Burden of Proof

[okinrus]

I didn't find Russel's argument too convincing. He says,
"This is a very curious story, because it was not the right time of year for figs, and you really could not blame the tree. "
The fig trees at that time of year near passover have first fruits.
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/nl-mj-99.pdf

"There are other things of less importance. There is the instance of the Gadarene swine, where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make them rush down the hill into the sea. You must remember that He was omnipotent, and He could have made the devils simply go away; but He chose to send them into the pigs."
Swine are unclean animals.

You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress of humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or ever mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.

This is untrue. Quite alot of those against slavery were Christian ministers.

This is what the Catholic church says. I say that that is fiendish cruelty, and nobody whose natural sympathies have not been warped by dogma, or whose moral nature was not absolutely dead to all sense of suffering, could maintain that it is right and proper that that state of things should continue.

Pretends to know what the Catholic church says

Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.

Science can do many things, but this it cannot.

 

[Katazia]

Jcarl,

Can science explain how these forces came to be?

Can you explain how God came to be? What is more reasonable – basic eternal fundamental laws, or an imaginary invisible character who does everything by magic?

B/c to say that they existed eternally doesn't match up with entropy, the radiation echo, the motion of the galaxies, and casuality.

Sure they do. If the universe is cyclic (big bang, collapse, big bang, etc), then that is a reasonable explanation (nothing lost and nothing gained). If the universe is really a multi-verse, (lots of separate big bangs), then we’d have even more things to consider.

Well, Newton sure believed in God, and to call him ignorant is one whale of a task.

So bring Newton up to speed with modern science and give him a nuclear accelerator and an orbiting telescope and see if he changes his mind. By ‘ignorance’ I mean lacking in key knowledge, it is not intended as derogatory.

Here's a prologue to my answer: God is not of this physical realm, which is demonstrated by the fact that we can't physically see him. Now as a result of that he could exist in a realm that we can't access scientifically, that being the spiritual realm.

And dilithium crystals are needed to fuel the warp drive in the star ship Enterprise. Everything you say is simply imaginative speculation, like any science fiction novel. You do realize of course we can’t see things that don’t exist either.

Here is my answer: To say that God evolved or was created simply creates an Infinite Regress of Creators.

I agree it is an impossible condition.

Somewhere down the line, something has to be eternal for the whole thing to start.

That’s a contradiction. If something is eternal then there can be no start.

Now the statement that God is infinite fits in with the fact that we cannot detect him, since nothing infinite can be of this physical, finite realm.

These are very dubious and highly questionable assertions. By infinity here we mean infinite time. Why would something that has always existed not be detectable? There seems no necessary connection between the two. Why is this realm finite? Why can’t the universe simply stretch into infinite space, or have existed for infinite time? What essential law prevents these conditions?

Therefore he exists in another realm, that being the spiritual realm.

Your conclusion only follows because you created imaginary premises, it is otherwise meaningless.

So you will tell me that the orderly world that we live in came out of disarray and , dare I say, chance?

Everything is in motion – there is only change brought about by the attractive and repulsive effects of the 4 basic forces. The orderly world you perceive is an illusion, it is simply a snapshot of a transitory period of constant change.

Has there ever been shown in an experiment that some very simple life form has changed to another life form?

I don’t know, I’m not sure that that is important anyway. If you saw a car at the end of the street and then you turned away for a few seconds and then saw the car at the other end of the street, what would you conclude? Did a god move the car or was there some simpler process involved? We know biological evolution has occurred and is occurring, how it occurs in all cases is not entirely understood.

So what is more reasonable – that lifeforms evolved through magical processes, or they adapted and mutated naturally?

Really? I've never heard a refutation of the Thallus evidence(at least of any relevance)

I thought we had this discussion in another thread.

What would constitute in your mind evidence that Jesus existed?

The chronicles of any well-known and reliable independent (non-Christian) historian of the times whose work on other historical figures of the period have been verified. Josephus would be ideal and we see that the church fathers thought the same when they tried to forge some text and alter his documents.

But I know there isn’t any such texts, all that we have are vast volumes of Christian mythology made out to appear official. There might, of course, be some as yet undiscovered manuscripts hidden in some as yet undiscovered caves, but who knows?

Is your theory of evolution really simpler?

Compared to what? Magic?

I've yet to hear of a case where even bacteria can be shown to change into another life form.

I think you are confusing the facts of evolution with the “how” of evolution. Evolution has occurred – man has evolved from simpler life forms – of this there is no doubt. The “how” is the subject of evolutionary theory – the processes. Try this - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

And if you consider the Creation of DNA by way of mutations w/ no intelligence to be simple, then let's just hope that you're right.

But DNA is largely a mess and so are many biological processes. Take a more careful look at the metabolic pathways in a living cell – it is a design nightmare – overlapping and redundant and conflicting systems – arhhg! If we really were designed then the designer should be fired immediately.

Kat

 

[Repo Man]

"I didn't find Russel's argument too convincing"

I never thought you would. It was for the benefit of any fence sitters out there.

