General Discussion on Intelligent Design vs. "Everything Magically appearing"

[darin]

Few questions I've pondered...what're your thoughts?

Who taught or how did Adam learn to speak?

Why would God not have created a Female human immediately - as he did with the animals?

Why would Adam seek other creation for a 'helper' or 'companion' before God decided to create Woman?

How did the author of Genesis account for conversations between folks who existed prior to his life? Said another way, was the Author listening to God and transcribing the conversation?

Does Creation starting in the Oceans and Adam 'looking for a helper' from land animals lend credence to macro evolution?

Do you think BigFoot could be "Cain"?


God said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?"

He said, "How should I know? Am I his babysitter?"

10-12 God said, "What have you done! The voice of your brother's blood is calling to me from the ground. From now on you'll get nothing but curses from this ground; you'll be driven from this ground that has opened its arms to receive the blood of your murdered brother. You'll farm this ground, but it will no longer give you its best. You'll be a homeless wanderer on Earth."


15So the Lord said to him, “Not so! Anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” The Lord gave Cain a sign so that anyone meeting him would not kill him.

Why would God show mercy on Cain - and protect him, yet strike-dead others who did 'worse' things than murder?

[Noir]

Well, obviously I dot believe in any of it lol, but they are interesting questions,

The one I find moat interesting is adam and eve not being made at the same time (As gen chapter 1 describes) however in gen chapter two they are made at the same time. Presumably one (or both imo) o the stories are wrong.

[SassyLady]

I've always wondered why there are so many ways to reproduce/replicate in this world (eggs, live birth, pollination, etc.).

If we did, indeed, evolve from a single cell organism how/when/why was it decided there needed to be a male and female to propagate a species? Why not evolve into hermorphodites, like the earthworm?

[Noir]

I've always wondered why there are so many ways to reproduce/replicate in this world (eggs, live birth, pollination, etc.).

If we did, indeed, evolve from a single cell organism how/when/why was it decided there needed to be a male and female to propagate a species? Why not evolve into hermorphodites, like the earthworm?


I'm not certain on the details tbh, but I think species with multiple sexs are better at adapting (and thus surviving) due to the crossing and mixing of genes.

[SassyLady]

I'm not certain on the details tbh, but I think species with multiple sexs are better at adapting (and thus surviving) due to the crossing and mixing of genes.

Which is why the earthworm is an endangered species?

Why didn't organisms just develop the ability to replicate themselves..or body parts that are damaged ... wouldn't that be less complicated than evolving into different sexes with different ways of reproducing?

This has always been a question of mine when it comes to evolution.

[Noir]

Which is why the earthworm is an endangered species?

Why didn't organisms just develop the ability to replicate themselves..or body parts that are damaged ... wouldn't that be less complicated than evolving into different sexes with different ways of reproducing?

This has always been a question of mine when it comes to evolution.


Having done a brief web search it seems there is a trade off to be had. The more sexs you have the faster you can adapt between generations, however, it also increases the risk of (unhelpful) mutations, most (but not all) species have settled on either 1 or 2 sexs.

And plenty of organisms can replicate themselves or grow back lost limbs, it just so happens humans don't/can't.

[SassyLady]

Having done a brief web search it seems there is a trade off to be had. The more sexs you have the faster you can adapt between generations, however, it also increases the risk of (unhelpful) mutations, most (but not all) species have settled on either 1 or 2 sexs.

And plenty of organisms can replicate themselves or grow back lost limbs, it just so happens humans don't/can't.

So, what you are saying is that from the single organism that started life, somewhere along the line it decided for itself that it would be better split up and have different sexes? Are you saying this complex decision/adaptation just "happened"?

Another question I've pondered is how the single organism managed to split up into so many different species of life?

Mind boggling.

[Noir]

So, what you are saying is that from the single organism that started life, somewhere along the line it decided for itself that it would be better split up and have different sexes? Are you saying this complex decision/adaptation just "happened"?

Another question I've pondered is how the single organism managed to split up into so many different species of life?

Mind boggling.

Yep, as I said idk the details.

It is truly crazy to think about, but then so many things are, I mean if I were to tell you that you and I and everything we ever see or feel is more than 99% nothingness or that it is possible for one electron to be in one place, and another, and both and neither at the same time you'd think I was mad, but they are.

Sometimes knowing more merely let's you know how much you don't know.

[SassyLady]

Yep, as I said idk the details.

It is truly crazy to think about, but then so many things are, I mean if I were to tell you that you and I and everything we ever see or feel is more than 99% nothingness or that it is possible for one electron to be in one place, and another, and both and neither at the same time you'd think I was mad, but they are.

Sometimes knowing more merely let's you know how much you don't know.

Or perhaps there is an entity, or entities, out there somewhere that are responsible for the original design of life and has been tweaking it all along. Would you consider that possibility?

[Noir]

Or perhaps there is an entity, or entities, out there somewhere that are responsible for the original design of life and has been tweaking it all along. Would you consider that possibility?

Possible? Yes.
Probable? No.

And that's before you get anywhere near entities that care about what you eat and on what days, what positions you have sex in and with which sex, what days to keep holy or what parts of a babies flesh you saw off etc.

[SassyLady]

Possible? Yes.
Probable? No.

And that's before you get anywhere near entities that care about what you eat and on what days, what positions you have sex in and with which sex, what days to keep holy or what parts of a babies flesh you saw off etc.

I'm not talking about entities that are involved in day-to-day life ....perhaps they just tweak life here every millenium or so. Who knows.....I find that more probable than everything that IS ..... just happened and the complexity of what life is as we know it, was an accident. Just saying .....

[Noir]

I'm not talking about entities that are involved in day-to-day life ....perhaps they just tweak life here every millenium or so. Who knows.....I find that more probable than everything that IS ..... just happened and the complexity of what life is as we know it, was an accident. Just saying .....

See I think the argument from complexity shoots itself in the foot. 'Everything is just too complex, therefore I believe in an infinitely more complex deity to make all the really complex stuff that is otherwise unexplainable, and the deity itself does not need to be explained' that answers nothing, it doesn't even try.

[darin]

Noir has more faith in magic or pure dumb luck than the Pope has in God.

[fj1200]

See I think the argument from complexity shoots itself in the foot. 'Everything is just too complex, therefore I believe in an infinitely more complex deity to make all the really complex stuff that is otherwise unexplainable, and the deity itself does not need to be explained' that answers nothing, it doesn't even try.

How would you explain a deity?

[Noir]

How would you explain a deity?

By definition you can't, which is why they are bad answers, because they are no answer at all.

[Noir]

Noir has more faith in magic or pure dumb luck than the Pope has in God.

Silly comment is silly.

[fj1200]

By definition you can't, which is why they are bad answers, because they are no answer at all.

So since you can't explain a deity there isn't one?

[Noir]

So since you can't explain a deity there isn't one?

No. If you'd bothered to read my posts I said it was possible but not probable.

What I really don't understand is people saying the universe is too complex to explain, so they believe in an even more complex god that they can't explain. They're making the problem worse apparently without noticing or caring.

[fj1200]

No. If you'd bothered to read my posts I said it was possible but not probable.

I read your post and I've also gleaned your position on the issue.


What I really don't understand is people saying the universe is too complex to explain, so they believe in an even more complex god that they can't explain. They're making the problem worse apparently without noticing or caring.

I don't think anyone is saying that the universe is too complex to explain, they're saying that the complexity of the universe is an indication of a complex deity.

[Missileman]

Noir has more faith in magic or pure dumb luck than the Pope has in God.

LOL...the epitome of irony.

[Noir]

I read your post and I've also gleaned your position on the issue.

Inwhich case you should of known not to say something so silly as "...there isn't one?"



I don't think anyone is saying that the universe is too complex to explain, they're saying that the complexity of the universe is an indication of a complex deity.

Really? Then you haven't yet been subject to the joys of 'irreducible complexity' and other such nonsense.
In any end, adding a deity ALWAYS makes the system more complex, that is a truism. Therefore a system without a deity is a simpler one, and thus a more likey and probable one.

[SassyLady]

See I think the argument from complexity shoots itself in the foot. 'Everything is just too complex, therefore I believe in an infinitely more complex deity to make all the really complex stuff that is otherwise unexplainable, and the deity itself does not need to be explained' that answers nothing, it doesn't even try.

So, you are not willing to entertain the theory that there are more advanced entities than humans?

And, I did not refer to a deity at all. You are the one that keeps bringing things back to the existence of a deity or not. Why do you assume that a more advanced entity would be automatically a deity?



A deity<SUP id=cite_ref-0 class=reference>[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity#cite_note-0)</SUP> is a postulated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulate) preternatural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preternatural) or supernatural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural) immortal being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_being), who may be thought of as holy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy), divine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity), or sacred (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred), held in high regard, and respected by believers, often religiously referred to as a god (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God).

[Missileman]

I don't think anyone is saying that the universe is too complex to explain, they're saying that the complexity of the universe is an indication of a complex deity.

Both those amount to the same thing. The only reason to even entertain the existence of a deity is because we can't explain everything...yet.

[SassyLady]

Both those amount to the same thing. The only reason to even entertain the existence of a deity is because we can't explain everything...yet.

So, MM, are you saying that once the existence of a deity is explainable it will no longer be a deity?

[Noir]

So, you are not willing to entertain the theory that there are more advanced entities than humans?

