Man vs. God

[Davemcc]

So the guy who goes to shoot up a school with "Humanity is Overrated" on his T-Shirt is no biggie and we should just accept it.

The act of a single individual and/or the motives behind that act are quite unrelated to this discussion. Further, that individuals act and/or the beliefs that individual holds are unrelated to the truth behind man's origin and do not change man's origin no matter how much we wish the circumstances were otherwise.

Isnt your second point contradictory. A simple robot was created but the complex human just appear from a small single cell organism.

No, it is not. Robot ≠ Human. Therefore we can ascribe neither the same motivation nor the same creative force to their existence. Just because we don't know the origin of humanity does not mean that we need to invent bedtime stories to explain it.

 

[CraigV]

Your statement is self conflicting.

"appeared from nothing"
"appeared from divine intervention".

But perhaps you can start by showing me an example of "nothing".

No, you’re taking things out of context & twisting them to be argumentative. There is no conflict other than what you are creating. I’m saying that absolute nothing cannot spontaneously produce something, therefore there must have been some intervention by a being capable of making such a thing occur. I believe other readers understood this point.No, you’re taking things out of context & twisting them to be argumentative. There is no conflict other than what you are creating. I’m saying that absolute nothing cannot spontaneously produce something, therefore there must have been some intervention by a being capable of making such a thing occur. Other readers understood this point.

 

[JerryLove]

No, you’re taking things out of context & twisting them to be argumentative. There is no conflict other than what you are creating. I’m saying that absolute nothing cannot spontaneously produce something, therefore there must have been some intervention by a being capable of making such a thing occur.

You have a premise: from nothing, something (creatio ex nihilo ).

There are two significant problems with this premise. One external, one internal.

The external problem is that it assumes that something did indeed come from nothing. A fact certainly not in evidence.

The internal problem is that your "solution" starts with a conflicting premise: something.
The "something" no longer came "from nothing", but rather "from God".

So you've presented a problem as real that may not be, but then failed to solve your own problem.

I believe other readers understood this point.No, you’re taking things out of context & twisting them to be argumentative. There is no conflict other than what you are creating. I’m saying that absolute nothing cannot spontaneously produce something, therefore there must have been some intervention by a being capable of making such a thing occur. Other readers understood this point.

That's not a logical conclusion. If something exists now, and it's impossible for something to come into existence ex nihilo then the only conclusion is that something always exists.

Of course, you have simply taken for granted that your assumptions are true. If they are not, the logical conclusion of them is irrelevant.

and please, let's try to keep the ad hominems at a minimum.

 

[lsiberian]

Entrechment in positions is Solid

JerryLove stated Luther and John Calvin as believing the earth was the center of the universe based on the bible. I'd be interested in the sources for both statements.

I remind you they are only 2 of the many theologians in the reformation. Both share similar views free will and while their positive contributions to society were significant. Neither were scientists and this topic was not central to their ministries. The bible is not a scientific document. If you read it as such you will not understand it. I can't seem to get this across.

Also you argue that the Genesis passage must be taken literally. It seems you have no trouble arguing Christian belief while not subscribing to it.

Having read the bible there really isn't a scientific passage where the orientation of the earth and the sun is mentioned. If you've discovered it feel free to point it out to me.

The quoted scientific passages are usually taken from poetic passages.

Jesus didn't come to teach people science he came to bring salvation. This is the central point of Christianity.

Your(including me) view of man's origin are going to slant you to seeing things your way and to explaining away the weaknesses of your position. Some people perceive God in a sunset. Some people perceive the mathematical and scientific reason for the sunsets beauty. Which are both fascinating.

Reminds me of my paper on why the sky is blue.

 

[highfigh]

The founders of the reformation: two of the most significant Biblical scholars in history, were absolutely convinced it said so.

Further, as far as I can tell, not a single person in all of history believed that the Earth orbited the sun as the result of reading the Bible.