"Swine are unclean animals."

How does this justify their needless slaughter? And how are they unclean? Most scholars believe the reason pork was proscribed in the old testament was the Trichina worm .

"This is untrue. Quite alot of those against slavery were Christian ministers."
And thousands of supporters of slavery were Christians, and Christian ministers. Where does the bible condemn slavery?
Christians opposed the use of lightning rods as an attempt to thwart the will of god!

"Pretends to know what the Catholic church says?"

To further elaborate:

The world, we are told, was created by a God who is both good and omnipotent. Before He created the world He foresaw all the pain and misery that it would contain; He is therefore responsible for all of it. It is useless to argue that the pain in the world is due to sin. In the first place, this is not true; it is not sin that causes rivers to overflow their banks or volcanoes to erupt. But even if it were true, it would make no difference. If I were going to beget a child knowing that the child was going to be a homicidal maniac, I should be responsible for his crimes. If God knew in advance the sins of which man would be guilty, He was clearly responsible for all the consequences of those sins when He decided to create man. The usual Christian argument is that the suffering in the world is a purification for sin and is therefore a good thing. This argument is, of course, only a rationalization of sadism; but in any case it is a very poor argument. I would invite any Christian to accompany me to the children's ward of a hospital, to watch the suffering that is there being endured, and then to persist in the assertion that those children are so morally abandoned as to deserve what they are suffering. In order to bring himself to say this, a man must destroy in himself all feelings of mercy and compassion. He must, in short, make himself as cruel as the God in whom he believes. No man who believes that all is for the best in this suffering world can keep his ethical values unimpaired, since he is always having to find excuses for pain and misery.

http://www.luminary.us/russell/religionciv.html

"Science can do many things, but this it cannot.

It has for me. Scientific explanations for things gave me an alternative to Christian dogma as a child.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Re: Lets put god on trial!!.

Originally posted by Godless
God do you exist, or are you just a figment of some ancient men's imagination?.

And is now a figment of yours and everyone elses imagination.

If I were to tell you that purple monkeys exist on the other side of the moon, the "burden of proof" would be squarely on my shoulders, the "burden of proof" is on the side of the persons making the claim.

Yes, would be required to show us the purple monkeys, a physical manifestation. But i would be more interested as to how you got to the other side of the moon to see them.
There is nowhere in any bona-fide scripture which state that God is a physical manifestation, it is universaly agreed that he is a non-physical person and can only be understood via advanced human intelligence (on this planet anyway). That, basically is the claim.

This is why I hold that an atheist, can't claim that god does not exist, without certainty of what god is, god is a word with no identity, no one can claim that an etity exist or does not exist. If that entity can't be identified.

The entity can be identified, according to all scriptures, but the subject has to be prepared.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Katazia
Jcarl,

Why is it reasonable? Have you found feces of God or Jesus anywhere?

There is still no evidence of either – only claims. What makes your claim any more reasonable than claiming there are primates behind the moon?

Kat

So as far as you are concerned the only things that exist in this world, are things you can see?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by okinrus
As a thought experiement, pretend that reality does not matter. Is it better to believe in God or not? Since it seems some people have some sort of aversion to the Christian God, just use your general God down the street.

----------
M*W: okinrus, not meaning to start another cyberfight or anything, when I described my perception of the God who lives "down the street," you called me the "Anti-Christ!" Does it or does it NOT matter what one's perception of "God" is as long as they have one?

 

[okinrus]

I did not ever call you the anti-christ, but your view of God is similar to that of the antichrist. That is, the view that God is a manifestation of human wickedness rather than wickedness as an abstract concept.

Does it or does it NOT matter what one's perception of "God" is as long as they have one?

Since people perceive God to be the loftiest of things, and the goal of life, it does matter. It would be better for one to worship no God than to worship a god who is not good.

 

[Godless]

To Jan & Jcarl..

Mistics! got to love them. Without them we wouldn't have the good movies, that depict powers beyond comprehension.

The only diference is that a logical man, does not buy in to the fantazy!!.

So as far as you are concerned the only things that exist in this world, are things you can see?

Not necesarely; I can't see an atom though I can understand the structure of the atom, and know it exists. It has been demonstroted by emperical scientific proof!!.

Yes, would be required to show us the purple monkeys, a physical manifestation. But i would be more interested as to how you got to the other side of the moon to see them

I drempt them!!, just like Joseph drempt that Jesus was the messiah!!.

There is nowhere in any bona-fide scripture which state that God is a physical manifestation, it is universaly agreed that he is a non-physical person and can only be understood via advanced human intelligence

Assumptions. The only reason why it is not in the scriptures that the almighty has a physical manifestation, is that it was all imagined by primitive minds who took dreams as reality, and believed dreams to be revelations.

Understood via advanced human intelligence?. Beam me up Scotty!!. What was this advanced intelegence "faith" belief, Good payotee?.

The entity can be identified, according to all scriptures

Your scriptures have been proven to be unreliable!!. The bible is full of controversies! I'm sure you dont want me to list them. I've seen them here in sci-fi for the past years...everywere..

Jcarl:

That's fine; just hope that you're right.

You sound so confident are you sure you are right? Really can Allah be wrong Budah, the Moon God, the Sun, thousands of different religious beliefs, are you sure you are following the right one? to get your reward ooops I mean the false promise after death?..

I'm talking about in a debate scenario, in which all of us are. In a debate, the burden of proof must come from both sides. If it doesn't, then the side lacking evidence is hollow and/or delusional.

So your argument is hollow and delusional? Where is your proof?.

Not in the design crap again The universe is chaos, so god's design is a fuck up, this is not an omnipotent being.

http://www.icra.it/ICRA_Networkshops/INW02_Chaos/

God is a contradiction to free will.
Omnipotence contradicts free will.


1. An omniscient being does not have free will
If you are all-knowing, you know your future actions, what choices you will make, and you cannot change them otherwise your knowledge would be wrong, and you wouldn't be all-knowing. An omniscient being has no free will to choose actions; all it's actions are predetermined.

"There is a lightswitch on the wall; God may either turn it on, or leave it off; but, since God already knows the future, God knows that he will turn it on. That is part of his knowledge. But what if God exercises freewill, and chooses not to turn it on. Is this possible?"
You are reading this webpage, which means that at some point you made a choice to start reading it. You feel you "chose" to read it. You also know that you do not have free will to go back and change that choice. It is impossible, even if you want to: you can't. If you knew a choice you was going to make in the future... what would it mean? You would have no free will to change that choice. No option, no choices... based on the fact that you know it's going to happen, it is predestined and no amount of strong will can change it.

As soon as an omniscient being comes into existence it already knows every action it will make. In effect God is an observer. An omniscient being has no free will - it's entire future is set out and it has no choice but to follow it's predestined path. God knows your prayers before you make them, it already knows what sacrifices are going to made to him and who is devoted enough to make them. We have nothing to prove to an omniscient god, and none of our actions will "change it's mind":

It already knows what our actions will be, therefore it's mind is already set. We present no new knowledge so cannot change it's mind. Knowing it's own future, too, it can never change it's own mind so has no free will. http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/rm.html#FreeWill


Godless.

 

[jcarl]

Originally posted by Katazia
Jcarl,

Can you explain how God came to be? What is more reasonable – basic eternal fundamental laws, or an imaginary invisible character who does everything by magic?

Herein lies your own bias. You already assume that God is imaginary, and once that thought is solidified in one's heart/mind, there's not much anybody can do to change it. However that doesn't answer your question.

So here it is: There are only three ways things can come into being. Self-cause, cause by another, and uncaused. Self cause is an oxymoron and thus can't happen. Cause by another can't be used in God's case b/c it would then create the Infinite Regress of Creators. Therefore we are left only with uncaused, meaning having no cause or beginning; therefore God is eternal. Everything that exists doesn't need a cause; everything that has a beginning needs a cause.

Sure they do. If the universe is cyclic (big bang, collapse, big bang, etc), then that is a reasonable explanation (nothing lost and nothing gained). If the universe is really a multi-verse, (lots of separate big bangs), then we’d have even more things to consider.

Ok I'm assuming that you're talking about a collapse in that it runs out of energy and implodes. Then how does it gain that energy back. Once usable energy is lost it's gone unless something builds it back up.

So bring Newton up to speed with modern science and give him a nuclear accelerator and an orbiting telescope and see if he changes his mind. By ‘ignorance’ I mean lacking in key knowledge, it is not intended as derogatory.

It would seem to me that if this evolution, et al really existed and was as obvious as you guys say it is, then a man of Newton's intellect would have recognized it.

[BEverything you say is simply imaginative speculation, like any science fiction novel.[/B]

No where in the Bible does it say that man can look at some star and see God(now God can come to man, but not the other way around). I've given you an answer, if you don't accept it, then that's your choice.

That’s a contradiction. If something is eternal then there can be no start.

By start I mean the universe's start. There has to be something eternal to act as the "catalyst", for lack of a better word, to all that is around us.

These are very dubious and highly questionable assertions. By infinity here we mean infinite time. Why would something that has always existed not be detectable?

Becuase we can't measure or detect something that is infinite. If you could, then that makes that infinite thing finite.

There seems no necessary connection between the two. Why is this realm finite?

Because it's measurable. You can say that it's 9 light years from here to there. IF this realm were infinite we would be able to measure. That seems kind of hard to imagine, but something infinite is hard to comprehend to our finite minds.

Why can’t the universe simply stretch into infinite space, or have existed for infinite time?

B/c it's running out of usable energy. If it were infinite, then energy could just pop out of nowhere.

What essential law prevents these conditions?[/B]

The law of entropy for one.

Your conclusion only follows because you created imaginary premises, it is otherwise meaningless.

