RE: Define God

RE: Define God (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Brain -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 4:08:00 AM)
The fact that you used the word ain’t tells me a lot about you. You not only do not understand science but you haven’t learned grammar either and I am correct not to waste my time discussing this with you. I should have called myself neurology because that’s what I meant when I used the word brain. I am interested in neurology but it’s too much trouble to change it now.

Brain -> RE: What top and God (8/6/2009 4:11:27 AM)
Of course you don't want to read the links because you don't want to disagree with Einstein. Obviously you know more than he does or did.

Rule -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 4:21:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brain The fact that you used the word ain’t tells me a lot about you. You not only do not understand science but you haven’t learned grammar either and I am correct not to waste my time discussing this with you. Yove complettedly knowed mesself, ain't yoo? [8D] quote: ORIGINAL: Brain I should have called myself neurology because that’s what I meant when I used the word brain. I am interested in neurology but it’s too much trouble to change it now. Tsk, tsk, tsk, Brain. [sm=confused.gif]

Brain -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 4:23:06 AM)
Sure, in your fantasy model that you will never be to prove because it never happened. Just like you can't prove that there is a God because there is no scientific evidence whatsoever any such thing exists except in the imagination of humans. quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 But the origin of life is seperate from the fact of evolution. Not necessarily so. In my model of the origin of life there was a pre-biotic evolution.

Rule -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 4:27:56 AM)
The winner is: tazzygirl! [sm=champ.gif] Sorry Brain, you lost. Bye. [sm=abducted.gif]

Brain -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 4:36:24 AM)
You say I lost, I didn't realize I was playing a game, but in your imaginary world tell it to Einstein. lol

stella41b -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 4:42:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brain Science and Religion are Not Compatible Cosmic Variance Discover Magazine The reason why science and religion are actually incompatible is that, in the real world, they reach incompatible conclusions. It’s worth noting that this incompatibility is perfectly evident to any fair-minded person who cares to look. Different religions make very different claims, but they typically end up saying things like “God made the universe in six days” or “Jesus died and was resurrected” or “Moses parted the red sea” or “dead souls are reincarnated in accordance with their karmic burden.” And science says: none of that is true. So there you go, incompatibility. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/06/23/science-and-religion-are-not-compatible/ Statements such as 'God made the universe in six days' and 'Moses parted the Red Sea' and all such statements aren't claims but metaphors. To me nobody other than a complete numpty would ever contemplate taking these statements literally. The Bible, just as with other religious texts is chock full of such metaphors, accounts and stories because they are to be read and interpreted so as to get the underlying message . I mean, was there a human egg once called Humpty Dumpty who fell off a wall? Ever seen one? Ever see a cat play a fiddle or a cow jump over the Moon? Do items in your cutlery drawer bugger off and run away with themselves? Of course not. This is why there's such things as Bible Study classes in church, this is why we are all taught reading comprehension at school, so as we can read the words, pick up the inferences, process the information and draw our own conclusions, arriving at our own thoughts. Therefore it's patently obvious to any fair-minded person that God didn't literally create the Universe in six days, but is meant to make the statement that God is infinitely more creative and powerful than you are, and that Moses in parting the Red Sea was facing a task which seemed impossible at that time. Your claim that creating the Universe in six days and parting the Red Sea is not scientifically possible amounts to not much more than stating the obvious.