From Wiki, "In 1633 Galileo Galilei was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture,"[45] and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life." This was almost 60 years after Copernicus died (1543) just as his book was published and while the information existed for that time, it was probably due to Galileo's prominence that it took so long for the Church to make this move.

Reading anything results in the reader interpreting it in some way. The Pope and others in the RC Church obviously came to the conclusion that the Sun revolves around the Earth, or they would never have been so strongly against the Copernican theory.

 

[JerryLove]

JerryLove stated Luther and John Calvin as believing the earth was the center of the universe based on the bible. I'd be interested in the sources for both statements.

The source would be their own statement. Some cites:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=martin+luther+copernicus&aq=f&aqi=g1&oq=&fp=69ff31901b811ad

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth." - http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit3/response.html

"[Those who assert that] the earth moves and turns ... [are motivated by] a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding; [possessed by the devil, they aimed] to pervert the order of nature." -- John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, cited in William J Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait

I remind you they are only 2 of the many theologians in the reformation. Both share similar views free will and while their positive contributions to society were significant. Neither were scientists and this topic was not central to their ministries. The bible is not a scientific document. If you read it as such you will not understand it. I can't seem to get this across.

I did not claim it was a scientific document. I responded to the following:

The Bible is not a science book but it does support science. When you read it you find out that the Bible mentioned long time ago that the earth is round.​

I did so by showing two major theologians, held in such high regard that entire branches of Christianity are named after them, who felt that the Bible did make a specific statement here.

Also you argue that the Genesis passage must be taken literally. It seems you have no trouble arguing Christian belief while not subscribing to it.

I have not argued that anything must be taken literally. I've merely extended the arguments of others to see if they are consistent.

Having read the bible there really isn't a scientific passage where the orientation of the earth and the sun is mentioned. If you've discovered it feel free to point it out to me.

Martin Luther seemed to like Job; though clearly Genesis spells out their orientations. A hole was created in the eternal deep called "sky", and the waters below sky parted to form earth, and in the dome of the sky were set the lights: the sun, moon, and stars.

But as I said, I'm more interested in the consistency or lack thereof of a stated position. The Bible isn't a poster here and so has none.

The quoted scientific passages are usually taken from poetic passages.

Are you asserting that the non-poetic passages are factually accurate? OK. What is the rule to tell if I'm reading a poetic or non-poetic passage? Why didn't previous Biblical scholars seem to be able to tell them apart?

Jesus didn't come to teach people science he came to bring salvation. This is the central point of Christianity.

It does seem to be one of the central messages of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; yes.

Your(including me) view of man's origin are going to slant you to seeing things your way and to explaining away the weaknesses of your position. Some people perceive God in a sunset. Some people perceive the mathematical and scientific reason for the sunsets beauty. Which are both fascinating.

And some perceive better sound in more expensive cables.

 

[CraigV]

You have a premise: from nothing, something (creatio ex nihilo ).

There are two significant problems with this premise. One external, one internal.

The external problem is that it assumes that something did indeed come from nothing. A fact certainly not in evidence.

The internal problem is that your "solution" starts with a conflicting premise: something.
The "something" no longer came "from nothing", but rather "from God".

So you've presented a problem as real that may not be, but then failed to solve your own problem.

That's not a logical conclusion. If something exists now, and it's impossible for something to come into existence ex nihilo then the only conclusion is that something always exists.

Of course, you have simply taken for granted that your assumptions are true. If they are not, the logical conclusion of them is irrelevant.

and please, let's try to keep the ad hominems at a minimum.

OK, I’ll put it this way – the issue is how did everything come into being. People seem to be divided into two camps – creationism (to some degree) or random evolution. As you stated, something (or someone for lack of better term) had to exist first, and this is where the divide is- either a small particle, or a supernatural being. I can accept the notion of a being who has no beginning or end existing and putting into motion the elements that would become what we would call “The Universe”. What I can’t abide by is the notion that a particle just came into being from out of (literally) nowhere, exploded, expanded, condensed…etc. This idea leaves many unanswered questions, like did time & space come into existence during the BB? Did time & space have to exist first, for the particle to have somewhere & some when to be? Or, is God time & space, or did he create it? Does this creator exist separate from the physical universe, on a different plane we have yet to experience (upon the death of our mortal bodies as some would suggest)? And if there is a creator, how much did “he” intervene with our coming into being? I don’t have the answers, I’m just throwing out some of my ideas, and hoping people who read them will simply try and see things from a different point of view, and consider other possibilities.

 

[lsiberian]

And some perceive better sound in more expensive cables.

So you can prove there is no God?

I can prove expensive cables don't sound better with an SPL Meter or double blind test.

If you want to say you don't believe in God because there is no proof that's your choice, but I see no reason not to believe in God.

 

[jamie2112]

My god how did I get here..............(David Byrne)

 

[lsiberian]

My god how did I get here..............(David Byrne)

A priest falls on hard times and is forced to sell his beloved horse. He explains to the new owner, "Remember now, you say, "Praise the Lord" to go and "Amen" to stop."
"Okay, I've got it!" the new owner says, and says, "Giddap" to no result. "Oh yeah, Praise the Lord" he says, and the horse starts off. This is nice, but I'd like to go a bit faster, he says to himself, so he says, "Praise the Lord" again, and goes a bit faster. This continues a few more times until he is running along very fast. There is a cliff ahead.

"Stop, Whoa, Stop, Oh yeah, Amen!!!!!"

The horse stops an inch from the edge of the cliff.

The guy wipes his brow and sighs, "Praise the Lord".

 

[redass]

So you can prove there is no God?

I can prove expensive cables don't sound better with an SPL Meter or double blind test.

If you want to say you don't believe in God because there is no proof that's your choice, but I see no reason not to believe in God.

how do you prove that you are measuring everything the human ear (OR HUMAN SOULS) can perceive? maybe music output with awesome cables can reach the soul better. I can make **** up alllllllllllll day long. well, I could if I wanted to, but I don't wanna.

 

[CraigV]

I can prove expensive cables don't sound better with an SPL Meter or double blind test.

If you want to say you don't believe in God because there is no proof that's your choice, but I see no reason not to believe in God.

Are you saying there’s no room for “faith” or “belief” in the idea that different equipment sounds different? Is there really a difference between such a notion and a belief in the divine?

 

[JerryLove]

OK, I’ll put it this way – the issue is how did everything come into being.

The state of existence prior to just after the big bang? I have absolutely no idea.

People seem to be divided into two camps – creationism (to some degree) or random evolution.

Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the universe. You don't seem to have asked me a question about evolution.

As you stated, something (or someone for lack of better term) had to exist first, and this is where the divide is- either a small particle, or a supernatural being.

I said that if something cannot create spontaneously from nothing, and if there is something now, then there must always be something.

I did not say ex nihilo creation was impossible. I have no idea. You said it. I simply discussed the ramifications of that assumption.

I can accept the notion of a being who has no beginning or end existing and putting into motion the elements that would become what we would call “The Universe”. What I can’t abide by is the notion that a particle just came into being from out of (literally) nowhere, exploded, expanded, condensed…etc. This idea leaves many unanswered questions, like did time & space come into existence during the BB? Did time & space have to exist first, for the particle to have somewhere & some when to be? Or, is God time & space, or did he create it? Does this creator exist separate from the physical universe, on a different plane we have yet to experience (upon the death of our mortal bodies as some would suggest)? And if there is a creator, how much did “he” intervene with our coming into being? I don’t have the answers, I’m just throwing out some of my ideas, and hoping people who read them will simply try and see things from a different point of view, and consider other possibilities.

From reading that it seems to me you think something is false because it means you will lack knowledge of it (god must have done it because otherwise we don't know what happened)? That seems an unsustainable standard.

I generally base my beliefs on what can be established or reasonably inferred. There's a good amount of induction in there as well for the sake of sanity.

You are welcome to believe whatever you like: but if you are going to argue for an outcome and expect it to be compelling, you will need a shared set of presumptions.

I don't think that the fact I cannot know about before the big bang necessitates a God so that I can know. I find it entirely possible that the origin of the universe prior to the big bang is unknowable. You seem to have built your case on the argument that reality must be known or else it is untrue.

 

[JerryLove]

So you can prove there is no God?

I can prove expensive cables don't sound better with an SPL Meter or double blind test.

But what if you couldn't because performing a double-blind test was impossible? Would the fact that you couldn't test to see if it was true or not mean it must be true?

If you want to say you don't believe in God because there is no proof that's your choice, but I see no reason not to believe in God.

Go find where I said that God didn't create the pre-big-bang universe, or where I said that God did not exist. I'll wait.

...

You didn't find it did you? I didn't say there was or was not a God. I've only spoken of the errors in the arguments presented; and make no mistake, they are logically fallacious (or based on unestablished premises).

Do you see a reason to not believe in underpants gnomes?

 

[lsiberian]

But what if you couldn't because performing a double-blind test was impossible? Would the fact that you couldn't test to see if it was true or not mean it must be true?

Go find where I said that God didn't create the pre-big-bang universe, or where I said that God did not exist. I'll wait.

Key word, "If you want to say..." Not you said.

That is only one reason for my belief in God.

Tradition, Scripture, Reason and Experience are all sources of my belief.

This is known in theology as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

 

[CraigV]

I said that if something cannot create spontaneously from nothing, and if there is something now, then there must always be something.

I did not say ex nihilo creation was impossible. I have no idea. You said it. I simply discussed the ramifications of that assumption.

From reading that it seems to me you think something is false because it means you will lack knowledge of it (god must have done it because otherwise we don't know what happened)? That seems an unsustainable standard.

I generally base my beliefs on what can be established or reasonably inferred. There's a good amount of induction in there as well for the sake of sanity.

You are welcome to believe whatever you like: but if you are going to argue for an outcome and expect it to be compelling, you will need a shared set of presumptions.

I don't think that the fact I cannot know about before the big bang necessitates a God so that I can know. I find it entirely possible that the origin of the universe prior to the big bang is unknowable. You seem to have built your case on the argument that reality must be known or else it is untrue.

But in all your arguments, you have not been able to explain how this elemental practical came into being in the first place. And I don’t buy into the idea that it existed all along. It’s the difference between what can be quantifiably measured & detected and not – my faith & belief leads be to believe in divinity, not as a cop out, but as the only reasonable explanation. I still don’t think God had as active a role in how the universe turned out as many other people, but that is my belief.

 

[lsiberian]

Do you see a reason to not believe in underpants gnomes?

Yes I've never experienced the presence of underpants gnomes, there isn't a tradition of believing in underpants gnomes, and I don't see them mentioned in scripture.

Perhaps you could share your source for belief in underpants gnomes.

 

[lsiberian]

how do you prove that you are measuring everything the human ear (OR HUMAN SOULS) can perceive? maybe music output with awesome cables can reach the soul better. I can make **** up alllllllllllll day long. well, I could if I wanted to, but I don't wanna.

Testing cables seems easier than testing God's existence. From a physical standpoint. Of course from a spiritual point their is no doubt in my mind. That's why it's so confusing. How do others not know?

But Cables can make a difference if a person believes they do. It's the crazy effect. I know people try to equate God to this, but I don't see how the two honestly compare.

 

[CraigV]

But Cables can make a difference if a person believes they do. It's the crazy effect. I know people try to equate God to this, but I don't see how the two honestly compare.

BUT – If God got into the business of making speaker cable…

j/k man

 

[lsiberian]

BUT – If God got into the business of making speaker cable…

j/k man

Come on we all know he uses monoprice.com

His subs make Basspigg's setup look small.