And by the way, there is no clear answer that science gives… The medical field DOES however attempt to save this life no matter how far along it is… When it dies they don’t say, “oh shoot, there goes another clump of cells”. Rather they refer to it as a fetus. A baby.
HI Psyche
No because I’d still believe in God. I don’t call other faiths atheist, because they do have faith. I am vastly different from you because I DO believe in God.
Hi Psyche
Hi dessert
I have all the evidence I need.
Hi Psyche
Wow! That’s very interesting! Thanks for sharing that very insightful point.
No one needs to be qualified in anything to know what jesus meant by this…
My apologies, the wording you used was VERY remeniscient of Pascal’s wager, as is your follow up wording here. In a nutshell, it postulates that believing in god is a more safe bet when you weigh up what you can gain and what you can lose, in terms of belief or lack thereof. It has the problems I mentioned before of placing the value of time spent in this life at 0, and the arrogance of ignoring the possibility of other gods. We are all throwing in the same number of chips when we take the afterlife gamble.
Note I also don’t believe that they didn’t exist. I have a lot more reading to do about this particular topic before I make up my mind. However, I think a lot of credible historians may disagree with you too. Instead of making appeals to authority, let us try to do our best with the evidence we can present to each other. As I said before, I have not yet found or been presented with contemporary writings of any of the apostles besides Paul mentioning Peter (I need to look at this more closely as well), nor am I aware of archaelogical evidence for them either (but this is something I have looked even less at so far). If people want to direct me towards some books or sources, I would appreciate it.
That is what Pascal meant as well, as far as I can tell. It’s still non-zero though in my books, though when divided by infinity, I agree we are forced to round this value to zero.
Thanks
on behalf of Atheists, because for most of us this is the only life we believe in. I do the same.Agreed, this was a bad example. I am not surprised that science sometimes backs up the bible, the people who wrote it can’t have been completely ignorant about everything. Of course, sometimes science doesn’t back up the bible, spacetime isn’t ‘nothing’, there is no up/down in space, the first woman didn’t come from the rib of the first man, there was no global flood etc.
As I argued at great length with Ontologysue in the previous thread (you may not have had time to go over the whole thing) the differences between humans and animals is only differences in degrees rather than things completely unheard of in the animal kingdom. Morality, art, music, self-awareness, complex communication, use of tools are all examples that at one time or another, people thought were all entirely the realm of humans, but recorded, verifiable, observations prove otherwise. And there was no one time where man evolved from an ape, it was a gradual process. I agree, it is an interesting question nontheless.
Hmmmm… when did the exodus happen, or is this story just another metaphor?
Yes!!! Bring it on!
A hypothetical trickster god might be highly amused by such a thing, who knows? Besides, this is exactly what you claim happens when a ‘miracle’ occurs after prayer/requests to a deity in other religions.
Oh… so you don’t hold your god up to the same standard of evidence as other gods?
I think this is probably about what lkddav would expect from the (jug of water? flower pot? I can’t remember) that he postulated you would get the same results from. Pray for something and get it, then the jug said yes, pray for something and it doesn’t happen then the jug says no, or it just hasn’t happened yet? And this is good enough proof for you? It has allowed no standard for measure, as ANYTHING that happens, no matter what, is seen as positive confirmation.
I’m interested, how have they explained away that little ‘limbo’ issue? One pope says there’s a limbo, another one says there isn’t, presumably the same holy spirit… and all infallible. I haven’t heard much about this topic, so if you could point me in the right direction, that would be appreciated.
Do you think it is possible to live a good life regardless of trying to please the lord? If I was presented with that hypothetical choice you mention, I’d need to have the options defined better than just ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’.
How is any living person a big enough authority on ‘heaven’ to write a book about it?