When ever they first performed the first experiments that proved that light traveled at a constant speed, that could only mean that something else had change if light's speed didn't; which happened to be time and space. At the time that seemed prepostorous, but it turned out to be true. You see a hole and that leads you to find a suitable patch for it.

Everything is in motion – there is only change brought about by the attractive and repulsive effects of the 4 basic forces. The orderly world you perceive is an illusion, it is simply a snapshot of a transitory period of constant change.

This is true, but it seems quite extraordinary that the distance between things such as the sun and the earth would be just so in order to sustain life came by chance.

I don’t know, I’m not sure that that is important anyway. If you saw a car at the end of the street and then you turned away for a few seconds and then saw the car at the other end of the street, what would you conclude? Did a god move the car or was there some simpler process involved? We know biological evolution has occurred and is occurring, how it occurs in all cases is not entirely understood.[/B[

You're oversimplifying the case. Evolution is not as cut and dry as watching traffic on I-95. You say it's occuring, but I've heard of no transitional fossils that haven been proven genuine.

So what is more reasonable – that lifeforms evolved through magical processes, or they adapted and mutated naturally?

Neither, the whole idea behind Creationism is that an intelligent being is putting things where he wants them.

I thought we had this discussion in another thread.

Then could you provide a link for me?

The chronicles of any well-known and reliable independent (non-Christian) historian of the times whose work on other historical figures of the period have been verified. Josephus would be ideal and we see that the church fathers thought the same when they tried to forge some text and alter his documents.

I'll give you that there was some interpolation of Christian thought into it, like,"He was Messiah," but that doesn't mean that there is no validity to it whatsoever. Many people believe that there was a core of validity to the Jesus references. But even if this wasn't so, then why not throw the entire Antiquities and Works of Josephus out? Maybe the Church fathers made it all up, all 900+ pages of it. Do you advocate that?

Compared to what? Magic?

No, compared to an intelligent being being behind it all.

I think you are confusing the facts of evolution with the “how” of evolution. Evolution has occurred – man has evolved from simpler life forms – of this there is no doubt.

Yet there are no incontestable transitional fossils that demonstrate it. Interesting.

But DNA is largely a mess and so are many biological processes. Take a more careful look at the metabolic pathways in a living cell – it is a design nightmare – overlapping and redundant and conflicting systems – arhhg! If we really were designed then the designer should be fired immediately.

And yet these systems are enough to sustain life. Once again interesting.

Originally quoted by Godless
You sound so confident are you sure you are right? Really can Allah be wrong Budah, the Moon God, the Sun, thousands of different religious beliefs, are you sure you are following the right one?

Yes.
fufilled prophecy makes a strong statement

-Christ is superior to Buddha in these, among other, reasons:
-he teaches hope in life,
-has a better way of salvation("Buddhism teaches reincarnation as the means of salvation. However, in this form the self or individuality of the soul is eradicated at the end of each life. So even though you live on, it is not you as an individual who has any hope of attaining nirvana. Jesus promised an idividual hope to each man as an individual."-When Skeptics Ask, Geisler)

-Christ is superior to Mohammed in that he
-also offered a better way of salvation(In Christianity God sends his Son to die to take our place; Mohammed only gave a guideline whereby we might work our way into Allah's favor{I'll let you be the judge of whether or not that's grace}). And, to muslims, how can you be sure that you're doing enough good works to justify your salvation.
-Gives a superior life to Mohammed. Mohammed broke some of the laws he had prescribed for his religion(number of wives:4; he had 12)
to get your reward ooops I mean the false promise after death?..

As far as the Sun God, Moon God, etc. It seems that those religions died once the major empire was conquered. Now would a God allow his religion to die if he was true?

are you sure you are following the right one? to get your reward ooops I mean the false promise after death?..

Nice one, your confidence that Christianity is false is right on par with my confidence that's true. I must therefore, ask you: Where is your proof?

So your argument is hollow and delusional? Where is your proof?.

My proof that my religion is hollow and delusional? I have none, but that is what you question sounds like. Where is my proof that it's not? See above reasons

Not in the design crap again The universe is chaos, so god's design is a fuck up,

Yet it sustains your life and mine and the rest of the living organisms' on this rock. If you wanna call that messed up, fine.

this is not an omnipotent being.

It is one that allows us to choose what we want to do. He doesn't have a vice grip on the universe, just so we'd do as he please. That isn't love.

God is a contradiction to free will.
Omnipotence contradicts free will.

One thing you must understand about God. He knows what is going to happen, but that doesn't mean that everything is done to his will. He possesses two wills: Intentional, what he wants to happend, and Permissive, what he allows to happen even if its against his Intentional will.
If it was all done to his will, then we'd all be bowing down before him. You couldn't question him, as so many of you do. We would in essence be robots that "love" him only because we are forced into it and have no alternatives. That sounds a lot like rape, and God is not a divine rapist. He gives you choice.

God knows your prayers before you make them, it already knows what sacrifices are going to made to him and who is devoted enough to make them.

