Need i be the person who tells you this has nothing whatsoever to do with clocks? You're assigning a tiny eeny weeny human understanding of the universe and trying to bear its relation to a clock. Ok, we can sit down and state with definite that men make clocks but it has no relevance here. If there is a creator, or if there isn't, the clock is irrelevant.
The Probability Of God Existing
- Thread starter UniMatrix
- Start date
Re: RE: Jade Squirrel
Also, the watch is made from parts (springs, gears et cetera). Theists claim that God made the universe out of nothing. Again, the analogy is not useful.
I acknowledge the point of your analogy. But if there is an almighty God to create the universe, then where did that almighty God come from? Was he "murdered" too or did he kill himself? And what reason would we have to believe that God would have killed himself and then killed the man? (I note that this analogy is losing its usefulness as we take it further.)
We've seen watches get created by watchmakers; therefore it is reasonable to presume that behind every watch is a watchmaker. We have not seen any universes get created; therefore the analogy does not hold.
Also, the watch is made from parts (springs, gears et cetera). Theists claim that God made the universe out of nothing. Again, the analogy is not useful.
How about this universe exists among infinite physical possibility,in which case theres no need for god when all probabilities within physics exist.
This universe is one of many probabilities,which self exist but all probables are there.
Lets say all probables are a dice,and we are the result of the 6th roll,while some universes dont have galaxies,planets etc.
Its a self existing allways been system and we are in one of those otherwise wed not be able to talk about it.
This universe is one of many probabilities,which self exist but all probables are there.
Lets say all probables are a dice,and we are the result of the 6th roll,while some universes dont have galaxies,planets etc.
Its a self existing allways been system and we are in one of those otherwise wed not be able to talk about it.
Interesting. I have an instructor who consistantly does that. The fact is, there is deep rooted history concerning the realm of current religious beliefs; however, there is also an historical foundation for other dieties and gods--entire populations have been destroyed due to this foolishness. The point is, one must not merely point out the foolishness of one book (ie: Bible) in order to state the claim for non-belief. It is important to see the grander schematics. Religion is ultimately foolish from any logical OR moral perspective. Why is it that so many cannot think for themselves? Do you require a subconcious "voice" to lead you to "fate," or do you see your path before you merely because you will it so? O.K, is it Death - the ultimate fear? The unknown should be the driving force toward enlightenment, not the proverbial onslaught of turmoil! There is merely one word I could give you in assistance: THINK!
RE: 1/2kX^2
Thinking/inteligence is a dangerous animal. If you don't give it the food it requires it will start to eat its own tale (atack itself - the religion gives some protection against such attacts). (eg. ultimite logic wil take you to suicide, old greeks : the best is never to be born, the second best to die young...)
Thinking/inteligence is a dangerous animal. If you don't give it the food it requires it will start to eat its own tale (atack itself - the religion gives some protection against such attacts). (eg. ultimite logic wil take you to suicide, old greeks : the best is never to be born, the second best to die young...)
Just to clear this one little bit up...some Bibles state that there were Giants in those times, while others don't. The reason being is that the word "Nephilim," which some translators had decided meant "Giants," is in debate. Zakariah Sitchin, whom may be a wing-nut, is also a leader in the translation of Aramic and other languages in which the Bible was written. He said, from the age of 8, that he knew Nephilim did not mean Giants, rather it meant "Those who came down from." The meaning of the word is in debate to the point where some reprints of the Bible today leave the word Nephilim untranslated.
And on the topic of the probability of God existing...
I have heard that there is no evidence either way, but I don't believe this to be true. Recently a burial box was discovered with the inscription "James; son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Now, I imagine Jesus was a common name back then, as was Joseph and James, but to have all three of them on one burial box in that specific kinship is a bit more than coincidental. Not only that, but to have your brother listed on your box is uncommon. Yes, it has happened before, but typically it is your father's name inscribed alongside your own, and his alone. From what we know, a sibling was only listed when he/she either 1) paid for the burial, or 2) was famous. Now, the chances that a man bearing the same of the Biblical James, who's father shared the same name with the Biblical Joseph, had a brother named Jesus, who was either famous or ponied up the dough for the burial are friggin out there. Evidence? No. Possibility? Yes.
