the concept of "racial memory" independent of direct meme transfer, and label it repulsive new age hogwash.
The "Huh? How's this a partial reply to anything?" part concerns the Noah's Flood thing. Sure, there must have been a pretty impressive show when the Mediterranean refilled. But AFAIK, that happened about a million years ago or so, and the rerun during the most recent ice age was more disappointing than "Nemesis". The idea that mankind would really "remember" something dating a million years back (or even a hundred thousand) without each and every mother explicitly telling it as a bedside story to the kids... It's more science fiction than the concept of time travel.
Now, something like the flooding of the Black Sea is more credible, as it apparently happened well within plausible oral-tradition memory. Or at least so recently that the said memory could have carried on until the first "historical records" of the event. And big floods or droughts anywhere would certainly make for good and long-living saga material, as the subject will be brought up again and again. ("It was like this flood we now have here, but a hundred times bigger!" "Hah! I remember one a *thousand* times bigger!")
But I'd rather believe in us subconsciously remembering the water in mommy's womb than in us subconsciously remembering what happened to the Med back when our forefathers had hair in places we don't even want to think about.
posted
"I wince every time I see a 'What Would Jesus Do?' bumper sticker, as what Jesus would do is about the most readily-accessible bit of information we have access to in the English-speaking world, and quite a few of the non-English nations, as well."
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
One of the bozos at work had a "WWJD" bracelet from his church and was showing it off. He asked me "Do you know what this means?" I replied "Why would Jesus die?" ....I hit it off really well with that guy yo br sure!
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