He also knows that you will make them and will do as his will permits. Thing is, we don't know what that will is, so we pray in the faith that God is just.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

jcarl

Does anybody agree with this onesided burden of proof?

Yes.

 

[jcarl]

Alrighty then. Care to explain because I don't see it. It seems to me that initially the burden of proof is on the one who declares something, but once he shows evidence, then it is equally shared. Like the courtroom analogy goes, both sides give their arguments.

 

[Godless]

Christianity is based on mysticism..

And so is everyother religion.

I will show you with your own bible using bible quotes, at how dumb rediculous and ignorant christianity really is!!.
But first:

My proof that my religion is hollow and delusional? I have none, but that is what you question sounds like. Where is my proof that it's not? See above reasons

Ha,Ha, Ha, No Jcarl. You should know what I meant, though I understand the reverse psychology you atempt here!!.

Your proof that a god exists is where?.

You have no proof, so your context is hollow and delusional!.

However simply you can say the same with my argument. Conserning the existence of god. Though I will point out. again.
As an atheist I can't claim that god does not exist!! Because I would put myself in the contradictory position of having knowledge of what god is. VS. Your pinpoint of view. You "claim" that a god exists, thus showing that you must possess a "superior knowledge" which would be that you can define what god is!!

So what is it?.

Why do you always refer to god as "he"?. Why must you put an athropomorphic cliche for a supernatural entity. Does this not limit the thing?. you are limiting your own god by using he! he could be a she you know!!!.

One thing you must understand about God. He knows what is going to happen, but that doesn't mean that everything is done to his will.

Then "IT" is not omnipotent!.

He possesses two wills: Intentional, what he wants to happend, and Permissive, what he allows to happen even if its against his Intentional will.

Wow!! your really puting on the assumptions here, purely apolegetics..

If it was all done to his will, then we'd all be bowing down before him. You couldn't question him, as so many of you do. We would in essence be robots that "love" him only because we are forced into it and have no alternatives.

Sounds like Adam & Eve, he,he,he, !!.

He also knows that you will make them and will do as his will permits. Thing is, we don't know what that will is, so we pray in the faith that God is just.

Pray all you want, his mercy is not shown at all!!!!

War, thousands die everyday, babies killed every day, missery, hunger, decease, mad cow, aids, earthquakes killing thounsands in one stroke!! Man you got to pray more, cause this guy, "IT" sounds like a real cruel fuck to me!! Not Just!!.

Godless.

 

[Godless]

My apolegies Jcarl...

Just in case I ofend, don't want to do that, I don't like the name calling, belitle anyone, or begin a flame war.

I do however will totally refute your beliefs, not you personally!!.

I apreciate that you have shown good debating skills, and havent started slandering anyone for their views on things. This is most enjoyable and perhaps even learning on both sides I hope!.

a little back ground: I was born to a Catholic family, so by no choice of my own my first denomination of religious superstition was the terrible Catholicism view of religious values. My teens mostly Christian, then in my early twenties I changed to Babtism. At the age of 22 I totally decided to be just an atheist. The decision to claim atheism did not come over night, it was a few years of study, not only bible study but philosophy, psychology, a little bit of anthropology and some astronomy. All on my own, not college educated, fact is I was a high school drop out!.

So with the bible itself, get it out I will show you pinpoint a bunch of contradictios, injustices, incest, murder, baby killing, cruelty by god, and all whole of bunch of fun stuff like that.

I will begin with a few of god's false prophecies.

Genesis.

God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But later Adam eats the forbidden fruit (3:6) and yet lives for another 930 years (5:5). 2:17

As a punishment for killing Abel, God says Cain will be "a fugitive and a vagabond." Yet in just a few verses (4:16-17) Cain will settle down, marry, have a son, and build a city. This is not the activity one would expect from a fugitive and a vagabond. 4:12

God promises Abram and his descendants all of the land of Canaan. But both history and the bible (Acts 7:5 and Heb.11:13) show that God's promise to Abram was not fulfilled. 13:15, 15:18, 17:8, 28:13-14

How long was the Egyptian captivity? This verse says 400 years, but Ex.12:40 and Gal.3:17 say 430 years. 15:13

"In the fourth generation they [Abraham's descendants] shall come hither again." But, if we count Abraham, then their return occurred after seven generations: Abraham, Issac (Gen.21:1-3), Jacob (Gen.25:19-26), Levi (Gen.35:22-23), Kohath (Ex.6:16), Amramn (Ex.6:18), and Moses (Ex.6:20). 15:16

God promises to make Isaac's descendents as numerous as "the stars of heaven", which, of course, never happened. The Jews have always been, and will always be, a small minority. 26:4

God renames Jacob for the first time (See 35:10 for the first renaming). God says that Jacob will henceforth be called Israel, but the Bible continues to call him Jacob anyway. And even God himself calls him Jacob in 46:2. 32:28, 35:10 (Gen.47:28-29) 46:3-4

The tribe of Judah will reign "until Shiloh," but Israel's first king (Saul) was from the tribe of Benjamin (Acts 13:21), and most of the time after this prophecy there was no king at all. 49:10

Contrary to the prophecy in 48:21, Joseph died in Egypt, not Israel. Gen.50:24

That is just the begining!