tazzygirl -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 6:52:06 AM)
The Bible is a beautifully written story... and its just that. Designed to give a moral compass to the masses and to explain much of what they were questioning around them but the church had no answers too. Do i believe the world is only 6000 years old? nope Dinasaurs roamed the earth, and not in the company of modern day man. I also believe the world took a bit longer than 6 days to create. Having said that, i also believe the bible is filled with facts, intermingled among the stories, that miracles do happen ( ex: spontaneous remission ) and that left to their own devices, many people would seek out the bible as a tool for comfort. its not the bible, or religion, that is bad, evil, devious, ect. its the people that lead, that preach, that insist they have all the answers that the masses are seeking. Many things from the Bible are historical fact. The 40 days jesus was in the desert... i doubt it was for 40 days only, but he is talked about in other religions. To put down religion, god, jesus, the bible, the torah, ect, as evil... and proofs that those who believe are crazy because so and so taught the bible and did this bad thing (Jim Jones comes to mind) is a fallacy. words cannot kill, they cannot destroy, those who profess to know can. when times are bad, like now, and people are losing everything around them, some tend to look to a higher power for strength and understanding. its at these times that people are the most believing, and the most taken advantage of. i tried to imagine a world without religion. what so many wish to see come about... and its rather scary. religion tends to prevent alot of bad things from happeninng. i would go so far as to say many people do not act on the impulses they have because of their fear of the afterlife. and i dont see that as such a bad thing.

GotSteel -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 8:03:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterHermes Today most of the people become atheist because they have certain problems with religions. They found a safe harbor in science. Unfortunately , these people are so hurt, so angry, they never wonder what is the source of this harmony which also creates the physical laws in the universe. [8\|] The reason I don't believe in your mumbo jumbo isn't because I'm "so hurt" and "so angry", it's because your "science" isn't science. Please stop putting out that malicious propaganda.

lynk09 -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 8:21:59 AM)
quote: As I recall one of Behe's favorite "irreducibly complex" systems was the eye, which, as I said, has been bebunked. No , Behe never mentioned the eye as an example of irreducible complexity so it's impossible that he could've been debunked, with regard to the eye. quote: "Indirect pathways" are just a fall back when there is evidence of evolution but he doesnt want to admit it. No, it's a simple consequence of the definition. If you have a system A+B+C+D that elicits a function X, and that system irreducibly complex, then you cannot remove any part A through D without losing function X. However, that doesn't mean that A+B+C doesn't do anything at all. A+B+C might have a different function Y. quote: Wildly improbably things dont happen every day? NZ's earlier bridge hand is a perfect example, the probability of any one hand happening is less than 1 in 600 billion. Every time one is dealt that result is wildly improbable, yet it happened. And yet, no one's jaw drops just because they get a hum drum bridge hand. However, if I were to get a hand where each card was of the same suit, I would be astonished. There is a reason for that, because that hand is a low-probability event with special properties. There are so many possible ways to get a hum drum bridge hand, if you were to make a formula and take this into account, I would suspect that the probability would turn to be very large for a hum drum bridge hand, and very small for a hand where all the cards are of the same suit. It is because that low probability event has structure to it. But at any rate, I would agree that Bridge hands are very improbable events, that is why the game never gets boring.

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 8:22:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: Brain Science and Religion are Not Compatible Cosmic Variance Discover Magazine The reason why science and religion are actually incompatible is that, in the real world, they reach incompatible conclusions. It’s worth noting that this incompatibility is perfectly evident to any fair-minded person who cares to look. Different religions make very different claims, but they typically end up saying things like “God made the universe in six days” or “Jesus died and was resurrected” or “Moses parted the red sea” or “dead souls are reincarnated in accordance with their karmic burden.” And science says: none of that is true. So there you go, incompatibility. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/06/23/science-and-religion-are-not-compatible/ Gee, another quote. I guess you read tazzygirl's posts? It is quite simple: science investigates causal relationships, whereas spirituality and religions study non-causal relationships. As for the text quote that I made bold: these things were witnessed and happened (as for the 'red' sea: it parted for Moses, not by Moses; I dunno that it says anywhere that God made the universe in six days. It says that he made heaven and Earth in six days - that is something else entirely). So there! Science that! The death of Christ was not witnessed, if it was witnessed not by the Matthew, Mark, Luke and Johh. The gospels were written by anonymous authors 70-90 years after the death of Christ. When writing their stories it is widely accepted they shared a common document amongst them known as the "the book of Q". Regardless the suggestion that the gospels are witness accounts is foolish and demonstrates ignorance of this religions history I have defined god - BTW..

lynk09 -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 8:30:24 AM)
quote: If I understand you, we agree...evolution isnt seperate from the origin of life and may in fact have led to it. That's an oxymoron, evolution deals with what happened after life arose, not before it. Evolution cannot work without a self-replicating system.