And, I did not refer to a deity at all. You are the one that keeps bringing things back to the existence of a deity or not. Why do you assume that a more advanced entity would be automatically a deity?

Ofcourse I'm willing to believe that. For all I know we humans were seeded her by an Alien race and are part of an experiment, it's quiet possible, many many things are quiet possible. However, that alien race would of gad to of come into being by a natural process (or it's creators or it's creators...) eventually you will get to a starting point.

It's a fascinating idea, and more probable than the existence of any gods. But ofcourse as soon as someone brings it up people chuckle 'oh, he believes in little green men but not in god? *chuckle chuckle snot* >,>

[Missileman]

So, MM, are you saying that once the existence of a deity is explainable it will no longer be a deity?

Nope...once we can explain the origins of the universe and life there will no longer be a deity.

[SassyLady]

Nope...once we can explain the origins of the universe and life there will no longer be a deity.

OK ... got it. And, humans???

[Missileman]

OK ... got it. And, humans???

And humans what?

[SassyLady]

And humans what?

Once the origins of the universe is explained, we will still be humans or will we have evolved into something else?

[Kathianne]

Once the origins of the universe is explained, we will still be humans or will we have evolved into something else?

Exactly. I highly doubt we'll ever be able to 'explain everything' as MM implies. Even if 'we' could, still wouldn't change my belief of a greater power than ourselves, in spite of all explanations we may be capable of, over time.

It's the same reason I don't have a problem reconciling evolution and God, the former is just added evidence of a plan of God's. The reason for that plan, ahah, there's the mystery.

[Noir]

Exactly. I highly doubt we'll ever be able to 'explain everything' as MM implies. Even if 'we' could, still wouldn't change my belief of a greater power than ourselves, in spite of all explanations we may be capable of, over time.

It's the same reason I don't have a problem reconciling evolution and God, the former is just added evidence of a plan of God's. The reason for that plan, ahah, there's the mystery.

But when you can explain via natural means, why jam a god (unexplainable) god on?
In the same way we can explain why people get diseases, it is not trough curses or witchcraft etc, but by microbiological organisms. But despite this reasonable natural explanation, would you still say that curses are involved?

[fj1200]

Inwhich case you should of known not to say something so silly as "...there isn't one?"

You're right, I would have. However, I was seeking to better understand your logic in context of your statement, it seemed rather circular.


Really? Then you haven't yet been subject to the joys of 'irreducible complexity' and other such nonsense.
In any end, adding a deity ALWAYS makes the system more complex, that is a truism. Therefore a system without a deity is a simpler one, and thus a more likey and probable one.

I would like to say I haven't "been subject to ... other such nonsense" but that wouldn't explain my time spent at DP.

But taking the rest of your statement at face value, it would reinforce my posit. If their was no deity, the earth would be populated by self propagating earthworms but as we are blessed with a wondrous array of species with varying methods of reproduction, it may point to a higher power.

[PostmodernProphet]

Nope...once we can explain the origins of the universe and life there will no longer be a deity.

unless of course, the deity turns out to be the explanation.......

[PostmodernProphet]

But when you can explain via natural means

???????......you cannot......

[fj1200]

Both those amount to the same thing. The only reason to even entertain the existence of a deity is because we can't explain everything...yet.

No, one comes before the other.

However, even if we could "explain everything" it still does not eliminate the existence of a deity.

[fj1200]

Nope...once we can explain the origins of the universe and life there will no longer be a deity.

Why?

[darin]

Anyone care to create a 'Intelligent Design vs. Magic' thread elsewhere, and keep this thread about the questions in the OP?

[fj1200]

Anyone care to create a 'Intelligent Design vs. Magic' thread elsewhere, and keep this thread about the questions in the OP?

You can't control the evolution of a thread.

:poke:

[Noir]

Anyone care to create a 'Intelligent Design vs. Magic' thread elsewhere, and keep this thread about the questions in the OP?

Fairplay, it was an excellent thread OP that has gotten sommit lost in the last few pages.

[fj1200]

Few questions I've pondered...what're your thoughts?

Who taught or how did Adam learn to speak?

Taking the bible literally, God.


Why would God not have created a Female human immediately - as he did with the animals?

Did he intend for humans to multiply?


Why would Adam seek other creation for a 'helper' or 'companion' before God decided to create Woman?

Did he?


How did the author of Genesis account for conversations between folks who existed prior to his life? Said another way, was the Author listening to God and transcribing the conversation?

He merely recorded the oral accounts of others.


Does Creation starting in the Oceans and Adam 'looking for a helper' from land animals lend credence to macro evolution?

Yes, if you accept evolution AND creation.


Do you think BigFoot could be "Cain"?

That's weird.


Why would God show mercy on Cain - and protect him, yet strike-dead others who did 'worse' things than murder?

We talked about this in Sunday School a while back. I don't recall specifically other than the OT laws were in some part for protection of society. If you have no prison how do you keep society safe from murderers.

[Noir]

If you have no prison how do you keep society safe from murderers.

Build a prison?

[fj1200]

Build a prison?

Hunt. Gather. Build a prison.

Excellent suggestion.

[Noir]

Hunt. Gather. Build a prison.

Excellent suggestion.

Couldn't god of just magiced one up?

[darin]

Taking the bible literally, God.

The bible doesn't mention it. I suppose God can create men with the ability to speak.



Did he intend for humans to multiply?


Seems like an after-thought. Although the reason given for Eve was because man shouldn't be alone.



Did he?


Yes, according to the Bible.


He merely recorded the oral accounts of others.


of whom? Who are the sources?



That's weird.


Would explain a few things. :)



We talked about this in Sunday School a while back. I don't recall specifically other than the OT laws were in some part for protection of society. If you have no prison how do you keep society safe from murderers.

I think OT laws were meant to punish, not correct or 'keep-safe'

[Missileman]

Once the origins of the universe is explained, we will still be humans or will we have evolved into something else?

I'm not sure that we as a species need to evolve any further to be able to come up with the explanations. The evolution of our equipment and techniques are what will make it possible.


Exactly. I highly doubt we'll ever be able to 'explain everything' as MM implies. Even if 'we' could, still wouldn't change my belief of a greater power than ourselves, in spite of all explanations we may be capable of, over time.

It's the same reason I don't have a problem reconciling evolution and God, the former is just added evidence of a plan of God's. The reason for that plan, ahah, there's the mystery.

When the explanation of our creation turns out to not include a deity, what purpose would a deity serve at that point?


No, one comes before the other.

However, even if we could "explain everything" it still does not eliminate the existence of a deity.

It certainly would if all explanations are void of a deity.

[fj1200]

When the explanation of our creation turns out to not include a deity, what purpose would a deity serve at that point?

It certainly would if all explanations are void of a deity.

Which explanation would completely void any possibility of a deity?


Couldn't god of just magiced one up?

What would the point of that be?

Provide for themselves, mates, kids, elders, community, and the guy that murdered their friends and is locked up in a wooden pen?


The bible doesn't mention it. I suppose God can create men with the ability to speak.

He went for walks with God right?


Seems like an after-thought. Although the reason given for Eve was because man shouldn't be alone.

Did God get everything right the first time? Was the flood a "restart" for God?


Yes, according to the Bible.

I guess I'm not familiar with that part or what you're referring to.


of whom? Who are the sources?

Tradition says Moses wrote the first 5 books right? He could have transcribed the oral stories of his elders.


Would explain a few things. :)

OK.


I think OT laws were meant to punish, not correct or 'keep-safe'

But at the same time, don't they serve the purpose of protecting as well as punishing?

[Noir]

What would the point of that be?

Provide for themselves, mates, kids, elders, community, and the guy that murdered their friends and is locked up in a wooden pen?


There need be no point, this is the bible we're talking about, there doesn't need to be a reason other than it's what god wants.

[Missileman]

Which explanation would completely void any possibility of a deity?

If the origin of the universe and life in no way involves a deity, what purpose would one serve?

[fj1200]

If the origin of the universe and life in no way involves a deity, what purpose would one serve?

Again, what explanation would obviate any possibility of a deity?

[Missileman]

Again, what explanation would obviate any possibility of a deity?

Any scenario where the origin of the universe and life occurred without any guidance from a deity, though I guess an argument could be made that Santa Claus really does exist in a galaxy far far away.

Explain the function of this deity that wasn't the Creator.

[Kathianne]

Once the origins of the universe is explained, we will still be humans or will we have evolved into something else?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to mrskurtsprincess again.

:( I really that that!

[Noir]

Once the origins of the universe is explained, we will still be humans or will we have evolved into something else?

We'll still be humans, just humans with more knowledge.

[fj1200]

Any scenario where the origin of the universe and life occurred without any guidance from a deity, though I guess an argument could be made that Santa Claus really does exist in a galaxy far far away.

Explain the function of this deity that wasn't the Creator.

How would that be proven?

[bullypulpit]

Intelligent design is creationism gussied up in pseudo scientific claptrap which has not a shred of evidence to support it.

[Noir]

Intelligent design is creationism gussied up in pseudo scientific claptrap which has not a shred of evidence to support it.

Exactly, and ANYONE who disagrees need only look up the history of the publications of the Inteligent design textbook 'Pandas and people' to see how ID and creationism are EXACTLY the same.

[OldMercsRule]

See I think the argument from complexity shoots itself in the foot.

Not hardly....