I agree it can’t be taken in a literal sense, as per one of my previous posts:
My apologies. If this is the case, then I am guilty of mistaking the lack of response on this topic for agreement. As I’m sure you have noticed, Pascal’s wager has been brought up many times in many slightly different formats. I have pointed out it’s weakness almost every time I could be bothered, and I don’t recall anybody ever trying to make a further case for it, despite most people continuing to post after their original example of pascal’s wager. It is entirely possible that I missed such a post, or have forgotten it. These threads are soooo long. If you happen to still like Pascal’s Wager, then feel free to argue against my position on it. Again, I apologise if I am mistaken.
As for this comment, well, I’m not sure how you could be using the word without the express intent to offend. Most definitions I could find of sophistry involved the implication that my arguments would be delibrately intending to mislead, or to be deliberately fallacious. That was not my intention. You might be able to see that if you looked at the world without your religious blinders for a while. The ‘fluff’ comment requires little analysis.
Let’s be fair, that has gone both ways in approximately equal measure.
Hello paxHi 659
Evidence you ask? Your god recreating the first 6 days of creation on the moon. Don’t brush this off. If you have a god this is just mere child’s play for him or her. It is a god, correct. It can do this with a snap of a finger.
In the four gospels, jesus said nine times if you are a believer your prays would be answered. You are a believer. Pray that this happens. If it doesn’t your jesus was lying. He plainly said if you believe your prayer WOULD be answered.
This would be sufficient evidence for the world and myself.
2) Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8 NAB)
3) Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst. (Matthew 18:19-20 NAS)
4) Amen, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it shall be done for him. Therefore I tell you, all that you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and it shall be yours. (Mark 11:24-25 NAB)
5) And I tell you, ask and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Luke 11:9-13 NAB)
6) And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14 NAB)
7) If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you. (John 15:7 NAB)
8) It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you. (John 15:16 NAB)
9) On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. Until now you have not asked anything in my name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete. (John 16:23-24 NAB)suit yourself!!!
Aw
But I don’t believe in souls. Am I now incapable of deciding what is human and what is not? For that matter, if you use the soul as a guideline for what is human, how do you detect the soul?
Well, he failed in that then, his self-punishment makes no sense.
Thanks for that. I was glad to read the part when it said “original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.” But it does seem a mild contradiction to say that, despite having no personal fault, a bapsism is still needed to erase original sin.
Yep, if God can do anything then no matter what happens or no matter what is observed, you can always say that God can do it like that. I agree, by definition nothing possible is beyond the limits of an omnipotent entity. However, such a claim removes all argumentative power from itself. Many a modern day pirate would say that the flying spaghetti monster is omnipotent and is messing around with scientific experiments for fun. Indeed, this does appear to be claimed, as per my “Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” by Bobby Henderson (I received this for Christmas) it is also the same as the ‘Zeus using a Yahweh’ puppet scenario I mentioned a while back.
Sure, I have no problems with this.
Hmmmm… perhaps a valid point, of course, I am not A, but I will refer myself back to your disclaimer on that. However, I do agree with A (I think) that scientific evidence might just be ‘better’. I mean, we can have a historical record of a ship sailing off the edge of the world, but we have scientific evidence to show that this didn’t happen. Likewise, we have the first law of thermodynamics that indicates that the energy and matter in the universe remain constant, and then we have stories that christians tell us saying Jesus multiplied some bread and fish to feed the multitudes (just one possible interpretation) or a God causing things to pop into existence in the universe. The laws of thermodynamics are some of the most iron-clad theories in physics, falsifiable, but supported by all observations so far. It will take more than historical records (and the bible doesn’t even live up to this standard) to show otherwise.
Well, he has taken the stance that he won’t believe in anything regardless of who discovers it, as it would ihibit learning. He and I have different thoughts about what belief is though. The challenge before you as far as he is concerned, is not to make him ‘believe’ in god, but to show that it is the theory that best matches reality. Again though, arguements that rest on “god can do anything” rob themselves of any argumentative power. As in “sure this doesn’t make LITERAL sense! But god can make anything happen!”