Rule -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 8:39:22 AM)
The gospels are heavily edited. As for Jesus: those present accepted that he died on the cross. He was buried. Later the grave was found open and his corpse was not inside. Later still sceptical Thomas put his fingers in the wounds of the living Jesus and so convinced himself that it was indeed Jesus. Thus the people at the time were certain that he had died and that he had been resurrected. It was an event that changed the course of world history and that contributed to Christian civilizations to become the dominant civilizations of the past centuries. It does not matter that I can think of a hypothetical way for Jesus to have survived his crucifixion. However, it is easier to assume that he had indeed died and that he indeed was made to live again.

lynk09 -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 8:39:53 AM)
quote: The gospels were written by anonymous authors 70-90 years after the death of Christ. The fragment 7Q5, which is from gospel of Mark, suggests that the gospels were completed before 70 AD, which means that people who wrote the gospels were eyewitnesses to the events. quote: When writing their stories it is widely accepted they shared a common document amongst them known as the "the book of Q". Regardless the suggestion that the gospels are witness accounts is foolish and demonstrates ignorance of this religions history Well of course they had a common source, Jesus's mother Mary, who was with Jesus till the very end.

mnottertail -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 8:45:01 AM)
Well, there is good reason to doubt that any of this is true, such a miraculous life and events occuring, yet there is no mention of any of this in any historical documentation, no statues erected, no carvings from the times............. R

lynk09 -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 8:53:33 AM)
How about the fastest growing religion the world has ever seen.

Rule -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 8:57:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 The fragment 7Q5, which is from gospel of Mark, suggests that the gospels were completed before 70 AD, which means that people who wrote the gospels were eyewitnesses to the events. By that time most witnesses had died - except John. Lucas was no witness himself; he collected testimonies from those who were witnesses and still lived, or from their descendants. I think that Matthias was one of the original evangelists? I am not sure if I recall correctly, but I seem to recall that his gospel ended up in Rome and was heavily edited? Mark appears to not have been one of the original twelve. Maybe he was a student of Petrus? In any case his gospel also ended up in Rome and it had the same fate as that of Matthias. Or maybe Mark edited Matthias gospel? (It has been 22 years ago since I studied these things.)

mnottertail -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 9:00:13 AM)
Well the housing bubble was pretty big too, people belived that home values would rise and rise and it turned out to be way less than accurate. The fact that you have never seen a faster growing religion in this world (or any other) is not a necessary and sufficient condition to accept the veracity that this 'god' as related in the 'bible' is extant. Nor am I convinced that it is the fastest growing religion in the world, you got all them chinese buddhists and whatnot to contend with. Ron (smiles)

lynk09 -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 9:08:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 The fragment 7Q5, which is from gospel of Mark, suggests that the gospels were completed before 70 AD, which means that people who wrote the gospels were eyewitnesses to the events. By that time most witnesses had died - except John. Lucas was no witness himself; he collected testimonies from those who were witnesses and still lived, or from their descendants. I think that Matthias was one of the original evangelists? I am not sure if I recall correctly, but I seem to recall that his gospel ended up in Rome and was heavily edited? Mark appears to not have been one of the original twelve. Maybe he was a student of Petrus? In any case his gospel also ended up in Rome and it had the same fate as that of Matthias. Or maybe Mark edited Matthias gospel? (It has been 22 years ago since I studied these things.) There is a stream of evidence from two sources that suggest copies of the gospels already existed by 50 AD, which means the originals were written well within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses, starting with Magdalene, Peter and John, the two on the way to Emmaus, and the twelve.

Rule -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 9:14:53 AM)
The New Testament has nothing to do with the God of the Jews in the Old Testament. In any case, he had been murdered many centuries before the birth of Jesus. Of course he probably was resurrected again, but being murdered is effectively a dethronement for a ruling god. I know two of his avatars, one I never met in person, the other very well. Nice chap.

Page: << < prev 15 16 [17] 18 19 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125