Godless.

 

[Raithere]

The burden of proof lies with the claimant; in a proper argument one must support one's assertions they are not given. In the argument regarding theism it is the theists who have the primary assertion, for without the assertion of god's existence there is no argument. However, the strong atheistic claim 'there is no god' is also an assertion and must be defended as such. But the heart of the issue does not lie in the burden of proof; there are several problems, the most primary of which is defining 'god'.

The definition of 'god' is critical as it sets the conditions within which and methods whereby we may prove or disprove any assertion. It is also the most problematic.

The proof for 'god' defined as, "A physical being with supernatural powers that lives upon Mt. Olympus and casts thunderbolts" is quite different from god defined as "The sum total of all existence" or, "An undetectable entity that caused the conditions for existence".

The first is patently false. Man has been to the top of Mt. Olympus and Zeus is not living up there in his palace.

The second is obviously true (from a classical frame at least). The problem here is one of missing properties. While it's one thing to label the sum of existence 'god' those that do so generally allude to additional properties or conditions. The argument is then not regarding of god's existence but of what properties does god have beyond those which science has discovered. This brings up many interesting and some very strong arguments as well as some erroneous and weak ones.

The last definition is irrefutable not because it is true but because there is no way of proving it false. Frankly, it's a lazy argument because neither is there any way to prove it true. Most arguments (such as the apparent 'order' of existence or 'feeling' god's existence) wind up violating the definition. Arguments that do not often wind up violating logic and while this is not necessarily invalid one cannot compose a logical argument from illogical components. Those few that get past the first two hurdles wind up at the same point as the second definition, the definition is supportable but the properties of god are assumed.

The point being that before one can even being to argue about whether god exists one must first come up with a working definition of god.

~Raithere

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Godless
Not necesarely; I can't see an atom though I can understand the structure of the atom, and know it exists. It has been demonstroted by emperical scientific proof!!.

The atom was also described in the scriptures 5000 years ago, well before modern science.

I drempt them!!, just like Joseph drempt that Jesus was the messiah!!.

I forgot, you’re a dumbass. My apologies.

Assumptions. The only reason why it is not in the scriptures that the almighty has a physical manifestation, is that it was all imagined by primitive minds who took dreams as reality, and believed dreams to be revelations.

Okay, so you claim all scriptures are the product of primitive imagination and therefore God does not exist. Can you prove these claims?

Understood via advanced human intelligence?. Beam me up Scotty!!. What was this advanced intelegence "faith" belief, Good payotee?.

Advance intelligence is understanding the essence what and who you are, how and why it is that you are, this is known as self-realisation.

The bible is full of controversies! I'm sure you dont want me to list them. I've seen them here in sci-fi for the past years...everywere..

No doubt things have been misinterpreted and lost in translation, but you have to remember, the original manuscript of all the books sits in a vault in the Vatican, so in truth you cannot know what the real bible says. So it makes no sense to use the bible soley as reference unless you take the essence from the scriptures which are in still tact and available for study.

Love
Jan Ardena.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

jcarl

Alrighty then. Care to explain because I don't see it. It seems to me that initially the burden of proof is on the one who declares something, but once he shows evidence, then it is equally shared. Like the courtroom analogy goes, both sides give their arguments.

When I was 16 I applied for a job at a bakery. My resume looked
great and the individual who hired me said the same thing. Then,
to my suprise, she said 'and I don't believe a word of it'. She
told me that I have to prove to her that I can do the job.
Apparently she didn't accept my resume claims that qualified
me for the job. I had to demonstrate my claims were true because
I was the one making them. I could have brought in letters
from X-bosses, a note from mummy & daddy, awards from
previous jobs, and a plethora of lawyers to argue my case with
this 'evidence'. The fact remains none of it proved I could do the
job. Doing it was the proof (observable, reproducable, factual,
etc. data) and that was my burden.

 

[jcarl]

Re: Christianity is based on mysticism..

Originally posted by Godless
Ha,Ha, Ha, No Jcarl. You should know what I meant, though I understand the reverse psychology you atempt here!!.

No reverse psychology at all. Just making a little joke. Helps keep me somewhat sane.

Your proof that a god exists is where?.

You have no proof, so your context is hollow and delusional!.

Alright, I'll say this like I've said it to others. The universe has a cause. It must, b/c to say the universe exists eternally doesn't fit in with many scienitfic principles/observations. Furthermore, the universe must have a cause for its continuation. Why? Becuase it and the stuff within it is finite. These kind of things change, so they can't be eternal and thus need a cause. Now you can say that this thing in the universe exists and this force acts on it, and so on, but eventually you must run into the wall that there must be something that doesn't change and is w/o cause(eternal). So the cause of all the things within this universe, since all things are finite, must be something that is eternal and outside of this realm.

There's one of my proofs for the existence of God. You can take it or you can leave it. The choice is yours.

However simply you can say the same with my argument. Conserning the existence of god. Though I will point out. again.
As an atheist I can't claim that god does not exist!!

Wouldn't that make you an agnostic then? I'm simply asking, not trying to be a smart-alleck

Because I would put myself in the contradictory position of having knowledge of what god is. VS. Your pinpoint of view. You "claim" that a god exists, thus showing that you must possess a "superior knowledge" which would be that you can define what god is!!

So what is it?.

Hmmm....interesting. I define God first and foremost as infinite, so for me to give you a complete defn of Him using limited language is impossible, but here goes. God is spirit, eternal, and unchangeable and allpowerful within his perfections. He is loving, merciful but just, holy and righteous. To quote Strong,"God is the infinite and perfect Spirit in whom all things have their source...and end." How's that?

Your next question will probably be ,"How do I know this?" And while you'll accept this about as much as pigs'll fly, I will say this: I believe the Bible and what it tells me. Am I gullible? Perhaps. Am I a sheep, who have the IQ of a grape? Maybe, but when compared to an almighty God who knows all, who isn't?

Why do you always refer to god as "he"?. Why must you put an athropomorphic cliche for a supernatural entity. Does this not limit the thing?. you are limiting your own god by using he! he could be a she you know!!!.

If I called Him She, It, or anything else, I would still be limiting him because I'm talking about something perfect within an imperfect language. Simple. I could start saying Elohim, or Adonai, or Jehovah if you like.

Then "IT" is not omnipotent!.

Imagine a king. A king has absolute power over his domain. Now does that mean that everything is going to be his will in his domain? I should say not. Does he still have absolute rule over the domain? Yes and he may slaughter all of the folks who didn't follow his orders. But that isn't God operates. He gives you the ground rules. He then gives you the free will to choose to follow or not follow these rules. Why? Because in order for us to love him, and there to be a choice, anything else is contrary to love and is forced love, not love at all
"When you make something voluntary, half the people don't do it."-C.S. Lewis
Is this making sense?

Wow!! your really puting on the assumptions here, purely apolegetics.

Apolgetics or not, it's still how God has revealed to us how he operates in relation to us. Simple.

Sounds like Adam & Eve, he,he,he, !!.

If it sounded like Adam and Eve, then they wouldn't have sinned. They would've had nothing to tempt them and thus no choice. You see w/o free will, which is exactly the scenario I portrayed, we have no say in what we do.

Pray all you want, his mercy is not shown at all!!!!

Really? You state this as an absolute, yet surely you cannot have knowledge of all the prayer requests ever prayed and thus know the outcomes.

War, thousands die everyday, babies killed every day, missery, hunger, decease, mad cow, aids, earthquakes killing thounsands in one stroke!! Man you got to pray more, cause this guy, "IT" sounds like a real cruel fuck to me!! Not Just!!.

Tell me something; how many people are following what God says? Not a whole bunch. Disease is a result of sin, which everyone of us has done. War comes from sin and Satan. When somebody smokes a pack a day, develops cancer and dies, that's not God's Intentional Will; it was that persons stupid choice. When people have sex like a bunch of rabbits and develop HIV, you think that God's intentional Will? No, it's their stupid choice. People say sin doesn't exist; I tell them to look around. The world we live in today is a result of sin. Pure and simple.(okay deep breath....count to 10)

Just in case I ofend, don't want to do that, I don't like the name calling, belitle anyone, or begin a flame war.

Agreed. Not our purpose here, at least not mine(can't speak for anyone else)

I do however will totally refute your beliefs, not you personally!!

The feeling is mutual. I know nothing about you (well I do now, but you know what I mean) and you know nothing about me, so any personal attack I just assume is a lack of any other sufficient argument.

I apreciate that you have shown good debating skills, and havent started slandering anyone for their views on things. This is most enjoyable and perhaps even learning on both sides I hope!

"The view you are most vulnerable is the one you least have to defend."-No clue

a little back ground: I was born to a Catholic family, so by no choice of my own my first denomination of religious superstition was the terrible Catholicism view of religious values. My teens mostly Christian, then in my early twenties I changed to Babtism.

hey now, I'm Baptist(just happens to be the one I've been raised in, actually have some issues w/ Baptist doctrine.)

At the age of 22 I totally decided to be just an atheist. The decision to claim atheism did not come over night, it was a few years of study, not only bible study but philosophy, psychology, a little bit of anthropology and some astronomy. All on my own, not college educated, fact is I was a high school drop out!.

Oh boy. Converts, once they go, are pretty hard to bring back,but I'll give it a shot.

So with the bible itself, get it out I will show you pinpoint a bunch of contradictios, injustices, incest, murder, baby killing, cruelty by god, and all whole of bunch of fun stuff like that.

I will begin with a few of god's false prophecies.