OK, np.
So… you would require god to explain himself? To tell you, specifically, that the person was possessed by the devil? You wouldn’t just do it? What if he told you to do this only as clearly as he (presumably) speaks to you now? Would that be enough to kill? What methods would you utilise to ensure it was god speaking to you, if any?
Nor did I try to say that our morality is precisely the same as fish
I was just giving a simple (and, I thought interesting) example of rudimentary forms of morality that are open to natural selection. I also, later in this thread, gave example(s?) of primates, which demonstrated much more abstract concepts of morality.No, I wouldn’t say there is a ‘rate’ of evolution. Every living thing alive today has been subject to the same amount of evolutionary time, from the cyanobacteria that remains almost the same as the first life that we can detect to the birds, who came from bacteria, to eukaryotic cells, to amoeba, to pollyps, to fish, to mammal-like reptiles, to dinosaurs to the amazing diversity we see in their ranks today.
Yes. Stephen Pinker in his book “How the Mind Works” describes the grief, or regret, reaction as a ‘doomsday device’ in that the level of regret and grief etc might seem to be too extreme, overkill, and that empathy and regret would be an evolutionary DISADVANTAGE in this light.
There are a number of psychological, individual circumstances, drug-related, and many many many other factors that I don’t think I’d be able to explain right now and give you the explanation that would do this idea justice. I think it is a great question though, and one that I will keep in mind when I continue my research into this particular topic. As I mentioned before, I have more reading to do on this, but it explains a lot so far. There are examples though, throughout the animal kingdom, of individuals who will try to ‘cheat’ the specieal concensus of accepted behaviour, there is no mystery about that. (see also my upcoming reply to Natural Enquirer)
Hmmm… I see, I think. Well, how about the beliefs that the church was established by Jesus Christ, guided into the truth by the holy spirit through the pope and that not even the gates of hell will prevail against it? I have a problem with this, as you have described it. You say that these are things that, once accepted as true, leaves one without the option to disagree with or discard any of the official teachings of this church. But aren’t these themselves official teachings of this church? To me, this just looks like circular reasoning. i.e. the church says that it was established by Jesus, who was the son of god, and that (along with the other things you mentioned) makes what the church says true, the church says jesus established it, therefore Jesus did establish it, and it is true. Do you see what I mean?
Dawkins places the value at a very low non-zero probability. I’ll see if I can do his argument justice, which I probably can’t.
Then I would suggest that if this is the case, you shouldn’t ever try to spread the word, god will either give that gift or he won’t, it is not something that can be done by you. For some reason, this doesn’t seem to mesh well with most theistic teachings!
Maybe we are incapable of assigning an accurate value of P(God), but if you want to start bringing in quantum events (which I’m glad you brought up, this kind of thing is fascinating isn’t it?) then we cannot assign anything but a subjective value to P(any event you care to name). As far as I am aware, you are right about the statistically generated illusion of our macro level, but quantum mechanics has made great advances in developing theories that make INCREDIBLY accurate predictions based on probabilities at the quantum level, which gives us the confidence to make predictions at the macro level.
I haven’t heard of that one. I want to read his “Mere christianity” and also there was one that sounded entertaining, something about a novice demon writing letters back to hell, telling them how things were going etc.
I hope my recent posts directed towards Armor of God have answered some of your questions in regards to evolutionary morality? We do see plenty of hints of it in other animals, I have given a few examples in these and the other threads, it is by no far stretch of the imagination uniquely human. Animals rape and steal and kill, and so do humans.
This is almost as quantifiable as your 1% faster gazelle. People that lie more get caught sometimes, and punished more, it is easier to explain in evolutionary terms in the primative societies where being caught left the group with fewer options besides killing you and excluding you from the group, both of which would hinder your reproductive chances.
Limbo. Even if I’m wrong about what I’ve heard, I’d still like to hear more about it.