On the other side, evidence against the Christian God does exist. The fact that other planets exist should be something we look into. The Bible only refers to "The Heavens" when referring to anyplace other than Earth. Take into account that the people who were around during the events that take place in the Bible knew exactly what was going on in our solar system (e.g. the number of planets, their placement in the solar system, the number of moons they each had, the fact that they orbited the sun, exactly when each solestial body would be in any given place) and it makes you wonder why the other planets were not mentioned in this book. They showed off this knowledge on many murals and carvings, and in many writings, so why was it left out of the book which would carry the word of God?
Speaking of the Heavens, the Bible equates Heaven to the sky. Heaven is up, according to the Bible. And whatever is up equates to the sky or space. Everything that came from heaven in the Bible is described as "Coming down" from Heaven. The opposite holds true as well, as going to Heaven is called an "Ascention", which means to go up; higher. This should immediately rule out this God being supernatural, thus ruling out the Christian God, as he is said to be supernatural.
Also, why aren't a lot of things that were around back then mentioned in the Bible? Electricity existed, as evidenced by reconstructing the Ark of the Covenant, but it is not mentioned. The person who tried to touch the Ark was said to be "Struck down by God" when in truth, he must have been electricuted to death.
How about flight? Flight is mentioned in the Bible, and even in mechanical terms, and there is overwhelming evidence to the very first civilizations having that technology. The large drawings all over the planet which are only dicpherable from an arial view raise questions. As does this trinkets found hereand here. The second trinket is said to be about 1,500 years old, while the second is dated from about 300 BC. There are references to flying chariots, whirlwinds, firey wheels, platforms, fiery clouds, sky sanctuaries and the list goes on. Are they undeniable proof of flight? Probably, but you can't know for sure. Just know that God and his ambassadors are never...never...never without these things...ever.
Let's talk embedded artifacts! At a quarry near France, coins, wooden hammer handles and other wooden tools were found embedded in limestone. The limestone was 300 million years old! The Bible doesn't put the Earth's age anywhere NEAR that!
Even the term "God" itself is in question. I'll explain...
The first time the word "God" is used in the bible is in the first verse of the book of Genesis. It is said, in the untranslated texts, that Elohiym created the universe. Elohiym, however, is actually the plural form of Elowahh! But Elohiym is the word translated into the word "God!" And Elohiym means "The Mighty Ones." If the authors intended God to be singular, then why did they not use El, meaning "The Almighty?" (Elohiym is used nearly 4000 in the Old Testament) This is fact, remember, so the Christian belief of a single, all-powerful God seems manufactured when this is taken into account. Of those Elohiym, the Bible describes the most powerful to be Yhovah, better known to us as God himself. He is the first of the Elohiym to make contact with Moses, and the first human incarnation, in the form of Jesus.
What statement could prove that there were more than one god in the Bible? This one:
Psalms 82:1 "God stands in the congregation of the mighty; he judges among the gods."
Unfortunately, even though this is proof of more than one god, it is still translated improperly. The word "Mighty" comes from the word "El," which means "Almighty." And the only time Elohiym is actually translated correctly into "gods" is when they have to, such as in Psalms 82:1. The verse is really saying this:
"The mighty ones stand in the congregation of the Almighty; and He guides the mighty ones."
The translation faults can be found everywhere and appear blatant in most places. Like this one:
Genesis 1:26 "And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness."
So a singular God speaks in the third person? Not likely. Besides, it should read, "The mighty ones said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Makes more sense that way, doesn't it?
Going even deeper into that verse, let's adress the fact that God has made man in His image, meaning that God has arms, legs, a head, a heart, lungs, kidneys, a stomach, blood, veins, a brain, hands, eyes, a mouth, and hair. Don't believe me? Read Evelations from 1:9 through 1:18. Again, this kills the supernatural factor that Christians live by.