'Everything is just too complex, therefore I believe in an infinitely more complex deity to make all the really complex stuff that is otherwise unexplainable,

An omniscient omnipotent unchanging God that has always existed is far more simple of a corncept then yer various religious beliefs evolution bein' one of yer main religions.


and the deity itself does not need to be explained'

What corncept owes you or any of us any explanation in other areas???? Explanations will eventually come from research.



that answers nothing, it doesn't even try.

It answers where you, all you can see comes from: Sport. :cool:

[Noir]

Not hardly....



An omniscient omnipotent unchanging God that has always existed is far more simple of a corncept then yer various religious beliefs evolution bein' one of yer main religions.

Lolololololol.
So you think a god, a being that is all powerful, knows everything and anything that can ever be known, exists outside if space and time, and can imagine up a universe at a whim is simple? :laugh: but something like evolution by natural selection, which we can map, understand and predict is just too complex?


What corncept owes you or any of us any explanation in other areas???? Explanations will eventually come from research.

So you think we will be able yo explain a god through research?
What about all the research that points to natural selection?




It answers where you, all you can see comes from: Sport. :cool:

No it doesn't. It's a non-answer. In the same way that gods didn't answer why volcaneos erupted or why disease spread or why the sun rose and fell in the sky etc.

[PostmodernProphet]

Exactly, and ANYONE who disagrees need only look up the history of the publications of the Inteligent design textbook 'Pandas and people' to see how ID and creationism are EXACTLY the same.

not true, of course.....there are some subsections of "creationist" that cannot tolerate the broadness of "intelligent design" because it does not require a literal translation of Gen 1:2 through 2:1.......

[PostmodernProphet]

Lolololololol.
So you think a god, a being that is all powerful, knows everything and anything that can ever be known, exists outside if space and time, and can imagine up a universe at a whim is simple? :laugh: but something like evolution by natural selection, which we can map, understand and predict is just too complex?

I would say that summarizes it for me quite succinctly.......of course you've overlooked quite a bit with your limiting your side to merely natural selection.......you would also have to consider the complexity of the origin of life, the origin of the universe and the origin of certain natural laws



So you think we will be able yo explain a god through research?
What about all the research that points to natural selection?

no, we think you will be unable to explain all the complexities you must explain through research......

[Noir]

not true, of course.....there are some subsections of "creationist" that cannot tolerate the broadness of "intelligent design" because it does not require a literal translation of Gen 1:2 through 2:1.......

Indeed, but just because some extremists don't agree with ID does nor mean that ID and Creationism are not two words for he same thing. Have you read the creationist Pandas and people and then the ID pandas and people (the one they want taught in schools)?

[Noir]

I would say that summarizes it for me quite succinctly.......of course you've overlooked quite a bit with your limiting your side to merely natural selection.......you would also have to consider the complexity of the origin of life, the origin of the universe and the origin of certain natural laws


no, we think you will be unable to explain all the complexities you must explain through research......

Well I say you're a fool, on the one hand you want you god to be amazing, the most amazing being that could ever exist, all powerful, all knowing, with Mastery over everything and anything that both exists and does not. Then in the next breath say 'oh, but she is simple, don't you see?' >,>

[revelarts]

Few questions I've pondered...what're your thoughts?

Who taught or how did Adam learn to speak?

Why would God not have created a Female human immediately - as he did with the animals?

Why would Adam seek other creation for a 'helper' or 'companion' before God decided to create Woman?

How did the author of Genesis account for conversations between folks who existed prior to his life? Said another way, was the Author listening to God and transcribing the conversation?

Does Creation starting in the Oceans and Adam 'looking for a helper' from land animals lend credence to macro evolution?

Do you think BigFoot could be "Cain"?


Why would God show mercy on Cain - and protect him, yet strike-dead others who did 'worse' things than murder?

I've only read the 1st couple of pages here. I'll read the rest later but i wanted to comment on your 1st questions.





Who taught or how did Adam learn to speak?
Obviously God. Why is it that we can imagine that a Matrix like learning system is right around the corner, where information is, in seconds, flooded into the mind , but Somehow God can't teach Adam to speak plus anything else he wanted him to know At creation. What's so hard to believe about Adam being created Pre-formated with information?

Why would God not have created a Female human immediately - as he did with the animals?
IF your Asking for an Opinion I could give you a few but they'd be more devotional and speculative than factual. God doesn't say so I don't know. Is there any reason why he has to do it the other way?


Why would Adam seek other creation for a 'helper' or 'companion' before God decided to create Woman?
Extension of the above question, much the same Answer. Again my answers would be more devotional than factual or expositional. Why would God Have to do it another way?


How did the author of Genesis account for conversations between folks who existed prior to his life? Said another way, was the Author listening to God and transcribing the conversation?

Exodus 3
4And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.
5And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.
6Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.
Exodus 31
7And the LORD said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows;

"And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God."

Those are just 2 of the many places where God spoke and Wrote directly to people. What's the problem with God , who taught man to speak, being able to speak and convey conversations and information that ONLY he would be privy to.


Does Creation starting in the Oceans and Adam 'looking for a helper' from land animals lend credence to macro evolution?
No. However I do get the connection that's been made with the Ocean ref. but "looking for a helper" not at all, that's a classic rebut to evolution, the question of how did evolution create the sexes. you can't roam around for millions of years looking for a mate.

Do you think BigFoot could be "Cain"?

Har har


Why would God show mercy on Cain - and protect him, yet strike-dead others who did 'worse' things than murder?
Why should he have mercy on anyone?
God will have mercy on who he will have mercy.
He'll even have mercy on you too if you ask him to forgive you and believe on the lord Jesus Christ to wash away your sins. Large and small.

[PostmodernProphet]

Indeed, but just because some extremists don't agree with ID does nor mean that ID and Creationism are not two words for he same thing.

uh, actually, yes it does by any application of logic....if A does not equal B then you cannot argue that A equals B.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Well I say you're a fool, on the one hand you want you god to be amazing, the most amazing being that could ever exist, all powerful, all knowing, with Mastery over everything and anything that both exists and does not. Then in the next breath say 'oh, but she is simple, don't you see?' >,>

that does not change the fact that in your argument you have misrepresented that which you must hold as less complex.....

you believe her to be more complex because you believe something or someone must have "built" God.....We believe God simply "was".......and yes, that is amazing.....

[revelarts]

Noir,

So your saying that the
naturalist explanation of SUPER complex creatures and cosmos Popping into existences over a looooong time.
from Nothing

is simpler than

the Biblical or ID explanation of SUPER complex creatures and cosmos Popping into existences over a short time.
from an Always Existent Super entity

And therefore it's a better and more likely explanation?

But then you mention electrons and not being where they are, as unlikely but true
It seems that the simplest explanation is not always the true one, at least in some cases.
And I'm not so sure that your explanation is simpler.
------



Both those amount to the same thing. The only reason to even entertain the existence of a deity is because we can't explain everything...yet.

Nope...once we can explain the origins of the universe and life there will no longer be a deity.

I'm not sure that we as a species need to evolve any further to be able to come up with the explanations. The evolution of our equipment and techniques are what will make it possible.

When the explanation of our creation turns out to not include a deity, what purpose would a deity serve at that point?

If the origin of the universe and life in no way involves a deity, what purpose would one serve?


Arguments from my hope. From future experiments, future knowledge that we might get. will prove my point. ONE DAY, you'll see... maybe not you .. but your kids ... If we survive...
Yes we can
I may not get there with You...
Keep on trucking!
Do. Do not. There is no try.
There is no Spoon
Ignorance is strength

Sorry MM I had to go there.
I do appreciate your honest assessment of humanity's lack of scientific certainty at this point, it's refreshing.

[revelarts]

Once the origins of the universe is explained, we will still be humans or will we have evolved into something else?

This is Fantastic!
:dance:

[OldMercsRule]

Lolololololol.
So you think a god, a being that is all powerful, knows everything and anything that can ever be known, exists outside if space and time, and can imagine up a universe at a whim is simple? :laugh:

Yes the corncept of an all powerful God that has always existed, who sets the physical rules of the universe and kick starts it is a simple corncept that makes a great deal of sense and fits what we have observed.


but something like evolution by natural selection,

That does not fit what we observe nor does it make sense. The creator may have set some rules that could also use some evolution within the creator's plan as well.


which we can map, understand and predict is just too complex?

Understand??? Yasureyabetcha Map???? If ya make up a bunch of silly chit n' change it everytime there is a discovery that blows up the theory.
Predict???? When ya jus make chit up as ya go ya can predict anything since yer makin' it up anyhooo......


So you think we will be able yo explain a god through research?

Maybe if not "explain" find proof that God does exist.

What about all the research that points to natural selection?

Only to true believers like you. Reasearch points to ID if you had the ability to shed your religion that clouds yer brain for a few moments and ponder the facts as they actually exist.


No it doesn't. It's a non-answer. In the same way that gods didn't answer why volcaneos erupted or why disease spread or why the sun rose and fell in the sky etc.

It is a valid answer regardless of that fact that yer religion clouds yer perception. Respectfully, JR

[Noir]

uh, actually, yes it does by any application of logic....if A does not equal B then you cannot argue that A equals B.....

Okay, if you think that litteral bible creationists are representative of all creationists then fair enough, I think of them as a sub group.
ie. A = B but Aa does not = B

[Noir]

that does not change the fact that in your argument you have misrepresented that which you must hold as less complex.....

you believe her to be more complex because you believe something or someone must have "built" God.....We believe God simply "was".......and yes, that is amazing.....

Well yes, that's part of it, usig your logic EVERYTHING MUST have a creator. Except your creator ofcourse. Hypocrisy much? You have to have a special rule that breaks all other rules, just for your belief.

And I'd like to know, given you think the universe is more complex that your god, what exactly about it is more complex? What do you look at and think 'My god is simpler than that'? (so far you've already hinted at evolution by natural selection, but I want to be sure before continuing)

[Noir]

Noir,

So your saying that the
naturalist explanation of SUPER complex creatures and cosmos Popping into existences over a looooong time.
from Nothing

is simpler than

the Biblical or ID explanation of SUPER complex creatures and cosmos Popping into existences over a short time.
from an Always Existent Super entity

And therefore it's a better and more likely explanation?

But then you mention electrons and not being where they are, as unlikely but true
It seems that the simplest explanation is not always the true one, at least in some cases.
And I'm not so sure that your explanation is simpler.

Well TBH I don't know how it all came about, and nor do you. But, if you think it's fine to postulate an eternal god, why not am eternal universe? (or multiverse)


[quote]Ignorance is strength/QUOTE]

And ofcourse the only way to overcome ignorance is by critical thinking and science, as Richard Dawkins wonderfully put it "Science replaces private prejudice with publicly verifiable evidence."

[Noir]

Yes the corncept of an all powerful God that has always existed, who sets the physical rules of the universe and kick starts it is a simple corncept that makes a great deal of sense and fits what we have observed.[quote]

Okay, well here we have a fundamental disagreement. I see gods as complex, you think they're simple. Meh.



[quote]That does not fit what we observe nor does it make sense. The creator may have set some rules that could also use some evolution within the creator's plan as well.

See this will be how the ID argument will go in the future, Evolution is becoming increasingly undeniable through advances in genomic technology. And once it is totally irrefutablable to Joe Public the IDers will change to 'God designed the system of evolution, it is so complex and beautiful, only god could of done such a thing' That is the future of ID (somewhat ironically) the arguments will have to evolved to cope with the science that's heading it's way, and I can't wait :)


[COLOR="blue"]Understand??? Yasureyabetcha Map???? If ya make up a bunch of silly chit n' change it everytime there is a discovery that blows up the theory.
Predict???? When ya jus make chit up as ya go ya can predict anything since yer makin' it up anyhooo......

Please site the last time a philogenetic tree was 'blown up'
Tell me, presumably you don't think that any modern medicines work, afterall, they are made totally on the predictions of evolutionary theory, and that current efforts to find cures using those models are totally pointless and the fact that they have worked before in the last was just totally by luck, right?


Maybe if not "explain" find proof that God does exist.

Prove that god exists, okay, then all we have to do is prove which one of the countless possabilities it could be :laugh:


Only to true believers like you. Reasearch points to ID if you had the ability to shed your religion that clouds yer brain for a few moments and ponder the facts as they actually exist.

Lawl, look, science is a-political and a-religious, it is a search for the truth, why do you think scientists would go out of their way to pretend a god does not exist when their research shows it does?


It is a valid answer regardless of that fact that yer religion clouds yer perception. Respectfully, JR

No it's not, the fact that you ignored my point about the other 'answers' we had and just repeated your statement shows you can't deal with the point. No doubt if youd been alive when we thought the Sun was a chariot of Fire ridden by a god you would of championed that as a valid answer regardless of any other theories.

[PostmodernProphet]

Okay, if you think that litteral bible creationists are representative of all creationists then fair enough, I think of them as a sub group.
ie. A = B but Aa does not = B

dude you've lost it.....that is precisely the equation that applied when I said you could not say creationism meant young earth creationism.....you are right, they are a sub group...that's why you were wrong to claim that ID was exactly the same as creationism.....you know as well as I do that the only fault you can find with creationists is young earth creationism.....you try to claim all creationists are young earth creationists so you can dismiss them as crazy.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Well yes, that's part of it, usig your logic EVERYTHING MUST have a creator. Except your creator ofcourse. Hypocrisy much? You have to have a special rule that breaks all other rules, just for your belief.


that isn't hypocrisy at all.....every THING must have a creator.....the creator is not a thing.....



And I'd like to know, given you think the universe is more complex that your god, what exactly about it is more complex? What do you look at and think 'My god is simpler than that'? (so far you've already hinted at evolution by natural selection, but I want to be sure before continuing)

again, you miss the point....I am not saying the universe is more complex than God.....I am saying the convoluted explanation you have concocted explaining the creation as the result of a million simultaneous concidences is more complex than God.....

it's like saying that Bill Gates is responsible for Windows 7 is more complex than arguing that the operating system generated itself following a million random events that built upon themselves for years and years until software evolved.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Well TBH I don't know how it all came about, and nor do you. But, if you think it's fine to postulate an eternal god, why not am eternal universe? (or multiverse)



quite simply because science has already determined that our universe is not eternal.....

[Noir]

dude you've lost it.....that is precisely the equation that applied when I said you could not say creationism meant young earth creationism.....you are right, they are a sub group...that's why you were wrong to claim that ID was exactly the same as creationism.....you know as well as I do that the only fault you can find with creationists is young earth creationism.....you try to claim all creationists are young earth creationists so you can dismiss them as crazy.....

What are you Gallic about? Tye point I was making is that Young Darth Creationists are a sub section of creationists, and that they are not representative of creationists. And you then quite that and try and claim that I think that all creationists are young earth creationists? :laugh:

Lemme break it down for you. A represents creationists. Aa represenets young earth creationists. B represents IDers

A = B
Aa does not = B

I'll say it once more so there can be no concussion. ID is creationism by another name, however, some creationists (like young earthers) are so extreme that their views would not match seemlessly with ID but despite this small group of literalists Creationism and ID are one and the same, the different name is only used for tactical political purposes (and in state after state in the US Judges are seeing through the name change and treating it as it should be treated.)

[Noir]

that isn't hypocrisy at all.....every THING must have a creator.....the creator is not a thing.....

So we're down to semantics, great >,>




again, you miss the point....I am not saying the universe is more complex than God.....I am saying the convoluted explanation you have concocted explaining the creation as the result of a million simultaneous concidences is more complex than God.....

it's like saying that Bill Gates is responsible for Windows 7 is more complex than arguing that the operating system generated itself following a million random events that built upon themselves for years and years until software evolved.....

But bill gates is more complex that the OS.

[PostmodernProphet]

I'll say it once more so there can be no concussion. ID is creationism by another name, however, some creationists (like young earthers) are so extreme that their views would not match seemlessly with ID but despite this small group of literalists Creationism and ID are one and the same, the different name is only used for tactical political purposes (and in state after state in the US Judges are seeing through the name change and treating it as it should be treated.)

if your goal is not to paint ID as a target for ridicule, what difference does it make to claim that ID and Creationism are the same.....how is it that ID should be treated by judges after this "seeing through" is accomplished?......

[Noir]

quite simply because science has already determined that our universe is not eternal.....

This is the same science that proves evolution...oh yeah, sorry, I guess you knot accept the science that agrees with what you believe. Sadly that's not how science works.

And as I've said before, the Big Bang was an event, not nesseserly a beginning. And that's before you even get into the idea of multiverses.

[Noir]

if your goal is not to paint ID as a target for ridicule, what difference does it make to claim that ID and Creationism are the same.....how is it that ID should be treated by judges after this "seeing through" is accomplished?......

Bechasw it is being used as a way to subvert science. (and a rather underhanded on at that) It wants to indroduce something to the science classroom that is, in essence, unscientific.

[PostmodernProphet]

So we're down to semantics, great >,>
[quote]
????......fundamental differences aren't semantics......



[quote]
But bill gates is more complex that the OS.

irrelevant......the claim that something was built by an intelligent being is less complex than the claim that something built itself.....

I walk into a room and see a hand of cards dealt on a table.....it's a Royal Straight Flush.....there is a note on the table that says "I dealt this hand".......it is less complex to believe someone dealt that hand and wrote the note than to believe the table cards and room self generated, the rules of poker are self originated and that the note is a forgery made thousands of years later to perpetuate some myth that there is a "card dealer"......

[Noir]

????......fundamental differences aren't semantics......

Ofcourse it's semantics. God is either a thing or a nothing. Personally I think the latter. But if you think one exists them it must in some sense be a thing.


irrelevant......the claim that something was built by an intelligent being is less complex than the claim that something built itself.....

I walk into a room and see a hand of cards dealt on a table.....it's a Royal Straight Flush.....there is a note on the table that says "I dealt this hand".......it is less complex to believe someone dealt that hand and wrote the note than to believe the table cards and room self generated, the rules of poker are self originated and that the note is a forgery made thousands of years later to perpetuate some myth that there is a "card dealer"......

:laugh: it's not irrelevant. It's the whole point. The creator mat be more complex.

[revelarts]

This is the same science that proves evolution...oh yeah, sorry, I guess you knot accept the science that agrees with what you believe. Sadly that's not how science works.

And as I've said before, the Big Bang was an event, not nesseserly a beginning. And that's before you even get into the idea of multiverses.