I realize you won't accept any of these rationales,(oh yeah check out CARM.org. It might answer some questions better than I can. Newayz here goes:

God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But later Adam eats the forbidden fruit (3:6) and yet lives for another 930 years (5:5). 2:17

God said that in the day, I guess in the time, so to speak. Not necessarily eat fruit and drop dead instantly. That kinda defeats the purpose of the human race, since that would kinda kill off the first two(yeh He could make others, but then the process starts off over agains.)

As a punishment for killing Abel, God says Cain will be "a fugitive and a vagabond." Yet in just a few verses (4:16-17) Cain will settle down, marry, have a son, and build a city. This is not the activity one would expect from a fugitive and a vagabond. 4:12

He married his sister apparently. Now since the gene pool was so pure then, the race could stand an incestual situation w/o defects.

God promises Abram and his descendants all of the land of Canaan. But both history and the bible (Acts 7:5 and Heb.11:13) show that God's promise to Abram was not fulfilled. 13:15, 15:18, 17:8, 28:13-14

God promises Abraham Canaan, but doesn't when or that when they get it, that they will retain it permanently. This convenant shows God's overall plan for the state of Israel, that when it's all said and done, the Jewish people will possess all of Canaan. Now over the years they've had it, it's been taken away conquered, etc. But at the final stage of human history, which I believe to be coming soon, The Jews will control Canaan.
As far as your Acts/Heb. reference. When God called Abraham, he didn't promise him anything. He just said ,"Get up and go." It wasn't until Abraham acutally took the leap of faith and followed God's instruction that God made with him a covenant.

How long was the Egyptian captivity? This verse says 400 years, but Ex.12:40 and Gal.3:17 say 430 years. 15:13

As far as the number goes, don't confuse error and imprecision. 430 can be rounded off to 400 with no real problem.

"In the fourth generation they [Abraham's descendants] shall come hither again." But, if we count Abraham, then their return occurred after seven generations: Abraham, Issac (Gen.21:1-3), Jacob (Gen.25:19-26), Levi (Gen.35:22-23), Kohath (Ex.6:16), Amramn (Ex.6:18), and Moses (Ex.6:20). 15:16

The several translations of the Bible I have doesn't mention anything about a fourth generation. We are talking about Genesis 15:13 right?

God promises to make Isaac's descendents as numerous as "the stars of heaven", which, of course, never happened. The Jews have always been, and will always be, a small minority. 26:4

It's nothing more than a metaphor. And millions of people might have seemed like the sand on the shore or the stars in the sky.

God renames Jacob for the first time (See 35:10 for the first renaming). God says that Jacob will henceforth be called Israel, but the Bible continues to call him Jacob anyway. And even God himself calls him Jacob in 46:2. 32:28, 35:10 (Gen.47:28-29) 46:3-4

This is probably done to avoid confusion between Israel the person and Israel the state.

The tribe of Judah will reign "until Shiloh," but Israel's first king (Saul) was from the tribe of Benjamin (Acts 13:21), and most of the time after this prophecy there was no king at all. 49:10

This prophecy is fast forwarding to David's reign who is of the tribe of Judah. But Shiloh more than likely means "whose right it is." This is apparently Christ. Check out Ezekiel 21:27 and Isaiah 2:1-4. There is a correlation with these two and the Genesis passage.

Contrary to the prophecy in 48:21, Joseph died in Egypt, not Israel. Gen.50:24

Yeah last one!!

The prophecy simply states that that Joseph will be brought back to his father's land. That doesn't mean that he will die in his father's land. Many people die in one place, but are brought to their home to be buried.

A mere hour and a half after I start , I finish!

 

[jcarl]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena

I forgot, you’re a dumbass. My apologies.

Jan, I agree with most all of what you said. However it does you nor your argument any good to start calling names. I humbly ask that you not stoop that low. It really damages your witness.

 

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
The atom was also described in the scriptures 5000 years ago, well before modern science.

Chapter and verse please?

Okay, so you claim all scriptures are the product of primitive imagination and therefore God does not exist. Can you prove these claims?

The burden of proof is on you to prove that god (or Santa, the Easter Bunny, IPU's, etc.) exists, not the skeptic - do pay attention.

Advance intelligence is understanding the essence what and who you are, how and why it is that you are, this is known as self-realisation.

According to who?

No doubt things have been misinterpreted and lost in translation, but you have to remember, the original manuscript of all the books sits in a vault in the Vatican, so in truth you cannot know what the real bible says. So it makes no sense to use the bible soley as reference unless you take the essence from the scriptures which are in still tact and available for study.

You know this to be true how? And, if "in truth you cannot know what the real bible says", then how can anyone base their belief system on it (BTW, your last sentence here makes NO sense)?

Barkhorn.

 

[Godless]

OOOPs..

I had such a good time putting too many smilies, quotes, etc.. made the post to damn long, and couldn't post it! Never had that happen before, nothing was saved and then everything said was lost!! Oh! Well.

Just will have to try again Jcarl. Sorry! will get back to you.


Godless.