(A little tidbit, despite the Holy Trinity teachings, many people think that Jesus was supposed to be the son of God, a seperate entity, when it states in the Bible, that Jesus actually was God himself. "John 1:1 ...and the Word was with God and the Word was God. John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." And it also states in a roundabout way that Jesus, who was Yhovah, was the one called the Almighty, who in turn was the highest ranking of the Elohiym.)
And in conclusion I would like to debunk the most celebrated and debated artifact in Christian posession: The Shroud of Turin.
The shroud depicts a man with a beard and long hair. In the Bible, however, there is no indication that Jesus had long hair or a beard. Firstly, beards were reserved for the elderly, which he was not, and long hair was considered shameful. As a matter of fact, it was only upon the modern discovery of the Shroud did Jesus begin to be shown with long hair and a beard. Religious scholars try to back it up by saying Jesus was a Nazarite, a people whom go into isolation for three years and are not allowed to shave during that time. Well, that isn't true. Jesus was a Nazarene--a citizen of Nazareth. There is a difference.
This debunks the Shroud.
And though most of what I said is evidence against the Christian God, it all comes from the Bible itself, so one could draw the conclusion that there were gods, in the sense of creators, but there simply was not a single being whom alone was responsible for everything. (And those beings who may have created us certainly did not appear supernatural; as the physical ascentions into Heaven, and the term Heaven refers to outter space. Don't believe me? Here's one verse, though I can't remember which book it was..."Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars...") The Bible itself says so. The real question is why the Bible was picked apart and taught in selected sections, with much of the book omitted? Ask yourself that, and remember it next time you are at church.
JD
Last edited:
Re: RE: 1/2kX^2
And mankind is comprised of dangerous creatures! Do not neglect your inheritence. The solemnity of despair is wrought in societal inanities. I do not wish to argue against societies. The system, mankind, is important, and it represents any natural, chaotic, progression. Though, when confronted with a difficult task, should one simply falter due to an acceptance of the fate of the system? Perhaps one should see the system for what it is,instead, and hence, "weed" through the folly toward clarification. do not imply that this is a trivial task . If one truely sees, or atleast attempts to, then it becomes apparent that there is more at stake than the likes of deities and angels, and the "supplicant" human. We are part of this universal chaos; however, do not misconstrue, please, chaos is indeed the beauty. From a simple, laymen's perspective: be content to not be content! Seek! It is what we are here to do. That is the quest of man. To not use the mind is to die. Religieon merely reduces us to foolish endeavors and robotic indifference, such that our only concerns become biased and confined. I know that I am not here for that! None of us are.
And mankind is comprised of dangerous creatures! Do not neglect your inheritence. The solemnity of despair is wrought in societal inanities. I do not wish to argue against societies. The system, mankind, is important, and it represents any natural, chaotic, progression. Though, when confronted with a difficult task, should one simply falter due to an acceptance of the fate of the system? Perhaps one should see the system for what it is,instead, and hence, "weed" through the folly toward clarification. do not imply that this is a trivial task . If one truely sees, or atleast attempts to, then it becomes apparent that there is more at stake than the likes of deities and angels, and the "supplicant" human. We are part of this universal chaos; however, do not misconstrue, please, chaos is indeed the beauty. From a simple, laymen's perspective: be content to not be content! Seek! It is what we are here to do. That is the quest of man. To not use the mind is to die. Religieon merely reduces us to foolish endeavors and robotic indifference, such that our only concerns become biased and confined. I know that I am not here for that! None of us are.
No that's not entirely correct. Nephilim does not mean 'giants'. Anak means giant, (as seen in 'children of anak'-[children of giants]), and other such phrases seen in the bible. The nephilim were spoken of as being giants- not because of the word nephilim though. It is anak you are talking about- and that meaning 'giant' is not in dispute. nephilim is considered to mean something along the lines of 'fallen ones'. Sitchin is more focused on Anunnaki which would mean "those who from heaven to earth came". It is widely considered the nephilim are the later version of the anunnaki, (and is quite readily apparent if you read all the texts), and is considered to have similar meaning in context.