Nor WOULD you see denial if the church wasn’t taking an official stance. As far as your quotation of the catechism is concerned, I think it’s pretty blatant that when they mention the shroud of his resurrection, they aren’t referring to the relic known as the shroud of turin. In the context of that sentence, the swaddling clothes of his birth, the vinegar of his passion and the shroud of his resurrection are all merely emphasis of different eras of his life. Two key points to note are, one, that the writer isn’t referring to a pile of rags currently in existence known as the “diaper of turin” or something, nor is there some magical bottle of vinegar used by Jesus at the last supper (the passion being how much he LOVES vinegar). Secondly this directly contradicts the quote from the pope indicating that the church cannot take a stand on this, as it is not a matter of faith. Hence, no official position.
You misread your own catechism, methinks.
Of course it doesn’t deny the validity of the shroud! Like I said, it takes no official stance. It even specifically says that the church cannot pronounce itself on such questions! Word for word “cannot pronounce itself on such questions” the official position is no official position.
Actually, I asked you in what way the tests were ‘flawed’, I referred you to the original article in Nature, which did indeed say “The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the
How should I know?
It also doesn’t help that the catholic church isn’t allowing more tests on it, when the first tests were disputed.
I apologise, you are correct, you did not mention anything about solar eclises originally. I was merely trying to cross-reference your claims against that of another catholic on this forum who was pretty sure that there was a solar eclipse at the death of jesus.
The formatting of your post when you copied and pasted something about evidence was quite difficult to follow if I recall correctly, this may have something to do with the lack of response you are getting on this question. On the whole from what I could decipher, I don’t think I had a problem with your definition of evidence. However, we must remember that not all evidence is created equal, and there may be better explanations for some evidence than what has been explained to you in the past, and who knows, we might both have some evidence that the other hasn’t heard of.
Agreed, don’t just assume. Which missing link are you referring to?
Now it is you that is getting confused, I didn’t have any problems with your definition of Ape. That was from A, and I thought it was just a bit of fun.
I think 90% is WILDLY optimistic.
Only when what you say contradicts the facts, like your hilarious understanding of modern physics. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no Stephen Hawking myself, but you seemed to think that Newton was the ‘cutting edge’!
Incorrect, it looked to me like you were simply passing off much of the text as your own work, which was a dishonest thing to do. It was also somewhat lazy. I can read books and websites to my heart’s content, I came here to talk to people. You and I will NEVER be able to read through all the things we could copy and paste at each other, it is pointless to have a conversation like that. The short time between my accusation of you not reading my posts, you saying you would respond to all of them, and then commencing to respond, proves my point that you didn’t read them at all.
The revolutionary war request deserved nothing.
Can you name an atheistic society any time in history? I mean where the society is atheist, not just the current leader? I think the closest we have ever come to so far seems to be Sweden, with some surveys indicating (I think) an 80% level of disbelief in a personal god. Other surveys say otherwise, but when I went there I found very little religiosity. I think the swedes are doing just fine.
Well, Bill Gates is probably ultimately responsible for the operating system that has allowed me the pleasure of reading your posts, as well as donating huge amounts of money to charity.
By all means, vent your anger, what do I care? Ad hominem attacks have no argumentative weight whatsoever, I’m here to discuss the evidence, or lack of, for a god. How have you defined a ‘typical atheist’? I’m betting you’ve met many atheists and didn’t even realise it at the time, unless you use “IS JESUS YOUR SAVIOUR???!!” Instead of “Hello”, and even then you wouldn’t realise it much of the time due to your ridiculous behaviour.
A candidate for belief. Why would anybody believe a hypothesis? This puts the cart ahead of the horse as far as the scientific method is concerned.
I’ve respected the rules of this forum, at least as far as I can tell. Since you look to an invisible dictator in the sky for your morals and purpose, does that also mean you lack self-control?
Interesting summary of organic chemistry and neuroscience.