But there's no scientific Formula or testing method that can go back beyond the theoretical bang. So if your Postulating your postulating beyond the science. and against the science if that's ALL that's your working with. The "Science" (such that it is) says BEGINNING.

the Multiverse thing i have to walk lightly here I've yet to get clarity on how they come by that, more study on my part. But so far it seems to me much like the Dark matter. "well it's tere but we can't see it or track or anything but it has to be there or all of other work might be wrong and that can't be. Or can it?

But Sure if postulations is all were looking for nearly anything will do but as you've mentioned there should be some evidence to back every postulate. there is evidence for ID as the science stands even though the true believers in evolution can't stand to look in that direction.

[PostmodernProphet]

This is the same science that proves evolution...oh yeah, sorry, I guess you knot accept the science that agrees with what you believe. Sadly that's not how science works.
I believe in what is proven about evolution....I simply don't agree with the foundation-less speculation that you engage in about it



And as I've said before, the Big Bang was an event, not nesseserly a beginning. And that's before you even get into the idea of multiverses.

again, that speculation is not science.....I don't share your metaphysical beliefs......science tells you that OUR universe had a beginning......

[PostmodernProphet]

Bechasw it is being used as a way to subvert science. (and a rather underhanded on at that) It wants to indroduce something to the science classroom that is, in essence, unscientific.

really?.....you have a scientific explanation of "origin" that stands in place of creation?....I would love to have you explain that some day.......let's be honest.....this isn't a competition between creation and science, it's a competition between your faith structure and mine.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Ofcourse it's semantics. God is either a thing or a nothing. Personally I think the latter. But if you think one exists them it must in some sense be a thing.


and "No-thing" doesn't need a creator.....it isn't a matter of symantics.....a deity is not of similar nature to any "thing" that exists in the universe....it doesn't need to conform to the rules that apply to matter or energy or life.....



:laugh: it's not irrelevant. It's the whole point. The creator mat be more complex.
no it isn't relevant.....you keep trying to shift the claim that it's the universe which is less complex than the creator (which you try to paint as an object)......this isn't an argument about objects, this is an argument about process......you claim the process of creation by a competent creator is more complicated than a process of trial and error in which a million necessary components coincide......that's obviously ridiculous....


this isn't a question about whether a baker or a cupcake is more complex, it's a question of whether the thought of a baker baking a cupcake is more complex than the thought of a cupcake baking itself.......

[OldMercsRule]

[QUOTE=OldMercsRule;449407]Yes the corncept of an all powerful God that has always existed, who sets the physical rules of the universe and kick starts it is a simple corncept that makes a great deal of sense and fits what we have observed.[quote]

Okay, well here we have a fundamental disagreement. I see gods as complex, you think they're simple. Meh.

I think the corncept of a powerful God simplifies the model for explaning what we observe.

See this will be how the ID argument will go in the future, Evolution is becoming increasingly undeniable through advances in genomic technology.

Evolution evolves as a theory to fit new data as new informtion refutes prior portions of the theory. God could use any model and or establish physical rules et al to provide the basis for life he creates. That is part of the definition of omnicience in a God.


And once it is totally irrefutablable to Joe Public the IDers will change to 'God designed the system of evolution, it is so complex and beautiful, only god could of done such a thing' That is the future of ID (somewhat ironically) the arguments will have to evolved to cope with the science that's heading it's way, and I can't wait :)

Hmmmmm....


Please site the last time a philogenetic tree was 'blown up'

The theory morphs as data is uncovered.


Tell me, presumably you don't think that any modern medicines work,

Why would they not work? Don't put words in my mouth.


afterall, they are made totally on the predictions of evolutionary theory,

Can I have some of whatever you are smoking?????


and that current efforts to find cures using those models are totally pointless and the fact that they have worked before in the last was just totally by luck, right?

Senseless Noise.


Prove that god exists, okay, then all we have to do is prove which one of the countless possabilities it could be :laugh:

Hmmmmmm....


No it's not, the fact that you ignored my point about the other 'answers' we had and just repeated your statement shows you can't deal with the point. No doubt if youd been alive when we thought the Sun was a chariot of Fire ridden by a god you would of championed that as a valid answer regardless of any other theories.

No doubt......

[Noir]

But there's no scientific Formula or testing method that can go back beyond the theoretical bang. So if your Postulating your postulating beyond the science. and against the science if that's ALL that's your working with. The "Science" (such that it is) says BEGINNING.

Just because science can not see beyond it does not mean it must have been a beginning, it could as easily of been the result of a big crunch. For the time being we don't know. But ofcourse that's just within our universe, not the multiverse.


the Multiverse thing i have to walk lightly here I've yet to get clarity on how they come by that, more study on my part. But so far it seems to me much like the Dark matter. "well it's tere but we can't see it or track or anything but it has to be there or all of other work might be wrong and that can't be. Or can it?

Indeed, which is why experiments are currently on going at CERN to try and track the movements of Gravatons, as they're believed to be able to ripple in and out of phase in different universes. Which would explain why gravity is such a week force. And as an aside, while we can not *see* dark matter, we can see it's effects or grav lensing and distorting space-time, which this simple diagram shows.
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/gravity_lens.jpg

You could apply what you just said to regular gravity. Afterall we can see it, only it's effects, 'but it must be there or all our work will be wrong' etc.


But Sure if postulations is all were looking for nearly anything will do but as you've mentioned there should be some evidence to back every postulate. there is evidence for ID as the science stands even though the true believers in evolution can't stand to look in that direction.

Do you think ID and Evolution are totally incompatible? Or could a designer of designed the process of Natural Selection?

[Noir]

I believe in what is proven about evolution....I simply don't agree with the foundation-less speculation that you engage in about it

Inwhich case I can only suggest you read more, don't take my word for it, take experts in the field (and don't worry, plenty of them are Christians, so you won't have to read a single word written by a heathen.)


again, that speculation is not science.....I don't share your metaphysical beliefs......science tells you that OUR universe had a beginning......

No. It does not. And at the very least, as I've said we may well be part of something much greater, we are still carrying out experiments to see if that's likely.

[PostmodernProphet]

Just because science can not see beyond it does not mean it must have been a beginning, it could as easily of been the result of a big crunch. For the time being we don't know. But ofcourse that's just within our universe, not the multiverse.



but don't you see......you are simply substituting your non-scientific beliefs about origin for ours.......while you are perfectly within your rights to do so, please don't pretend yours rank any status within science......or any preferential treatment in the classroom....

if we aren't going to present one form of "religious" beliefs in school we should present none.....

[Noir]

and "No-thing" doesn't need a creator.....it isn't a matter of symantics.....a deity is not of similar nature to any "thing" that exists in the universe....it doesn't need to conform to the rules that apply to matter or energy or life.....

Yep, you've made up all these special rules just to make your answer work. Nice.


no it isn't relevant.....you keep trying to shift the claim that it's the universe which is less complex than the creator (which you try to paint as an object)......this isn't an argument about objects, this is an argument about process......you claim the process of creation by a competent creator is more complicated than a process of trial and error in which a million necessary components coincide......that's obviously ridiculous....


this isn't a question about whether a baker or a cupcake is more complex, it's a question of whether the thought of a baker baking a cupcake is more complex than the thought of a cupcake baking itself.......

No, what is ridiculous is the fact that you can just make up whatever you want.

Where did the baker come from, what process?

[PostmodernProphet]

Inwhich case I can only suggest you read more, don't take my word for it, take experts in the field (and don't worry, plenty of them are Christians, so you won't have to read a single word written by a heathen.)

arrogance doesn't become you, especially since it is unwarranted.....just because you accept the claims of macro evolution uncritically doesn't confer you with superior intelligence.....



No. It does not. And at the very least, as I've said we may well be part of something much greater, we are still carrying out experiments to see if that's likely.
I'm sorry Noir....but you are wrong.....science tells us that our universe had a beginning.....you may speculate all you want about what happened prior to that beginning but if you claim that science can experiment on what existed prior to the universe you are a hopeless religious fanatic.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Yep, you've made up all these special rules just to make your answer work. Nice.

dude, you're the one applying rules that you made up....."there can't be a deity unless he conforms to the natural laws governing matter and energy"......why?......he CREATED the natural laws, you think it irrational that he could control them?.....



No, what is ridiculous is the fact that you can just make up whatever you want.

Where did the baker come from, what process?
actually, I can't make up whatever I want, I can't bake at all.....the baker, who has always been a baker, can make up whatever he wants though.....he can make cupcakes or pies or bread.....

Let's try a different tack, since you seem to be having difficulty with this one.....

you believe a creator must have had a beginning......

science tells us that our universe began with an event dubbed the Big Bang and that since that time matter has been expanding outward into an infinite void.....
now, consider this.....either that void into which the universe is expanding is preceding the universe in it's expansion (in which case it really wouldn't be infinite) or
that void is infinite and it has always existed....

so, step one, do you in fact believe in the existence of something which is eternal or not......

step two, if you can conceive of one thing that is eternal are you not forced to admit the possibility of more than one thing which is eternal?

step three, will you admit that anything which can exist beyond the scope of our temporal reality is incapable of full examination by us using scientific methods?

step four, will you then admit that any speculation about that which we cannot know through science, is therefore not science?

[Noir]

[quote]I think the corncept of a powerful God simplifies the model for explaning what we observe.

Well ofcourse it's simple when you can just make stuff up.


Evolution evolves as a theory to fit new data as new informtion refutes prior portions of the theory. God could use any model and or establish physical rules et al to provide the basis for life he creates. That is part of the definition of omnicience in a God.

Ofcourse tweaks are made, for example it has been recently discovered through genetic code decryption that the Whale and Hippopotamus are very closely linked. But that's the joy of Science, it is not Dogmatic, if new evidence points to a better answer then the answer is modified. HOWEVER, these have only been tweaks, not changes to the whole system.



Hmmmmm....

Fantastic counter points.


The theory morphs as data is uncovered.

The theory perfects with new evidence, what would you rather, it ignores science?


Why would they not work? Don't put words in my mouth.

Because a vast number of modern medicines come from knowledge brought about by evolutionary theory, especially in the field of Antibiotics.


Can I have some of whatever you are smoking?????

I don't smoke anything, tis a rather poor way to try and avoid the point.


Senseless Noise.

Hmm, believe you or the Medical Journals...I think I'll stick with the journals and there senseless noise...





Hmmmmmm....

Another fantastic point.


No doubt......

Puts your current non-answer in perspective i think.

[chloe]

Few questions I've pondered...what're your thoughts?

Who taught or how did Adam learn to speak?

Why would God not have created a Female human immediately - as he did with the animals?

Why would Adam seek other creation for a 'helper' or 'companion' before God decided to create Woman?

How did the author of Genesis account for conversations between folks who existed prior to his life? Said another way, was the Author listening to God and transcribing the conversation?

Does Creation starting in the Oceans and Adam 'looking for a helper' from land animals lend credence to macro evolution?

Do you think BigFoot could be "Cain"?





Why would God show mercy on Cain - and protect him, yet strike-dead others who did 'worse' things than murder?

Isn't there 2 different versions of the genesis story? I thought in one of those versions it said male & female created he them.

If an author writes a story and the reader becomes engrossed in what happens to the character in the story and begins to question why the character did this or that as if it was reality does that make the character real?

Additionally what if the real story was about a reader that questioned the validity of characters in a story :laugh:, or about a writer whose reader questions the characters in a story.

What if a character drastically changes where in the earlier stories the character behaved one way and then later changed is it still the same character?

That is how the bible comes off to me. Its a story written by humans to explain what they conceive of at that time frame of there humanness.

I don't think of God as a human being and I don't understand the concept of religion that humanizes God into a man made personality. To me God is Love something we all know feel and express.

[SassyLady]

That is how the bible comes off to me. Its a story written by humans to explain what they conceive of at that time frame of there humanness.

I don't think of God as a human being and I don't understand the concept of religion that humanizes God into a man made personality. To me God is Love something we all know feel and express.

:clap::clap::clap:

Awesome!!!

[revelarts]

Isn't there 2 different versions of the genesis story? I thought in one of those versions it said male & female created he them.

If an author writes a story and the reader becomes engrossed in what happens to the character in the story and begins to question why the character did this or that as if it was reality does that make the character real?

Additionally what if the real story was about a reader that questioned the validity of characters in a story :laugh:, or about a writer whose reader questions the characters in a story.

What if a character drastically changes where in the earlier stories the character behaved one way and then later changed is it still the same character?

That is how the bible comes off to me. Its a story written by humans to explain what they conceive of at that time frame of there humanness.

I don't think of God as a human being and I don't understand the concept of religion that humanizes God into a man made personality. To me God is Love something we all know feel and express.

the 2 stories of genesis idea is a pretty common thought but if you look at the bible you'll see that it's of story telling device used in many areas. basically it's,
here's a summery story Ok now here's the same story with more details.

Not to stories per se.

and I have to point out Chloe that you do the same thing as MM, you uses a lot of IF's , what if's and maybe's then drop in your own personal perception without any data to back it up or data to really remove the more classical ideas.

then you say,


I don't think of God as a human being and I don't understand the concept of religion that humanizes God into a man made personality. To me God is Love something we all know feel and express.

I'm not sure I understand what your saying, you say religion makes God a man made personality but then you make God a human emotion.
I don't quite see the distinction. If God is made up then shouldn't we all just make up or go with what we like. But if he's real seems to me we need to accept him in whatever form that he reveals himself to be.

[Missileman]

and I have to point out Chloe that you do the same thing as MM, you uses a lot of IF's , what if's and maybe's then drop in your own personal perception without any data to back it up or data to really remove the more classical ideas.


Really? Really?

I think you need to reevaluate just which side of the argument is proposing data-less explanations in the thread.

While you're making that review...count the number of times I've used "what if" or "maybe" in this thread and post the number in your reply. If you want, count how many times I've used either of those terms in any thread in the last month and post THAT number in your reply.

[Missileman]

I'm not sure I understand what your saying, you say religion makes God a man made personality but then you make God a human emotion.
I don't quite see the distinction. If God is made up then shouldn't we all just make up or go with what we like. But if he's real seems to me we need to accept him in whatever form that he reveals himself to be.

Hmmm...might I point out Relevarte that you use lots of IFs. :poke:

[chloe]

the 2 stories of genesis idea is a pretty common thought but if you look at the bible you'll see that it's of story telling device used in many areas. basically it's,
here's a summery story Ok now here's the same story with more details.

Not to stories per se.

and I have to point out Chloe that you do the same thing as MM, you uses a lot of IF's , what if's and maybe's then drop in your own personal perception without any data to back it up or data to really remove the more classical ideas.

then you say,


I'm not sure I understand what your saying, you say religion makes God a man made personality but then you make God a human emotion.
I don't quite see the distinction. If God is made up then shouldn't we all just make up or go with what we like. But if he's real seems to me we need to accept him in whatever form that he reveals himself to be.

I didn't say God was made up. I did say I see God as Love. I don't see God as a person. Religion seems to say Gods a person is that not true? That is the way God has been explained to me from religous people and I don't get that. I have told you and others here I was never raised in a mainstream religion & you know that and so I am sharing what my concept that was taught to me is and also acknowleding I don't comprehend the concept of God as a human personality.

[Gaffer]

the 2 stories of genesis idea is a pretty common thought but if you look at the bible you'll see that it's of story telling device used in many areas. basically it's,
here's a summery story Ok now here's the same story with more details.

Not to stories per se.

and I have to point out Chloe that you do the same thing as MM, you uses a lot of IF's , what if's and maybe's then drop in your own personal perception without any data to back it up or data to really remove the more classical ideas.

then you say,


I'm not sure I understand what your saying, you say religion makes God a man made personality but then you make God a human emotion.
I don't quite see the distinction. If God is made up then shouldn't we all just make up or go with what we like. But if he's real seems to me we need to accept him in whatever form that he reveals himself to be.

The two stories of genesis were written by different people following an oral tradition that had gone on for hundreds of years. So there are discrepancies. That alone shows the bible is not perfect. The stories in genesis were men of the time trying to explain something they had no clue about.

Chloe's if's and maybes are based on questions. If something happened, why did it happen. Maybe something got left out or misinterpreted.

She is right. Religion personifies god. He's a a jealous god, he demands sacrifice, he wants this and that. That is all personification. Even the devil is personified. You are taking an infinite being that is all powerful and making it a person with human traits and weaknesses. I think chloe has a lot better grasp of god and religion than you do rev. She's curious and she questions. Maybe you should take some of your conspiracy interest and look into religion a little deeper. You doubt everything the government does yet you have blind faith in the bible. A compilation of ancient texts that were approved by an elite group of religious fanatics.

[PostmodernProphet]

Isn't there 2 different versions of the genesis story? I thought in one of those versions it said male & female created he them.

If an author writes a story and the reader becomes engrossed in what happens to the character in the story and begins to question why the character did this or that as if it was reality does that make the character real?

Additionally what if the real story was about a reader that questioned the validity of characters in a story :laugh:, or about a writer whose reader questions the characters in a story.

What if a character drastically changes where in the earlier stories the character behaved one way and then later changed is it still the same character?

That is how the bible comes off to me. Its a story written by humans to explain what they conceive of at that time frame of there humanness.

I don't think of God as a human being and I don't understand the concept of religion that humanizes God into a man made personality. To me God is Love something we all know feel and express.

actually there are four versions of the creation story in the bible....

Genesis 1:1 which is the Hebrew imperative.....
Genesis 1:2 through 2:2 which is poetry
Genesis 2:2 through 2:25 which is narrative
and my favorite, Job 38-41 which most people have never read, Job being such a tedious book once you get past the juicy parts about the torments of Job......
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+38&version=NIV

[PostmodernProphet]

but then you make God a human emotion.

or perhaps it's a God emotion that he has permitted us to share.....

[PostmodernProphet]

That is how the bible comes off to me. Its a story written by humans to explain what they conceive of at that time frame of there humanness.


and then you run into a brick wall with something inexplicable......like Psalm 22, written over 500 years before Jesus was born....

1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? sound familiar?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish?
2 My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, but I find no rest.[b]

3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the one Israel praises.[c]
4 In you our ancestors put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
5 To you they cried out and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not put to shame.

6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by everyone, despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
8 “He trusts in the LORD,” they say,
“let the LORD rescue him. happened at the crucifixion
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him.”

9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast.
10 From birth I was cast on you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.

12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions that tear their prey
open their mouths wide against me.
14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted within me.
15 My mouth[d] is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.

16 Dogs surround me,
a pack of villains encircles me;
they pierce[e] my hands and my feet. crucifixion
17 All my bones are on display;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my clothes among them
and cast lots for my garment. happened at the crucifixion

19 But you, LORD, do not be far from me.
You are my strength; come quickly to help me.
20 Deliver me from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

22 I will declare your name to my people;
in the assembly I will praise you.
23 You who fear the LORD, praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
24 For he has not despised or scorned
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.

25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you[f] I will fulfill my vows.
26 The poor will eat and be satisfied;
those who seek the LORD will praise him—
may your hearts live forever!

27 All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the LORD,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him,
28 for dominion belongs to the LORD
and he rules over the nations. coming of Christ's Kingdom

29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before him—
those who cannot keep themselves alive.
30 Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
31 They will proclaim his righteousness,
declaring to a people yet unborn:
He has done it! the Gospel message

[PostmodernProphet]

had to come back and point something out.....after I wrote the previous post about the parallel between Psalm 22 and Christ's words on the cross I went on to the next thread and found chloe had asked about that very verse.....

some people might call it coincidence, some might call it providence.....I just generally call it a "God thing".....I usually run into a couple of those a week......it's another thing that keeps me from believing the Bible is just a collection of what humans thought at some particular time frame of human-ness......

[chloe]

and then you run into a brick wall with something inexplicable......like Psalm 22, written over 500 years before Jesus was born....

1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? sound familiar?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish?
2 My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, but I find no rest.[b]

3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the one Israel praises.[c]
4 In you our ancestors put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
5 To you they cried out and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not put to shame.

6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by everyone, despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
8 “He trusts in the LORD,” they say,
“let the LORD rescue him. happened at the crucifixion
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him.”

9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast.
10 From birth I was cast on you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.

12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions that tear their prey
open their mouths wide against me.
14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted within me.
15 My mouth[d] is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.

16 Dogs surround me,
a pack of villains encircles me;
they pierce[e] my hands and my feet. crucifixion
17 All my bones are on display;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my clothes among them
and cast lots for my garment. happened at the crucifixion

19 But you, LORD, do not be far from me.
You are my strength; come quickly to help me.
20 Deliver me from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

22 I will declare your name to my people;
in the assembly I will praise you.
23 You who fear the LORD, praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
24 For he has not despised or scorned
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.

25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you[f] I will fulfill my vows.
26 The poor will eat and be satisfied;
those who seek the LORD will praise him—
may your hearts live forever!

27 All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the LORD,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him,
28 for dominion belongs to the LORD
and he rules over the nations. coming of Christ's Kingdom

29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before him—
those who cannot keep themselves alive.
30 Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
31 They will proclaim his righteousness,
declaring to a people yet unborn:
He has done it! the Gospel message

My Brick Wall is I have to try an interpret the bible or ask someone else to share there interpretation. Anyway what is wrong with seeing God as love? Why is that wrong? I like alot of the famous bible stories and I feel inspired by them even when I go around believing that its a human interpretation that might have inconsistancies.

[chloe]

the 2 stories of genesis idea is a pretty common thought but if you look at the bible you'll see that it's of story telling device used in many areas. basically it's,
here's a summery story Ok now here's the same story with more details.

Not to stories per se.

and I have to point out Chloe that you do the same thing as MM, you uses a lot of IF's , what if's and maybe's then drop in your own personal perception without any data to back it up or data to really remove the more classical ideas.

then you say,


I'm not sure I understand what your saying, you say religion makes God a man made personality but then you make God a human emotion.
I don't quite see the distinction. If God is made up then shouldn't we all just make up or go with what we like. But if he's real seems to me we need to accept him in whatever form that he reveals himself to be.

Mainly if I had to believe in God as a human type of personality that has mood swings and also allows bad things to happen I would rather be an atheist. I mean the devil would be the personality to bring the evil deeds and God would be the savior in that concept and so if I have to believe God had power to save me from real bad things and didn't then I would feel hopeless, orphaned. I just prefer to think of God as Love and I don't see why thats so wrong.

Also remember that book you told me about where stories from cultures around the world told the same God story, well they weren't even reading from genesis so in that sense the book itself didn't matter as much as understanding God is received the same from everyone everywhere right? The writings are inspired but they can be told in different ways different languages, thats the way I interpreted it.

[Noir]

arrogance doesn't become you, especially since it is unwarranted.....just because you accept the claims of macro evolution uncritically doesn't confer you with superior intelligence.....

It's not arrogance. It's common sense. If (as you said) you'll believe what's proven about evolution, and you don't think macro evolution has taken place then you simply need to read more about it.


I'm sorry Noir....but you are wrong.....science tells us that our universe had a beginning.....you may speculate all you want about what happened prior to that beginning but if you claim that science can experiment on what existed prior to the universe you are a hopeless religious fanatic.....

Lawl, no. Science tells us there was an event, it is not possible to prove if the event was a beginning or not. Dont pretend that you know it was a beginning, because you don't.

[revelarts]

The two stories of genesis were written by different people following an oral tradition that had gone on for hundreds of years.

What 2 people? where does that info come from? Why do you believe that? what are your sources, more men? But not elites or fanatic, right?



The stories in genesis were men of the time trying to explain something they had no clue about.

THAT sir is one very possible explanation. however
here's another,
That the record came from God, initially and Directly and then was transmitted orally for years and spread down the generations. (eternity in there hearts (http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Their-Hearts-Startling-Throughout/dp/0830738371/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1289477804&sr=8-1))
But during the time of the Exodus God reiterated the facts clearly again and they where written down and have continued in that form to this day.

Frankly, in my mind, either your right or what I've mentioned is. Watered downed versions of "inspiration" make no sense. Either the initial people KNEW what they were talking about came from God or they made it up.




Chloe's if's and maybes are based on questions. If something happened, why did it happen. Maybe something got left out or misinterpreted.

Questions are fine I'm not knocking the questions, I'm Questioning the idea that based on NOT knowing If there MIGHT be Something else, or parts COULD be wrong you come to a certain conclusion.



She is right. Religion personifies god. He's a a jealous god, he demands sacrifice, he wants this and that. That is all personification. Even the devil is personified. You are taking an infinite being that is all powerful and making it a person with human traits and weaknesses.

OK in that sense Yes, But it's not me making it up because i "prefer to look at him that way", If we read the Scriptures honestly we do see God as a Person. Not as an emotion. If we read the scripture as if we're going though a buffet then we can come away with what ever ideas we prefer to focus on. "loving" or "jealous" or whatever.
But it's my understanding that God is a person, a complete person with a broad range of emotions ,if you will. He's not petulant as Noir might try to characterize him but he's does have emotional pain such as grief and desire as well other emotions satisfaction, joy ecstasy, love -of course- and others.
Another thing about persons/personalities is that some people are not going to like um. Jesus wasn't universally loved, Many people hated him, but he was God in the flesh. "If you have seen me you have seen the Father"


I think chloe has a lot better grasp of god and religion than you do rev. She's curious and she questions. Maybe you should take some of your conspiracy interest and look into religion a little deeper. You doubt everything the government does yet you have blind faith in the bible. A compilation of ancient texts that were approved by an elite group of religious fanatics.

Do I really talk about conspiracies that much?!?!
But Gaffer long before I started scratching below the surface of politics I had dug into religion, frankly without that i wouldn't have cared enough to question my politics to deeply. My faith 1st bought me to the right.
But I'm no theological scholar and I'll tell you honestly there have been times when I've had "questions" about my faith. However every time I've dug into the questions I've ended up more convinced of the scripture. It's happen enough over the years that I'm comfortable with my position. And in some places where I don't have satisfactory answers I've look at some alternative explanations however they usually have less going for them, in terms of support historical and other wise, that many times I've just had to leave some questions open. I won't ramble on but I still dig some but if you haven't noticed I'm pretty convinced in my position. to the point where I wish, as the apostle Paul did, that "everyone believed.".

[PostmodernProphet]

My Brick Wall is I have to try an interpret the bible or ask someone else to share there interpretation. Anyway what is wrong with seeing God as love? Why is that wrong? I like alot of the famous bible stories and I feel inspired by them even when I go around believing that its a human interpretation that might have inconsistancies.

depends on how you mean it.....I think God is love as well, but I also think he is a creator and a savior and a king who will sit on the throne of the universe.....I could go on a while but I think that's enough to make the point that God is more than just love.....

[Missileman]

THAT sir is one very possible explanation. however
here's another,
That the record came from God, initially and Directly and then was transmitted orally for years and spread down the generations. (eternity in there hearts (http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Their-Hearts-Startling-Throughout/dp/0830738371/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1289477804&sr=8-1))
But during the time of the Exodus God reiterated the facts clearly again and they where written down and have continued in that form to this day.

That sounds an awfully lot like a "maybe"...perhaps a "what if".




Questions are fine I'm not knocking the questions, I'm Questioning the idea that based on NOT knowing If there MIGHT be Something else, or parts COULD be wrong you come to a certain conclusion.



OK in that sense Yes, But it's not me making it up because i "prefer to look at him that way", If we read the Scriptures honestly we do see God as a Person. Not as an emotion. If we read the scripture as if we're going though a buffet then we can come away with what ever ideas we prefer to focus on. "loving" or "jealous" or whatever.
But it's my understanding that God is a person, a complete person with a broad range of emotions ,if you will. He's not petulant as Noir might try to characterize him but he's does have emotional pain such as grief and desire as well other emotions satisfaction, joy ecstasy, love -of course- and others.
Another thing about persons/personalities is that some people are not going to like um. Jesus wasn't universally loved, Many people hated him, but he was God in the flesh. "If you have seen me you have seen the Father"


Dude! You're killin me...ROFL

[revelarts]

Really? Really?

I think you need to reevaluate just which side of the argument is proposing data-less explanations in the thread.



MissileM Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was talking about 1 specific post i replied to about -future scientific discovers- . I wasn't trying to say that you or Chole generally make data-less comments, not at all.
my apologies if that's the impression I gave.

But refering to above.
I was making "If then" logic statements based on facts. I reference a whole book of data to make one case above.
we all do that here. but to make an if then statement based on what we admit we DON'T know is a different story don't you think?

[PostmodernProphet]

It's not arrogance. It's common sense. If (as you said) you'll believe what's proven about evolution, and you don't think macro evolution has taken place then you simply need to read more about it.



/shrugs....reading more will make no difference......it would require a fundamental change of belief......




Lawl, no. Science tells us there was an event, it is not possible to prove if the event was a beginning or not. Dont pretend that you know it was a beginning, because you don't.

no pretending involved.....if you deny it's the beginning you are ignoring what science tells us......

you BELIEVE that there is something that precedes the universe.....so do I......but we have incompatible beliefs.....the only difference is that in your case you have fooled yourself into believing it's still science and not faith.....

you remind me of the Big Bang Theory TV comedy in which two of the lead characters are theoretical physicists with competing theories on the origin of the universe and each accuses the other of believing in something which cannot be proven.....

[Missileman]

MissileM Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was talking about 1 specific post i replied to about -future scientific discovers- . I wasn't trying to say that you or Chole generally make data-less comments, not at all.
my apologies if that's the impression I gave.

:beer:

[revelarts]

or perhaps it's a God emotion that he has permitted us to share.....

AAAAaaamen,
um but "He" implies a person right?

[revelarts]

:beer:

Forgiveness is a good thing.

thanks

[chloe]

depends on how you mean it.....I think God is love as well, but I also think he is a creator and a savior and a king who will sit on the throne of the universe.....I could go on a while but I think that's enough to make the point that God is more than just love.....

Ok so you and rev see God as a person of sorts. But I don't. You have your reasons for what you believe and I accept that. I have not had your experiences and I suppose I will never understand those beliefs. Love is the best I can do with believing in God.

[Gaffer]

revelarts;449817]What 2 people? where does that info come from? Why do you believe that? what are your sources, more men? But not elites or fanatic, right?

I didn't say two people I said different people. How many is not known for sure, but it was more than two. Bits were added over the years by different writers. It's been many years since I read about it and I don't remember the source. I'm sure it can be googled easily.


THAT sir is one very possible explanation. however
here's another,
That the record came from God, initially and Directly and then was transmitted orally for years and spread down the generations. (eternity in there hearts (http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Their-Hearts-Startling-Throughout/dp/0830738371/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1289477804&sr=8-1))
But during the time of the Exodus God reiterated the facts clearly again and they where written down and have continued in that form to this day.

There again your speculating that god said it to a person. Or that the writings were inspired. Every religion out there was inspired in some way. Novelists are inspired all the time. Every religion and culture has a creation story. It's always some inspired work and usually involves some magical bringing together of things.


Frankly, in my mind, either your right or what I've mentioned is. Watered downed versions of "inspiration" make no sense. Either the initial people KNEW what they were talking about came from God or they made it up.

They didn't know what they were talking about because its been proven wrong. The earth circles the sun, the other planets do as well. The earth turns. The sun does not revolve around it. There are billions of creatures on this planet. They couldn't fit into an ark built by a man and repopulate the earth in a few years. Adam had three sons, one killed, one banished and one to populate the earth. With a sister? Your nose continues to grow your entire life. Can you imagine the snooz on a guy 300 years old? It's all totally in accurate so I questions the god inspired theory.




Questions are fine I'm not knocking the questions, I'm Questioning the idea that based on NOT knowing If there MIGHT be Something else, or parts COULD be wrong you come to a certain conclusion.

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.



OK in that sense Yes, But it's not me making it up because i "prefer to look at him that way", If we read the Scriptures honestly we do see God as a Person. Not as an emotion. If we read the scripture as if we're going though a buffet then we can come away with what ever ideas we prefer to focus on. "loving" or "jealous" or whatever.
But it's my understanding that God is a person, a complete person with a broad range of emotions ,if you will. He's not petulant as Noir might try to characterize him but he's does have emotional pain such as grief and desire as well other emotions satisfaction, joy ecstasy, love -of course- and others.
Another thing about persons/personalities is that some people are not going to like um. Jesus wasn't universally loved, Many people hated him, but he was God in the flesh. "If you have seen me you have seen the Father"

You are personifying god. Giving it human characteristics. Those are weaknesses. An all powerful, all knowing, all caring god would have none of those characteristics.


Do I really talk about conspiracies that much?!?!

yeah you do.



But Gaffer long before I started scratching below the surface of politics I had dug into religion, frankly without that i wouldn't have cared enough to question my politics to deeply. My faith 1st bought me to the right.
But I'm no theological scholar and I'll tell you honestly there have been times when I've had "questions" about my faith. However every time I've dug into the questions I've ended up more convinced of the scripture. It's happen enough over the years that I'm comfortable with my position. And in some places where I don't have satisfactory answers I've look at some alternative explanations however they usually have less going for them, in terms of support historical and other wise, that many times I've just had to leave some questions open. I won't ramble on but I still dig some but if you haven't noticed I'm pretty convinced in my position. to the point where I wish, as the apostle Paul did, that "everyone believed.".

Your set in your dogma and nothing will change that. You really should dig more concerning the conspiracies of the churches.

[revelarts]

...
There again your speculating that god said it to a person.

I'm not speculating, the Bible says "thus saith the the Lord".
If you tell me that "GOD said to me clearly "move to Vermont"" either your lying , telling the truth or crazy. I wouldn't be speculating whether on not you said it. Just the options of your veracity.



...
They didn't know what they were talking about because its been proven wrong. The earth circles the sun,the Bible never says that it doesn't the other planets do as well. the Bible never comments The earth turns. The sun does not revolve around it. the Bible never says that it doesn't There are billions of creatures on this planet. They couldn't fit into an ark built by a man only land animals and enough to breed and repopulate the earth in a few years.Who siad it was a few years Adam had three sons, one killed, one banished and one to populate the earth. With a sister? "Genesis 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he (Adam) begat sons and daughters:" Your nose continues to grow your entire life. Can you imagine the snooz on a guy 300 years old? that's pretty funnyIt's all totally in accurate so I questions the god inspired theory.

Dig deeper, as you asked me to.


...
You are personifying god. Giving it human characteristics. Those are weaknesses. An all powerful, all knowing, all caring god would have none of those characteristics.

Is love a weakness? I don't think so. Does an all powerful, all knowing necessarily mean Emotionless? Only if you prefer.



...
Your set in your dogma and nothing will change that. You really should dig more concerning the conspiracies of the churches.
Oh I've been down that road sir.. it's very dark.

But it looks like I can't win with you either way.
At 1st you say I haven't studied enough to bring myself to the point where I throw off most of what i believe. to what you consider a purer form of religion. And now you imply I've studied to much to the point that's it a DOGMA that and won't let go of it.

[PostmodernProphet]

AAAAaaamen,
um but "He" implies a person right?

it implies a recognizable entity......if by person you mean something similar to a human being, then no......

[revelarts]

Ok so you and rev see God as a person of sorts. But I don't. You have your reasons for what you believe and I accept that. I have not had your experiences and I suppose I will never understand those beliefs. Love is the best I can do with believing in God.

We are all on our own paths Our experiences will never be exactly the same but people from every different perspective have found the person of God too. Personally I thought that I would never be able to believe in God the way I do now. But here i am.
Your spiritual life is you own and no one can force or cajole you in any honest beliefs. But i would encourage you to stay open to where the love that you sense leads you. And as Gaffer says dig deeper. May we all be equipped to walk in light.

[revelarts]

it implies a recognizable entity......if by person you mean something similar to a human being, then no......

Yes of course, I'm not talking about an old guy in the sky with a bread or some E.T.. c'mon.

but if by Human being you mean Jesus Christ then Yes I do.

[revelarts]

depends on how you mean it.....I think God is love as well, but I also think he is a creator and a savior and a king who will sit on the throne of the universe.....I could go on a while but I think that's enough to make the point that God is more than just love.....

yes,
Another aspect of God's person is his Justice.

You also mentioned in an earlier post about more than 2 Biblical creation references.
My favorite is John 1 chapter

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

[PostmodernProphet]

Yes of course, I'm not talking about an old guy in the sky with a bread or some E.T.. c'mon.

but if by Human being you mean Jesus Christ then Yes I do.

first, I take nothing for granted anymore...
second, Jesus became human but he has gone on to that stage that we will be in for eternity which must be different than the temporal body that we inhabit at the present....
third, the 'person' of the Father must be significantly different than the 'person' of Jesus or it wouldn't have been necessary to have a 'person' of Jesus.....

[PostmodernProphet]

yes,
Another aspect of God's person is his Justice.

You also mentioned in an earlier post about more than 2 Biblical creation references.
My favorite is John 1 chapter

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
okay, I can accept that as speaking about the moment of creation.....