Re: RE: Chiasma
Okay, you seem to think you're smart enough to read this evidence. So please enlighten us as to how the universe is evidence of the existence of God.
It sure is from the Xian perspective. It might actually get you to doubt the doctrines of Xianity.
How does thinking lead to suicide and how does religion keep you safe from that?
RE:
Chiasma stated (about god being the origin of the existence of the universe):
There is wel evidence (for whatever the origin of the universe is). If we (fully) understood the universe we would know how it began.
(Please read the thesis before you argue agains a reaction on it)
Chiasma stated (about god being the origin of the existence of the universe):
There is wel evidence (for whatever the origin of the universe is). If we (fully) understood the universe we would know how it began.
(Please read the thesis before you argue agains a reaction on it)
I've spoken of this time and time again on this forum and it's repeatedly ignored. The depictions of multiple gods is overwhelming but is ignored. The only mention i think i received was that plural usage was for the benefit of jesus and the holy ghost, (even though these same people then argue with me saying those three are one and the same).
The case of plural speech, (not to mention use of the word elohim), is ongoing and constant... Here's just 3 examples from the first few pages of the book:
Gen 1:26 "Let us make man in our image, our likeness"
Gen 11:7 "Come, let us go down and confuse their language.."
Gen 3:22 "And the lord god said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
The plural nature of these cannot be denied.
You have also spoken of god being physical in nature. I would concur that all evidence suggests that. I could go on and on about many subtle mentions of this and will do so once my entire book analysis of the bible is complete. For now i will just give one example:
Gen 3:8 'Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the lord god as he was walking in the cool of the day, and they hid from the lord god among the trees of the garden. But the lord god called to the man, "where are you?"
Furthermore god walked about in front of moses and showed moses his physical form.
Also i ask you to take a look at Gen 32:24-33. Anyone can answer who that refers to? Jacob goes on to say:
"It is because i saw god face to face, and yet my life was spared."
It is mentioned often by god and others that nobody can look at gods face and live. This would suggest he has a face to look at. He even says to moses he can look at god's form but cannot see his face. Imagine if god was like a ferengi, klingon or something- no wonder he'd hide his face
The evidence is overwhelming that if the bible is accurate god was more than likely one of many and was a physical being.
Most of this ties in with Sumerian texts- their writings of mortal aliens who put humans to work in their gardens.
RE:Jade Squirrel
Thinking must have a direction/aim. (Whatever) (religion is one possibility of such dirrection) ( other dirrections are available too: art, politics/power, science etc) Birds in cages (without trinclets to play with) stop eating and start to hurt themselves. Mind - (my experience) does the same.
But I possibly overstated this (in connection to religion). Other deeply felt passions would do too.
Thinking must have a direction/aim. (Whatever) (religion is one possibility of such dirrection) ( other dirrections are available too: art, politics/power, science etc) Birds in cages (without trinclets to play with) stop eating and start to hurt themselves. Mind - (my experience) does the same.
But I possibly overstated this (in connection to religion). Other deeply felt passions would do too.
Re: RE:
My apologies. I mistakenly believed that the evidence you were referring to was evidence of God's existence, as opposed to evidence (that we do not yet have) that would indicate the origin of the universe.
RE: Snakelord
I've noticed you mention all the plural usage of God on the boards before, which is why I decided to study up on it, and hammer the people over the head with a huge thesis on it. Have you noticed, though, that still no Christians have replied to it? They see an overwhelming evidence of the falsehood of what they have been taught, and they just. plain. ignore. it.
One more call to the peeps:
READ MY LAST POST. IT IS PRETTY ENLIGHTENING. AND THANKS TO SNAKELORD FOR GIVING ME A TOPIC TO DISCUSS.
JD
I've noticed you mention all the plural usage of God on the boards before, which is why I decided to study up on it, and hammer the people over the head with a huge thesis on it. Have you noticed, though, that still no Christians have replied to it? They see an overwhelming evidence of the falsehood of what they have been taught, and they just. plain. ignore. it.
One more call to the peeps:
READ MY LAST POST. IT IS PRETTY ENLIGHTENING. AND THANKS TO SNAKELORD FOR GIVING ME A TOPIC TO DISCUSS.
JD
Pardon me, but the usage of the plural in the Old Testament presents no problem since we consider God as a Trinity. God speaking of "us" and "we" is in line with the rest of scripture where God speaks of "my Spirit" and of Himself in the third person.
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.... So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them" (Genesis 1:26-27)
One God - one image.
On the other hand, any Jewish Rabbi will tell you that the name was never meant to be plural.
The Hebrew noun Elohim is plural but the verb is singular, a normal usage in the OT when reference is to the one true God._ This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality. (New International Version Study Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985, p._ 6.)
So you have Elohim - singular/plural, created (bara) - singular. If the writer's intention was to denote multiple gods, the verb "created" would no doubt have been plural as well.
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.... So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them" (Genesis 1:26-27)
One God - one image.
On the other hand, any Jewish Rabbi will tell you that the name was never meant to be plural.
The Hebrew noun Elohim is plural but the verb is singular, a normal usage in the OT when reference is to the one true God._ This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality. (New International Version Study Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985, p._ 6.)
So you have Elohim - singular/plural, created (bara) - singular. If the writer's intention was to denote multiple gods, the verb "created" would no doubt have been plural as well.
One group accepts that a thing/person/ whatever created the universe. Well how did this thing come into being? Oh I forget, it is the beginning and the end?:m:
Another that out of nothing, chance, the universe exploded into being and is still expanding? Something out of nothing? Isn't the whole of basis of science that energy cannot be created or destroyed? :m:
My view? Why give a fuck? NEITHER OF U WHILE U LIVE OR ANYONE TO COME AFTER U WILL EVERRRRRRRRRRR EVRRRRRRRRRRR FIND THE ANSWER! So why even care? Put your resources to better use.
Another that out of nothing, chance, the universe exploded into being and is still expanding? Something out of nothing? Isn't the whole of basis of science that energy cannot be created or destroyed? :m:
My view? Why give a fuck? NEITHER OF U WHILE U LIVE OR ANYONE TO COME AFTER U WILL EVERRRRRRRRRRR EVRRRRRRRRRRR FIND THE ANSWER! So why even care? Put your resources to better use.
Um, I'm not sure about this, simply becuase I've never heard of a plural form of the word "Create" in the verb sense; I've only heard it used in plural form when describing a group of people as being something's "Creators."
And why would he refer to himself by anything other than his own name, when all the terms used to define him are name of Pagan gods? God, for example, was supposedly the name of a pagan god. As was Lord. And God himself has said in the Bible that men "Shall never call Yaveh by those pagan names, and shall never hear them from my mouth." (Again, a physical description of a so-called supernatural being) Yet, in the Bible, God refers to himself as the Lord God, and other names of which he has commanded no one to speak or hear him speak. VERY contradictory.
SO I guess if you were to take the word of the religious scholars who interpet "Elohim" to be both plural but used in the singular in this case, you still end up with no possibility of a singular god, for he does nothing but talk as if he were multiple gods!
And I still don't understand how Elohim, which translation is "Mighty Ones" could be used to describe one person. Think about how the meaning of the words came to be...When God said he was the Elohim above all other Elohim, he must have been using the word to describe his title. Elohim, the plural "Gods," could not have been singular in this instance, otherwise God would have said that he was the "El above any other Elohim." Or, if he had stuck to his origion way of speaking, he would have said "WE are the Elohim above all other Elohim." But it doesn't make sense for him to use Elohim in the singular AND the plural in the same sentance, though you contest that he has. Taking into account that God is the ultimate being, then you must accept that did not use those words accidentally. And if you figure he's saying "I am the Mighty Ones above all other Mighty Ones," then you figure God's grammar is DISPICABLE.
There is no way Elohim was being used in a singular manner, as it was never used in a singular manner afterwards, nor would it have properly used in the sentance there had it been intended to be singular.
JD
Last edited: