NationStates Jolt Archive

And science could easily test your assertion by a very simple blood test or by taking a few cells from the inside of your cheek. Or a hair from your hairbrush, for that matter. Scientific mehod could easily disprove such an assertion if it were not true. Ever heard of DNA testing?

What if I switched the cells when you weren't looking?

Science can't prove things wrong, because you can't prove a negative. Don't believe me? Prove that I'm not a monkey. Maybe I'm a really smart monkey. If you come over to my house to check, and see that I'm not a monkey, then maybe I was wearing a suit, ect.

Besides, science hasn't proven God wrong, so according to your explanation, it's completely worthless in any sort of debate about God.

On the contrary, my friend.... the only thing science CAN ever 'prove' (although, that word is a little unscientific, in and of itself) IS a negative.

i.e. The atom is a solid mass. Theory. 'Proved' wrong. Spawning a new 'theory'.

Science cannot prove God wrong... and WILL not prove God wrong... because God is totally unquantifiable to science... thus, it can never prove OR disprove the existence of 'god'.

However, if you look at the thread title... the ACTUAL topic is, can science 'explain everything'.... not 'can it prove god'.

They made their arguments based on the best evidence they had at their time, and because of this often ended with uncertainty, too. We've gotten a lot better at both gathering and analyzing evidence since the 16th century.

They didn't use evidence. They used reason.

If you think that God is illogical, then talk to Thomas Aquinas, St.Anslem of Canterbury, Réne Descartes, ect. They have made numerous rational arguments for the existence of God. That's not to say that their arguments are foolproof, but there is logic in the idea.
...provided one begins with a premise that includes the existence of God.

They didn't use evidence. They used reason.

There is no reason without evidence.

You must have an 'evidence'.... in the form of an observation, or an assumption, FROM which to reason.

Your argument only works for a quantity that changes over time eg. rolling a dice again and again-eventually you get a 6). If the laws of Physics changed over time, then our lives would be a lot more complicated.

What quantity is changing? Yes, if you roll a die again and again, you'll eventually get a 6. In fact, your chance of getting a 6 is 1/6, so the odds are that you'll roll one six out of every six rolls. Over time, with enough rolls, you'll build up a normal distribution.

The principle is exactly the same; it's only a matter of scale. There's no change in the laws of physics necessary to generate life; in fact, everything about life conforms perfectly to the laws of physics. Given enough time, it will arise, so long as carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen are present. As these things are themselves produced by the same set of physical laws that all living things obey, it's literally bound to happen sooner or later — unless one is operating under a different set of physical laws. At that point, there's no basis for any discussion, since you'd just be making things up.

Yes it can, it can explain everything. End of topic, if you say anything else then I will hunt you down and I will kill you.

What if I switched the cells when you weren't looking?


Depends... is the new one as well-padded as the last one?

Hey, what if you used your magical wizard powers to actually turn into a monkey, and then you started chucking bananas at the nice scientists so they couldn't take the sample? What if you vanished in a puff of purple smoke?

There is no reason without evidence.

You must have an 'evidence'.... in the form of an observation, or an assumption, FROM which to reason.

That's the easiest way to reason, yes, but not entirely necessary. You can start with a very simple premise that is completely self-evident, and build from there. I'm not going to try to explain their arguments, because they're incredibly complicated. My point is that there is logic in the idea of God.

Yes it can, it can explain everything. End of topic, if you say anything else then I will hunt you down and I will kill you.

Ridiculous.

Inappropriate.

Not helpful.

Irrelevent.

They didn't use evidence. They used reason.

You must have read a different Descartes than I did. I seem to remember long passages based on the behavior of wax melting in front of his fireplace.

Ridiculous.

Inappropriate.

Not helpful.

Irrelevent.
enough about you, let's talk about me.

Science can't prove things wrong, because you can't prove a negative.

I am not talking about proving a negative - I am talking about proof by negation. A HUGE difference.

Science works by observing something, then devising a hypothesis that seems to explain the observation, and then trying to find flaws in that hypothesis. If you find flaws, you have a new observation with which you can correct your hypothesis - which you can then again test for flaws etc.

Once it seems the hypothesis can survive every test (which of course also means letting it be tested by others since you alone may miss something) it may qualify for the "theory" title.

However, one of the most fundamental concepts of the scientific method is that you should not set out to prove yourself right, you set out to prove yourself wrong.

Don't believe me? Prove that I'm not a monkey. Maybe I'm a really smart monkey. If you come over to my house to check, and see that I'm not a monkey, then maybe I was wearing a suit, ect.

Testing your blood will in fact be quite easy :P

Besides, science hasn't proven God wrong, so according to your explanation, it's completely worthless in any sort of debate about God.

It is yes - for the simple reason that God cannot be tested. Something which cannot be tested cannot be proven wrong, but can also not be considered a scientific theory.
The only thing you can use science in religious debates for is to attack non-spiritual claims. Age of the earth, age of Methusalem, Genesis, Noahs ark and so on. Things with figures. Things we can compare to things we know.

Does the pro-science crowd have no reply as to why one should care? I am not advocating ignorance or a return to the Dark Ages, but what has knowing the origin of the Universe down to Planck time done for anyone today?


Well you are oversimplying the argument. Man is a creature that always asks "why?" The fact you don't want to know doesn't mean we should stop seeking answers.

Going on such Quixotic quests often teach us things we thought were not possible. It improves ideas. Tosses bad ideas. Opens new lines of thought.

Such questions answered perceptions of sailing too far and falling of the earth, not being able to fly, go to the moon.

Seeking the origins of the universe will eventually lead to space travel......

What quantity is changing? Yes, if you roll a die again and again, you'll eventually get a 6. In fact, your chance of getting a 6 is 1/6, so the odds are that you'll roll one six out of every six rolls. Over time, with enough rolls, you'll build up a normal distribution.

The principle is exactly the same; it's only a matter of scale. There's no change in the laws of physics necessary to generate life; in fact, everything about life conforms perfectly to the laws of physics. Given enough time, it will arise, so long as carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen are present. As these things are themselves produced by the same set of physical laws that all living things obey, it's literally bound to happen sooner or later — unless one is operating under a different set of physical laws. At that point, there's no basis for any discussion, since you'd just be making things up.

I already explained that carbon, oxygen and nitrogen (or any other element, for that matter) can't exist without the right physical parameters.

That's the easiest way to reason, yes, but not entirely necessary. You can start with a very simple premise that is completely self-evident, and build from there. I'm not going to try to explain their arguments, because they're incredibly complicated. My point is that there is logic in the idea of God.

The fact that an argument is logical doesn't necessarily make it cogent. One can easily obey the forms of logic and form an incorrect argument, and one can start from a self-evident premise and come up with an incorrect conclusion.

The sun rose this morning.
The sun provides warmth.
Therefore, it is warm outside.

Perfectly logical... and incorrect.

How dare you ignore my hilarious joke? Don't say "what one? :P" because it's the one with "enough about you, let's talk about me"

The fact that an argument is logical doesn't necessarily make it cogent. One can easily obey the forms of logic and form an incorrect argument, and one can start from a self-evident premise and come up with an incorrect conclusion.

The sun rose this morning.
The sun provides warmth.
Therefore, it is warm outside.

Perfectly logical... and incorrect.

Your argument is valid, but not sound. There is an incorrect hypothesis. The sun does not always provide warmth.

That's the easiest way to reason, yes, but not entirely necessary. You can start with a very simple premise that is completely self-evident, and build from there. I'm not going to try to explain their arguments, because they're incredibly complicated. My point is that there is logic in the idea of God.

A very simple premise IS an assumption.

A premise that is SELF-EVIDENT, is 'evidence'.

There is NO logic in the idea of 'god'... if there were, 'it' would not be 'god'.

I already explained that carbon, oxygen and nitrogen (or any other element, for that matter) can't exist without the right physical parameters.

But those physical parameters were existent within 1.0 x 10^-43 seconds after the universe came into existence. They're a necessity. There is nothing about them that necessitates their having been designed. This is where people like Penrose and Dembski simply get it wrong.

I already explained that carbon, oxygen and nitrogen (or any other element, for that matter) can't exist without the right physical parameters.

Not true, my friend. They can exist.... just maybe not in 'helpful' states.

Your argument is valid, but not sound. There is an incorrect hypothesis. The sun does not always provide warmth.

I'm beginning to think that you live in a parallel universe...

The sun always provides warmth. Always. The amount of warmth that reaches the atmosphere on a given part of earth varies, but sunlight is heat. It will always be colder if the sun isn't present, but that doesn't mean that it can't be -30 outside on a particular day.

Hadn't you noticed this before?

Your argument is valid, but not sound. There is an incorrect hypothesis. The sun does not always provide warmth.

Again... not true.... it ALWAYS provides heat... just maybe not to the inhabitants at any given point on Earth.

I'm beginning to think that you live in a parallel universe...

The sun always provides warmth. Always. The amount of warmth that reaches the atmosphere on a given part of earth varies, but sunlight is heat. It will always be colder if the sun isn't present, but that doesn't mean that it can't be -30 outside on a particular day.

Hadn't you noticed this before?

True enough. Let me reprase.
The existence of warmth doesn't always make it warm.

The sun rose this morning.
The sun provides warmth.
Therefore, it is warm outside.

Perfectly logical... and incorrect.

The last statement does not follow logically from the first two. It should read:

Therefore, it is warmer outside than it would have been without the sun.

True enough. Let me reprase.
The existence of warmth doesn't always make it warm.

Physics is not your strong suit, is it, my friend?

It will always be colder if the sun isn't present,
What if you're in a concrete cube with no windows, with the heating on very high?

Not true, my friend. They can exist.... just maybe not in 'helpful' states.

If the charge on an electron were just a little bit bigger, then electrons would spiral into the nucleus and the atom would be annihiliated in seconds. Any smaller, and the electrons would fly away. Either way we don't have atoms or elements.

Well, let's try it.
The theory of Banana explains how bodies of mass are attracted to each other. When they slip on the peel, they fall down due to ...Banana.
Nope, substituting one idea for another does't really explain anything, you're right.Exactly. Though I wasn't asking anyone to replace one idea with another. Just trying to make it obvious that the word God doesn't explain anything in itself.

A book tells people that God created everything, and they go "Aha!" and look like they just had some profound insight. But did they?
Couldn't the book equally well have said "Banana" or perhaps "Say 'Aha!' & look like you just had a major realization."

Physics is not your strong suit, is it, my friend?

Actually, I'm minoring in Physics.
But I'm not interested in ad hominem attacks.

What if I switched the cells when you weren't looking?

What if I saw you trying to steal the cell, drank the formula that turns me into an eight foot, firebreathing, child-eating lizard-monster and repeatedly punched you in the face until you handed it back?

What if I saw you trying to steal the cell, drank the formula that turns me into an eight foot, firebreathing, child-eating lizard-monster and repeatedly punched you in the face until you handed it back?

Then I'd be sad

Then I'd be sad

Damn right you would be. However, I fear I'm going grossly off topic.

Science doesn't prove everything. God may or may not exist. Chances are that you are not a monkey. I think that just about wraps up everything I want to say.

Exactly. Though I wasn't asking anyone to replace one idea with another.
Well, perhaps not intentionally, but you were. The word "god" expresses a very specific idea to an individual, and substituting another word substitutes another idea.

Just trying to make it obvious that the word God doesn't explain anything in itself.
It does if you understand it.

A book tells people that God created everything, and they go "Aha!" and look like they just had some profound insight. But did they?
Couldn't the book equally well have said "Banana" or perhaps "Say 'Aha!' & look like you just had a major realization."
The book you refer to expresses a specific idea of god (not the only one), and if they garnered insight from any words in it, why should we doubt that?

I guess I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Well, perhaps not intentionally, but you were. The word "god" expresses a very specific idea to an individual, and substituting another word substitutes another idea.My bad. I guess I was asking the impossible.It does if you understand it.Does it? I'm glad to hear you say that, because maybe you can relate what exactly there is to understand?

You see, the Banana thing you did was really rather good. It was much more of an explanation than I ever gleaned from the Bible. Because you didn't just say "Banana", you ran with the idea. Sure, you also slipped in it, but that's besides the point. The point I was trying to get across is that just saying "Banana did it" or "God did it" doesn't explain anything. You demonstrated that beautifully when you felt you needed to come up with an explanation for how Banana did it. Banana in itself didn't make sense to you.The book you refer to expresses a specific idea of god (not the only one), and if they garnered insight from any words in it, why should we doubt that?Shouldn't we examine it? What progress can we hope for if we don't examine our world & our thoughts?I guess I'm not sure what you're getting at.Yea.. I'm starting to think this only makes sense in my own twisted mind.

Does it? I'm glad to hear you say that, because maybe you can relate what exactly there is to understand?

You see, the Banana thing you did was really rather good. It was much more of an explanation than I ever gleaned from the Bible. Because you didn't just say "Banana", you ran with the idea. Sure, you also slipped in it, but that's besides the point. The point I was trying to get across is that just saying "Banana did it" or "God did it" doesn't explain anything.
Everyone who truly believes in god has a concept of what 'god' is and a reason for believing what they do. This amounts to an understanding of how god fits into their existence, and how they fit into god's. What god explains is existence. (Everything else is the relationship between the individual and god symbolised in story and image.)

You are absolutely right that saying, "God did it," does not explain how events happen. But then, I think it is more often people without a concept of what god is (both religious/agnostic and athiest/agnostic) who expect that that is what god should explain.

I'm glad you never gleamed any explanations for events from the Bible.

You demonstrated that beautifully when you felt you needed to come up with an explanation for how Banana did it. Banana in itself didn't make sense to you.
But I was simply substituting Banana for gravity, and gravity does make sense to me. It was the substitution of one idea for another that made it make no sense.

Substituting Banana for God does make Banana, in that case, make no sense. It does not reflect on what sense God makes. (Hope I said that right.)

Shouldn't we examine it? What progress can we hope for if we don't examine our world & our thoughts?
We can examine the book, if it interests us to do so, to see what insight we can garner from it, and we can examine why some people garner insight from it when others do not, etc.; but we should not bother ourselves with doubting that insight was got. That is a personal thing.

Yea.. I'm starting to think this only makes sense in my own twisted mind.
I kind of think you were going in a direction that looks vaguely familiar, but I can't quite place it (was hoping to draw it out of you). I'll get back to you...

If you want to start using defitions in dictionaries then how about this one.

GOD- the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions

Conceived being the key word

OK i am sorry poor qoute there one defining death

Physical death
·The cessation of normal body functions. In legal terms defined as "brain death", i.e., loss of higher cortical functions.

What functions does our body have that aren't normal?:confused:

What functions does our body have that aren't normal?:confused:

I saw a movie once, with some ping-pong balls...

Hello.

I'm God.

God, you have 121143158^3151651546864 waiting prayers for you to awnser, shall i email them?

I am a Roman Catholic . I believe that science cannt prove everything and the idea of God is absolutely realistic to me .The big bang however is ompletely far fetched

I hope to god (pun intended) that you're trolling here... Otherwise you wathed way too much Pamela Anderson on TV

I hope to god (pun intended) that you're trolling here... Otherwise you wathed way too much Pamela Anderson on TV

Okay, let's not blame boob-tube boob-viewing for anybody's reasoning, here..

well, who says carbon dating is accurate? it could be wrong, we can't PROVE that it is right.

we also can't PROVE the whole continental drift theory, not that I ever said anything against it, and there are plenty of ways it could happen....

and who says fossils take a long time to be made? we can't prove they do...

see, we very easily believe all these thing that can't actually be PROVEN, but when it comes to God, "Oh No! we can't prove God! therefore let's not believe in him at all"

lol, sorry, got a bit off track there...

Actually, i was under the impression that carbon dating has been proven to be correct (give or take afew years), and as for fossilisation, the proccess itself takes variating time, depending on the circumstances that the dead/dying animal/plant is in. Continental drift has been studied rather deeply & makes sense, you could say it's not proven because we can't recreate it (thank god! :p ) but the case for it is rather solid.

When coming to the subject of god you can't use science to disprove or prove him, however, you can use logic & reasoning.

For instance, if mankind didn't exist, would god exist?

well, as a christian, I don't want to see people go to hell (i'm not judging here, just stating what my faith dictates), so it does matter, but then again, if they want to, it's their problem...

How many religions feature a hell btw?

The question then is, why don't you want people to go to hell? What do you get from them not going to hell?

Well, if he's the only one going into heaven, who will sit down & play cards with him? :p

Heh...hope we never have to experiment on macroevolution by terraforming a planet and turning a bunch of organisms loose to see what happens...if they become sentient, we might ethically have to let them know it was all just an experiment, so they don't start praying to us...

Does the pro-science crowd have no reply as to why one should care? I am not advocating ignorance or a return to the Dark Ages, but what has knowing the origin of the Universe down to Planck time done for anyone today?

Knowing ones past will help live in the future

I object tot he idea that life has no meaning without God. As sentient creatures, we determine our own meaning, with or without God.

Hence free will even for the religious.

how can the creted determine its own purpose? if there is no God, then there is no reason for your existence, nor anything you are meant to be or do. hence, there is no meaning. i can't remember his name right now, but some author/atheist, who is rather well-known, said "unless you assume a God, the question of life's purpose is meaningless".

how can the creted determine its own purpose? if there is no God, then there is no reason for your existence, nor anything you are meant to be or do. hence, there is no meaning. i can't remember his name right now, but some author/atheist, who is rather well-known, said "unless you assume a God, the question of life's purpose is meaningless".

I'm not surprised you can't remember his name. His observation isn't all that stunning.

Others might argue that the only meaning life has is one you choose for yourself. Everything else is just following orders.

Knowing ones past will help live in the future
Fun with time travel!

It'd be cool to live in the future --then we could always know what the winning lottery numbers are.

Thanks for reminding me. The name Roger Penrose slipped my head. Anyway, it doesn't matter what the precise probability is, suffice to say that the odds are astronmically against it. To go back to my gravity example, there's only a precise range of values for G that will allow the existence of planets. There's also a precise range of values for e, the charge on an electron that allow for the atom to exist. How can life possibly exist without atoms?

And your argument about the probability of the universe existing being 100%, because it does, is the same as saying that the probability of me winning the lottery is 100%, because I did. Makes no sense.

And lastly, the existence of thta extra term is suggested by the other terms. Sure, we can't evaluate it, but that doesn't matter. The existence of a bio-generative universe without something to make it that way is incredibly unlikely.

I noticed you ignored my post on the matter :rolleyes:
Also, the coming into existance of a supernatural creator intelligent enough to make us is equally improbable, actually, the probabilities are most likely to be lower then the probability of our universe being "just right"

If you think that God is illogical, then talk to Thomas Aquinas, St.Anslem of Canterbury, Réne Descartes, ect. They have made numerous rational arguments for the existence of God. That's not to say that their arguments are foolproof, but there is logic in the idea.

Oddly that no-one has used any of their work in this thread then, ain't it?

And your argument about the probability of the universe existing being 100%, because it does, is the same as saying that the probability of me winning the lottery is 100%, because I did. Makes no sense.

Because your comparison is invalid. The probability of the universe existing being 100%, because it does, is the same as saying that the probability of you having won the lottery is 100%, because you did. That the odds were not in your favour beforehand is irrelevant - since they obviously were not 0.

That's the easiest way to reason, yes, but not entirely necessary. You can start with a very simple premise that is completely self-evident, and build from there. I'm not going to try to explain their arguments, because they're incredibly complicated. My point is that there is logic in the idea of God.

Where *IS* that logic? If you agree with them surely you can formulate why you agree with their findings and what that logic precisely is?

Because your comparison is invalid. The probability of the universe existing being 100%, because it does, is the same as saying that the probability of you having won the lottery is 100%, because you did. That the odds were not in your favour beforehand is irrelevant - since they obviously were not 0.

I'm with Rat on this one. I think Cambo's use of probability thus far is thin.
An occurred event has a probability of 1, a priori.

Interestingly, the probability of any discrete outcome on a continuous interval of possibilities is zero, but one outcome will occur. Of course, if we insist on any of those outcomes, thus narrowing the range to a limit of zero, the odds naturally seems impossibly unlikely.

But if you understand that, to the "would've been" inhabitants of any other outcome, there own would seem to be the "destined" one, you understand why we think its so "unlikely" that our world would have come about naturally, even though its really no more unlikely than anything else that could have happened.

Thanks for reminding me. The name Roger Penrose slipped my head. Anyway, it doesn't matter what the precise probability is, suffice to say that the odds are astronmically against it. To go back to my gravity example, there's only a precise range of values for G that will allow the existence of planets. There's also a precise range of values for e, the charge on an electron that allow for the atom to exist. How can life possibly exist without atoms?

And your argument about the probability of the universe existing being 100%, because it does, is the same as saying that the probability of me winning the lottery is 100%, because I did. Makes no sense.

And lastly, the existence of thta extra term is suggested by the other terms. Sure, we can't evaluate it, but that doesn't matter. The existence of a bio-generative universe without something to make it that way is incredibly unlikely.

The reason that the universe seems to be "exactly right" for our kind of life, is because if it wasn't, it would have a completely different kind of life. Imagine a puddle in a hole in the ground - it fits perfectly, but if the hole was different, so would be the puddle, but it would still fit perfectly. Does the puddle need a god to be created? No.

And for the chances for life developing on a planet being low: imagine that you roll a dice for one billion times and write down all the numbers. Now how big was the chance that you rolled the numbers that you did? (1/6)^1.000.000.000. That's a very low chance. Still, you strangly managed to do it. Did you need a god to do so? No.

Science can't explain everything because humans themselves, even as the most intelligent creatures on the planet (debatably), can't understand everything yet. If we were smart enough to know about everything, science would explain it all.

In really simple terms, science is like a big jigsaw puzzle, but with some of the pieces missing. Some people claim that some 'unexplained phenomenon' doesn't fit in with science therefore there must be a God, but maybe the reason it doesn't fit is because we haven't got all the other 'jigsaw pieces' that it fits in with; the parts of science that we don't understand yet will someday help us to work these mysteries out. Though it's probable that by this time humans will no longer exist.

I'm not saying there is no God. In fact I'm sure there could be, but unless God does something so amazing that we all start believing in God again, no one can tell if God really exists or not. Though even if that does happen, in 2000 years time this argument will just occur again.

There are many people on this forums who would insist that there is no God becasue it cannot be explained by any kind of scinetific process. Who would essentially claim that there is no meaning to the universe, and that the universe just 'is', with no meaning or anything behind it. However to claim this is not scientific. It is philosophical, and no more defensable than any claim that there is a God. The idea that the universe has no meaning and life has no meaning etc is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one. And just because science cant explain any meaning that there may or may not be, that doesnt instantly mean there is no meaning. In short, the idea that the universe has no meaning is about as sceintific as the idea that it does. IE not at all

I've had this discussion with my boss and fellow employee's before... We finally came to the conclusion that we simply aren't capable of comprehending the energy/forces/"meaning" of what makes up/made the universe. Human beings don't have the brain power to understand and comprehend that which made the universe, and the life it created therein. Give humanity a few more millions of years of evolution and I'm sure we'll get a grasp on it. But right now, I don't think with all the scientific knowledge and tools in the entire world brought together would help prove or disprove any thing. We simply aren't capable of understanding it. It's like teaching quantum physics to ants.

On the subject of just plain definining anything at all.

To make an example.

Explain how to make a peanut butter sandwich and don't leave out anything.

Or explain language.

Or use a mathmatical problem to explain mathmatical theory.

It's simply not possible.

No matter what you think of there is an infinite amount of posssibilities that make anything possible.

Simple.

I've had this discussion with my boss and fellow employee's before... We finally came to the conclusion that we simply aren't capable of comprehending the energy/forces/"meaning" of what makes up/made the universe. Human beings don't have the brain power to understand and comprehend that which made the universe, and the life it created therein. Give humanity a few more millions of years of evolution and I'm sure we'll get a grasp on it. But right now, I don't think with all the scientific knowledge and tools in the entire world brought together would help prove or disprove any thing. We simply aren't capable of understanding it. It's like teaching quantum physics to ants.

Well, if god does do something truly amazing it's bound to be caught on video by a tourist :p

God, you have 121143158^3151651546864 waiting prayers for you to awnser, shall i email them?

Nah, why bother?

BTW, I don't really think I'm anymore "god" than anybody else. My point was more to the effect that since the OP had stated that the problem was that our perception was unreliable, I could very well be god. After all, how do you know I'm not? If god plays tricks with reasonable evidence to disguise the actual age of the universe (for instance) and can only be comprehended thorugh faith, then there's no reason at all not to believe such a claim.

My next request was going to be for money, but I never got the chance. :)

how can the creted determine its own purpose? if there is no God, then there is no reason for your existence, nor anything you are meant to be or do. hence, there is no meaning. i can't remember his name right now, but some author/atheist, who is rather well-known, said "unless you assume a God, the question of life's purpose is meaningless".

I would disagree with that.

I find meaning, for example, in the work that I do, such as tutoring terrified freshmen during finals week (and other times as well) and helping them learn. Nobody had to assign that meaning to me; I discovered it on my own.

When I am myself finished with my education, I hope to go into a field that has the potential to alleviate suffering on a global scale. I do this not because I believe I have a deity-given duty to do it, but because I am of the opinion that needless suffering should be alleviated. To me, the idea of helping a few million people not starve or finding a cure for a disease seems like a very meaningful and positive thing. I have assigned that purpose to myself; it isn't a product of divine intervention.

I even have an idea of an afterlife; one lives on in the minds of others. That, to me, is as close to eternity as we get. We may live on as prototypical monsters or as cherished good examples, and that's as close as we get to heaven and hell. Any reward coming to me will, I think, be coming in this life. It'll come in the knowledge that I did something to help others, should I have had that opportunity. And that's all I need.

So why is the concept of a deity who consciously creates and destroys, who meets out rewards and punishments, necessary in any of this? If such a deity revealed itself to me tomorrow, I'd keep doing what I'm doing. If it told me that I was doing the right thing, I'd nod my head and get back to work. If it told me I was doing the wrong thing, I'd tell it that if doing this thing that gives me a sense of purpose is wrong, then it can feel free to punish me for it however it sees fit. Its opinion would be utterly irrelevant.

Unless it bought me donuts. I like donuts.

What if you're in a concrete cube with no windows, with the heating on very high?

The sun still adds warmth; you just aren't likely to notice it. And you should probably turn down the heat before you suffocate.

If the charge on an electron were just a little bit bigger, then electrons would spiral into the nucleus and the atom would be annihiliated in seconds. Any smaller, and the electrons would fly away. Either way we don't have atoms or elements.

The electrons with bigger charges plunged into the atoms. Already happened in the first seconds after the event horizon. They just aren't called "electrons." Same with the opposite situation.

This kind of thing does still go on, too. Black holes destroy orbitals. We still have atoms, just of a very different configuration. The situation you describe is, in fact, a singularity, which did exist, at least as far as the best-supported model currently holds up. In fact, the disturbance caused by all those collapsing particles released enough energy to get the whole thing started.

What you're describing is pretty much how we got here.

If you want to start using defitions in dictionaries then how about this one.

GOD- the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions
At least have the dignity to cite your sources, since you went through the trouble of pointing out that there were dictionaries involved in my qualification of my posts.
So right now i'm left with a post that qualifies the farcicle nature of the idea ...
the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient

So, whaddya think the bolds mean?

object of worship
And in this line ... there isn't anything that requires that *object* to reciprocate. And in the polytheistic religions that the idealists behind the monotheistic "god" from which SO MUCH was usurped/coveted, do you know what kinds of "objective" worship were involved?
Hint ... see some of the old testament, see the internet questionnaire to Dr. Laura Schlessinger (sp?) as to whether certain faiths are currently required to, say, SACRIFICE something/someone.


Seriously, you were doing better before. Not making such a good point with this one. And please cite your sources, especially given the integrity your post is supposed to represent.

Are you sure you want to go there?
Uh-oh, someone else noticed your slip-up. This may blaze wildly out of control in a short time. :eek:

Unfortunately, the arguement was clearly refuted in post... 879?

(http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10093164&postcount=879)

;)
Arrgh!!!!
I'm melting .... melting .....

Hahahaha... I missed that originally. :D

I have faith that the Intelligent Decayer is none other than the Flying Spaghetti Monster's dark side, the Crawling Meatball Beast. This as opposed to the Intelligence decayer, which is clearly the UPN series "Stacked," starring Pamela Anderson.
What, no honorable mention of "Taradise"?

well, as a christian, I don't want to see people go to hell (i'm not judging here, just stating what my faith dictates), so it does matter, but then again, if they want to, it's their problem...
See, if you gave up on the religion thing, in recognizing its fallacy, you'd be saving their lives (not - sorry, AFTER-lives) from damnation! You'd be THEIR saviour!
Or, do you really think that whole *UNSUBSTANTIATED by scripture* hell/damnation idea really carries all that weight (psychological baggage)?

If the charge on an electron were just a little bit bigger, then electrons would spiral into the nucleus and the atom would be annihiliated in seconds. Any smaller, and the electrons would fly away. Either way we don't have atoms or elements.

The charge on an electron?

You realise that 'an electron' is just our way of describing the highest probability density for the amount of 'energy' equivalent to one nuclear particle?

An electron is NOT a solid thing, which 'falls' into it's nucleus.... it is an 'area' of charge...

And, that 'area' of charge is ONLY given what WE consider a certain charge, because THAT is the equilibrium of charge from ONE nuclear particle? (One proton).

So - if a proton balanced out at a charge greater than what we allow.... the electrons in that atom would ALSO have higher charges.

You are looking at half of an equilibrium, and trying to judge it as a solid, solitary unit.


Sorry, my friend, but your model is based entirely on a failure to understand what the atomic particles 'are'.

No, not looking for a reason to care. Just looking for something to do on a Wednesday while my kid takes a nap. Ha.
Blimey then, you've certainly picked the right place!
If i may, i offer welcome to NS.

Actually, I'm minoring in Physics.
But I'm not interested in ad hominem attacks.

It isn't an ad hominem, it is a serious question.

So far you have made faulty arguments about thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and material states.

I simply assumed, therefore, that you were not a physicist, and were arguing in an arena unfamiliar to you. I was prepared to make an allowance for that fact.

Now, since you insist tht you ARE a 'physicist', I shall be expecting a much higher standard of debate, regarding matter of physics.

It isn't 'ad hominem'.. I'm not claiming your argument is standing or falling on your personal abilities.

What if I switched the cells when you weren't looking?
You Loki bastard. Fly off on your raven wing and leave the stability to the suffering. ;)

Yes it can, it can explain everything. End of topic, if you say anything else then I will hunt you down and I will kill you.
Will it be in an interesting and humiliating fashion, involving a little-known phenomena?

Definitively, god existance could no be proved, is just about beliefs, of faith. If scientist can explain what is God, so God can be in the human understanding. If it is in the human understanding, it is not as perfecet as we thought.

Your argument is valid, but not sound. There is an incorrect hypothesis. The sun does not always provide warmth.
Try again. This is rather embarassing.

Actually, I'm minoring in Physics.
But I'm not interested in ad hominem attacks.
Very minoring. Diminished, even. (ah via musicom attack?)
To the extent that we're talking blue notes.

True enough. Let me reprase.
The existence of warmth doesn't always make it warm.
Now you're REALLY pushing credibility.
Maybe this is an example of a case where substitution of "banana" or "Brian" would work.
For example, the existence of banana doesn't always make it banana.
...uhm...
wth are you trying to say?

EDIT: for grammatical reasons, i have to amend the above example, regardless of its integral sensibility.

The existence of banana -TH doesn't always make it banana.
There, all better.

What if I saw you trying to steal the cell, drank the formula that turns me into an eight foot, firebreathing, child-eating lizard-monster and repeatedly punched you in the face until you handed it back?
You'd have to go on RAMPAGE with George and Ralph.

You see, the Banana thing you did was really rather good. It was much more of an explanation than I ever gleaned from the Bible. Because you didn't just say "Banana", you ran with the idea. Sure, you also slipped in it, but that's besides the point. The point I was trying to get across is that just saying "Banana did it" or "God did it" doesn't explain anything. You demonstrated that beautifully when you felt you needed to come up with an explanation for how Banana did it. Banana in itself didn't make sense to you.

Tally so far, Post # ....
Banana: 4
God: ... well, we're waiting for the rest of the votes. No call just yet.

I saw a movie once, with some ping-pong balls...
Winona Ryder? (Operation "Human Shield", my ass!)

Tally so far, Post # ....
Banana: 4
God: ... well, we're waiting for the rest of the votes. No call just yet.A little known fact:
Banana did in fact create the universe. A bunch of old demented farts in the ME decided to modify the story, because they didn't think anyone'd believe it. Most of the locals had never seen a Banana in their life, and obviously couldn't appreciate The Divine Glory of Going Bananas.

No matter what you think of there is an infinite amount of posssibilities that make anything possible.
Already prior to this post, the understanding of how "possibility" plays into "probability" had been somewhat expressed, and certainly "infinite" means "all probability/all possibility".
Unfortunately all manner of definition, INCLUDING DEATH, are based on the CURBING of the nature of probability and possibility, and certainly with death, they tend to present an INSURMOUNTABLE curve in the field, therefore defining something out of the all-probable/all-possible, and also therefore making some definitions valid through the FINITE field of possibility.
No reasonable measure of anything is useful with the prime variable being "infinite" and so it does somewhat matter what people will think of it, since their actions more often than not will also be conditioned by the probable and the possible, and far less often conditioned by the improbable and/or infinite.

You'd have to go on RAMPAGE with George and Ralph.

I loved that game.

A little known fact:
Banana did in fact create the universe. A bunch of old demented farts in the ME decided to modify the story, because they didn't think anyone'd believe it. Most of the locals had never seen a Banana in their life, and obviously couldn't appreciate The Divine Glory of Going Bananas.
Damn, now i've gotta revamp my stats ....
Banana: 6 (at least, not finished yet)
God: ...as mentioned before...
Anthropic Principle: 3 (i think)
Irrationality principle: ...still counting ....

*Tally has a margin of error approximate to actual amount of attentive review of pertinent posts.

Degree of error probability: high but not off curve.

I loved that game.
Sickly enough, i think many of us here did/do too, on a regular basis.

Definitively, god existance could no be proved, is just about beliefs, of faith. If scientist can explain what is God, so God can be in the human understanding. If it is in the human understanding, it is not as perfecet as we thought.
Who thought god was perfect? Do you mean the Judeo-Christian god, the one who brandishes an infantile and crippled emotional and intellectual prowess with an overburdening of power (Trelaine? Time to come home now.)? Not just implies it, but actually retains such incidences in the text?

Speaking of text, here i go again. Thanks to y'all keepin' it real, alive.

perfect:

(Webster's)
complete in all respects; flawless.
completely accurate
utter; sheer; absolute
-
(OED)
complete; not deficient
faultless
...
blameless in morals or behavior


Note: i arranged the two definition sources up for a couple of reasons: to alleviate boredom/routine;
because i'd picked up Webster's first;
and because after the *...* separation, it's now clear to me that OED has a previously unbeknownst-to-me bias. The bias that apparently a certain niche group uses in its assessment of things they think the word merits.

*grrr*

Which is why it's deicide to invoke it along notions of Creator Gods. Because as simple as the explanation "God" may seem, it is a non-explanation.

Consider substituting the word "God" with another word. Like Car, or Banana, or perhaps Brian.

How did the universe come to be? Brian/Banana created it.

Suddenly it becomes perfectly obvious that it doesn't explain anything, but instead makes all explanation impossible. Banana made the universe? Brian did?! - Those defy all attempts at explanation, and are just as unfalsifiable as the God argument, and thus - by Christian logic - equally valid.

.. It doesn't make one ounce of sense.
How did the universe come to be? Baran-Duine created it.
No, that explains alot
:p

He made us though, right?
yes, but he didn't make sin, or the evil things which mislead us into sin, or disbelieving what God dictates. Yes he made us, but he made us with free will.
If he didn't make sin, where did it come from?

If he didn't make sin, where did it come from?
Through biblical parlance and logic combined with the nature of that question, and THEN POSED: sin simply doesn't exist.
There, philosophical quandary negated. On to sainthood!

On a lighter note, i think an earlier poster mentioned something along the lines of negating an assumption of hell by his/her actions, and i'm recommending them for consideration of saint- or at least bishop- or cardinal-hood.

And your argument about the probability of the universe existing being 100%, because it does, is the same as saying that the probability of me winning the lottery is 100%, because I did. Makes no sense.

No, it's not. If you have a coin in your hand, the probability of you having a coin in your hand is 100%. If you flip that coin, the probability of it being heads is 50%. If you flip heads, the probability of it being heads is 100%.

The probability of an event occurring when it has already occurred is always 100%.

And lastly, the existence of thta extra term is suggested by the other terms. Sure, we can't evaluate it, but that doesn't matter. The existence of a bio-generative universe without something to make it that way is incredibly unlikely.

You clearly haven't the faintest idea what Occam's Razor is if you think a term that cannot be evaulated can be added and the resultant theory still selected by it.

And as said, it's only unlikely if you're an intellectually dishonest mathematician.

No, it's not. If you have a coin in your hand, the probability of you having a coin in your hand is 100%. If you flip that coin, the probability of it being heads is 50%. If you flip heads, the probability of it being heads is 100%.

The probability of an event occurring when it has already occurred is always 100%.



You clearly haven't the faintest idea what Occam's Razor is if you think a term that cannot be evaulated can be added and the resultant theory still selected by it.

And as said, it's only unlikely if you're an intellectually dishonest mathematician.
COMPLETELY off topic, but i MUST ask:

What is the deal with listed moderators?
The three that are *always* listed at the bottom as being on the forum i almost never see (being Menelmacar, Unfree People, and Katganistan), yet today, when the same listing is given, both yourself and Melkor Unchained have visited threads i've been on.
So why the difference? Are you guys like phantom shoppers or something?

The three that are *always* listed at the bottom as being on the forum i almost never see (being Menelmacar, Unfree People, and Katganistan), yet today, when the same listing is given, both yourself and Melkor Unchained have visited threads i've been on.
So why the difference? Are you guys like phantom shoppers or something?

The listed moderators are a particular batch added to that list by Jolt for some reason, a little after the forum changeover. Anyone who was already a mod wasn't added, anyone modded after wasn't added either. Menelmacar was modded then because Jolt forgot to mod her during the forum changeover, IIRC.

And as said, it's only unlikely if you're an intellectually dishonest mathematician.

Like a finance major?

The listed moderators are a particular batch added to that list by Jolt for some reason, a little after the forum changeover. Anyone who was already a mod wasn't added, anyone modded after wasn't added either. Menelmacar was modded then because Jolt forgot to mod her during the forum changeover, IIRC.
Ah, thank you!
That has been mildly irritating me for a few seasons now.
*bows*

Well, good thread, and good night.
(God curse McCarthyism!)

Sickly enough, i think many of us here did/do too, on a regular basis.

Smashing buildings, eating people.... Now if that ain't an Atheist game i don't know *what* is :p

Smashing buildings, eating people.... Now if that ain't an Atheist game i don't know *what* is :p
Well, I prefer the term, morally contortionist game, m'self.
G'night Kefren. *bows*

Well, I prefer the term, morally contortionist game, m'self.
G'night Kefren. *bows*

Nite mate ;)

Like a finance major?

:D

See, if you gave up on the religion thing, in recognizing its fallacy, you'd be saving their lives (not - sorry, AFTER-lives) from damnation! You'd be THEIR saviour!
Or, do you really think that whole *UNSUBSTANTIATED by scripture* hell/damnation idea really carries all that weight (psychological baggage)?

So you criticise him/her for what he/she accepts as truth, ignoring the fact that if it is truth, it will remain truth, regardless of whether it is believed or not? Nice reasoning.

:eek: :eek: :eek:
Tell me you weren't APPOINTED there by that chimpf*ck Bush.
Tell me you actually EARNED a position of some kind of authority regarding work in a field that by its very nature requires suspension of personal delusions to the degree that a lot of Christian philosophy seems to demand.

Or ... are you saying you're a test experiment?

Now that does make you sound a little fanatic. I'm Australian working in biology in Germany. The position was open to anyone, and I got it based on my credentials that had nothing to do with my philosophical outlook. You seem to be saying that the only people capable of good science cannot also believe in God as a creator of biology. You are seriously mislead.

Now that does make you sound a little fanatic. I'm Australian working in biology in Germany. The position was open to anyone, and I got it based on my credentials that had nothing to do with my philosophical outlook. You seem to be saying that the only people capable of good science cannot also believe in God as a creator of biology. You are seriously mislead.

Aslong as your pholosophical views don't prohibit you from doing your scientific work i don't see why theists or deists can't be scientists, unless you're a fundie offcourse ;)

Hey so what about the religious nutters that said "Thou shalt worship this" and burned and smashed pagan and celtic belief *ahem* idea systems?

Where I more familiar with the details and the culture of the time (I have read about that history), I would be in a better position to give you my opinion. It may have been that the people who forced the ancient celtics to become Christians were not being very good Christians. On the other hand, there should be no reason for not smashing your own beliefs if you are rejecting them and embracing another, so long as it is your own property that is being destroyed, not your neighbours.

Well, science can't explain everything. The basis of science itself is philosophy, but the standards by which science works cannot be proven (material monism, reliability). IMO, objective standards of truth do not exist. Only perspectives, of which science is one, do. I must emphasize that I don't reject science at all, just the aura of superior truth around it. Science is useful not because it is Absolute truth but because so far, it has yielded useful results when used properly.

Science has even proven that you can't prove Truth within a scientific model. Alfred Tarski's model theory states that the symbol 'true' is not derivable (in a logical sense). It has to be put in axiomatically. The difference between science and religion is, that science aknowledges this and just moves on, and religion is all about how fine it is to finally have found 'true' and put it in the model.

So if a scientist tells someone: "Ok, ok. I know that putting in this symbol in the model and calling it 'true' works. Lets get to the next point!", some people feel offended and think the scientist is on a witchhunt, but the scientist just doesn't care. He knows that also putting in the same symbol and calling it 'false' will yield correct results (true and false are completely interchangeable in model theory). And if the scientist says: "Look! Just because you define this symbol to be 'true', you didn't derive it from the model!" some people still get more angry and think, the scientist calls them stupid.

Aslong as your pholosophical views don't prohibit you from doing your scientific work i don't see why theists or deists can't be scientists, unless you're a fundie offcourse ;)

Perhaps it will always be a mystery to you (how my philosophical view point and my science can live together in harmony), but from where I'm standing, my idea of science holds a lot more water than yours.

I think I can see how you would be confused by this, particularly IF you feel that the knowledge revealed by science contradicts the concepts found in my philosophy. Obviously, there is much 'knowledge' in the science community that is at odds with what I believe and what I consider to be truth. However, it is fact that the 'knowledge' presented by the Godless viewpoint as rendering the inclusion of God in explanations for life and the universe is not essential for good science. In fact, I would go a step further and suggest that belief, when mistaken for knowledge, can often hinder good research. For this reason the beliefs present in both the Christian world view and the Godless world view have frequently hindered knowledge. The Christian view point has suffered more abuse possible because of it's longer history only. For an example of the Godless viewpoint inflicting damage on humanity, look at the various Godless communistic regimes, one that is still inflicting damage on its people today.

For an example of the Godless viewpoint inflicting damage on humanity, look at the various Godless communistic regimes, one that is still inflicting damage on its people today.

Could you show me which tenet in the Book Of Atheism mandates that sort of behaviour?

Could you show me which tenet in the Book Of Atheism mandates that sort of behaviour?


Holy crap!

Theres a book?
Why didnt I get one?

I even sold the most athie-bars.
Theyre kinda like candy bars, but theres no proof of thier existance.

Perhaps it will always be a mystery to you (how my philosophical view point and my science can live together in harmony), but from where I'm standing, my idea of science holds a lot more water than yours.

I think I can see how you would be confused by this, particularly IF you feel that the knowledge revealed by science contradicts the concepts found in my philosophy. Obviously, there is much 'knowledge' in the science community that is at odds with what I believe and what I consider to be truth. However, it is fact that the 'knowledge' presented by the Godless viewpoint as rendering the inclusion of God in explanations for life and the universe is not essential for good science. In fact, I would go a step further and suggest that belief, when mistaken for knowledge, can often hinder good research. For this reason the beliefs present in both the Christian world view and the Godless world view have frequently hindered knowledge. The Christian view point has suffered more abuse possible because of it's longer history only. For an example of the Godless viewpoint inflicting damage on humanity, look at the various Godless communistic regimes, one that is still inflicting damage on its people today.

It's not science that makes me unable to believe, it's logic & my own personal insight in how man's mind works (or atleast mine) that hinders my belief in a deity. The rest of your post is something i can accept & agree with

Could you show me which tenet in the Book Of Atheism mandates that sort of behaviour?

I had in mind the government of China, which has had a history of opposition to religion, and I suspect the latest reforms towards tolerance have a lot to do with international pressure than any ideal within their version of communism which would see religion in a positive light.

Edit: Not that this equals evidence of Atheism that condones the actions of that government. Perhaps one might argue that this is an abuse of Atheism, and I would not disagree. But to be fair, I don't see anything in the Bible that discourages us from pursuing knowledge in the area of science either. That history is full of religious people who ridiculed and even opposed pursuit of knowledge does not therefore mean that God wanted them to do this. I hold the Bible as the most reliable source of information on the will of God, and nowhere do I see any suggestion that science is discouraged. Quite the opposite.

It's not science that makes me unable to believe, it's logic & my own personal insight in how man's mind works (or atleast mine) that hinders my belief in a deity. The rest of your post is something i can accept & agree with

In that case, your view and mine are not so far apart. For if you would discover the logic that would lead to a reasonable conclusion that there is a God, your personal insight may be persuaded to change it's position. Such is not only my story, but that of many others (of course there has always been people leaving religion to, for pretty much the same reason). Hinderances themselves are not necessarily permanent. An intelligent person knows that than anything that hinders him from adopting a particular view point ought to be an intelligent reason, not a baseless prejudice. That cuts both ways, ie. for both viewpoints in this dicusssion.

But to be fair, I don't see anything in the Bible that discourages us from pursuing knowledge in the area of science either.

Really? Wasn't pursuit of knowledge the original sin?

Really? Wasn't pursuit of knowledge the original sin?

AHA, yes, you got me there. But the knowledge I am referring to was to do with the material world, you know, science, the pursuit for truth in a material world. Perhaps I should have used the term scientific knowledge to communicate exactly what I meant. I do not mean that all knowledge is good. For example, when the Nazis carried out horrible experiments on humans, such a pursuit of knowledge would be condemned by the Bible, in my view. Not that the knowledge itself is wrong, but there should be particular regulations on how we go about gathering knowledge, and what sort of knowledge we want to know.

In the case of Adam and Eve, they were after the knowledge of Good and Evil, as the story goes. They were warned that such knowledge was not good for them, and that it would result in their death. The knowledge of Good and Evil, in itself, was not necessarily wrong, since God would have such a knowledge, but that this knowledge was not good for humans, since through it came the possibility of all human misery and suffering.

but that this knowledge was not good for humans, since through it came the possibility of all human misery and suffering.

No, eating the apple didn't cause that. God bought human suffering and misery into the world when he threw us out of the Garden of Eden because he knew if we ate of the tree of life after eating of the tree of knowledge, we would become his equal. As in the later story of the Tower of Babel, he was afraid of humans!

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

Ie, God didn't want any competition. Nice guy.

You also have to wonder who God is talking to when he refers to 'us' in these early Bible passages.

No, eating the apple didn't cause that. God bought human suffering and misery into the world when he threw us out of the Garden of Eden because he knew if we ate of the tree of life after eating of the tree of knowledge, we would become his equal. As in the later story of the Tower of Babel, he was afraid of humans!

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

Ie, God didn't want any competition. Nice guy.

That's called ''putting your spin on things''. That only works if you don't see it in the whole context of God sending Jesus to earth to die for the sins of the world. If he really was scared of humans, he hardly would have come down here without all his powers.

That's called ''putting your spin on things''. That only works if you don't see it in the whole context of God sending Jesus to earth to die for the sins of the world. If he really was scared of humans, he hardly would have come down here without all his powers.

Why did he bother, when he didn't have to throw us out of the garden of eden to start with? Why did he fear humans building a tall tower?

In that case, your view and mine are not so far apart. For if you would discover the logic that would lead to a reasonable conclusion that there is a God, your personal insight may be persuaded to change it's position. Such is not only my story, but that of many others (of course there has always been people leaving religion to, for pretty much the same reason). Hinderances themselves are not necessarily permanent. An intelligent person knows that than anything that hinders him from adopting a particular view point ought to be an intelligent reason, not a baseless prejudice. That cuts both ways, ie. for both viewpoints in this dicusssion.

It's precisely the persuit of other insights that pushes me to get in these discussions, it's a very intresting story, and if someone can come up with an explication that i can agree with i would indeed change my position on the matter, however, sofar nothing has even come close to providing me with new insight. The most intresting idea i read sofar was the idea of a systematic god (or was it systemic?) wich was a very intresting view. Not a view a agree with per se, but intresting none the less

Why did he bother, when he didn't have to throw us out of the garden of eden to start with? Why did he fear humans building a tall tower?

I would argue that whatever he did, he did it in the best interests of the humans involved. The point of prevention of a tall tower was so that all of mankind would not come to believe that they themselves are gods, and get caught up in the worship of themselves. Of course, I would expect that you are going to immediately point to the 'unnecessary' destruction of human life, e.g. the Great Flood (I think we have been over that before), as being contradictory to what we would expect of a God of love. In such cases, if you really want to see it from my point of view, you have to see that physical death is not the worst thing that can happen to humans, and that physical death is by far to be preferred than spiritual death, or the state of being a perpetual enemy of God. And thus, he throws humans out of the garden so that they would not live forever, and be forever trapped in that horrible position of being enemies of God. This would mean that physical death has a way of bringing us to a point where our life is judged according to our actions, bringing an end to both good lives and bad. It served as a limitation. I certainly don't see fear as having any part of God's motivation. But rather love. As John wrote, perfect love removes all fear.

Why did he bother, when he didn't have to throw us out of the garden of eden to start with? Why did he fear humans building a tall tower?

He didnt fear it. He wanted us rid of our arrogence

It's precisely the persuit of other insights that pushes me to get in these discussions, it's a very intresting story, and if someone can come up with an explication that i can agree with i would indeed change my position on the matter, however, sofar nothing has even come close to providing me with new insight. The most intresting idea i read sofar was the idea of a systematic god (or was it systemic?) wich was a very intresting view. Not a view a agree with per se, but intresting none the less

In that case, carry on with your persuit. It is far better than giving up altogether, though it is possibly quite a good deal harder. If you truly love the truth, you will embrace it wherever you find it. Avoidance of the truth will inevitably lead to dishonesty. The moment you detect dishonesty in yourself, beware. Words from a fellow traveller. And now for the weather.....

He didnt fear it. He wanted us rid of our arrogence


*Looks arround*
Well, that didn't work as planned :p

In that case, carry on with your persuit. It is far better than giving up altogether, though it is possibly quite a good deal harder. If you truly love the truth, you will embrace it wherever you find it. Avoidance of the truth will inevitably lead to dishonesty. The moment you detect dishonesty in yourself, beware. Words from a fellow traveller. And now for the weather.....

You're way to sane to be religious! :p :fluffle: j/K

I would argue that whatever he did, he did it in the best interests of the humans involved.

Yes, because you reason things backwards: rather than looking at his actions to see if the Biblical God is just, you assume God is just and there must be a reason for any act, no matter how horrendous or barbaric.

The point of prevention of a tall tower was so that all of mankind would not come to believe that they themselves are gods, and get caught up in the worship of themselves.

No, they did not wish to be scattered, so they tried to make a name for themselves. So God scattered them anyway. Woo, there's a predictable result: Omnipotent Being: 3, Puny Mortals: 0.

or the state of being a perpetual enemy of God.

God decides who his enemies are. A loving God would not decide anyone was his enemy: did Jesus, that very same God, not tell us to love our enemies? Should God not therefore also love his enemies rather than creating a pit of fire for them to be tortured in for eternity?

But rather love.

It's loving to introduce pain, death and hell into existence at a stroke, and inflict suffering on two people's descendents forever because they comitted the victimless crime of desiring to know the difference between good and evil?

He didnt fear it. He wanted us rid of our arrogence

Humans are still plenty arrogant, so this would seem like an area in which the almighty failed. Too bad it hasn't seen fit to rid us of our arrogance in the matter of the belief that nations have that it's OK to stockpile weapons capable of wiping out the conditions necessary for life on earth. That seems pretty arrogant, doesn't it?

More to the point, though, why is it arrogance to do something that one is capable of doing? If the same divinity gave manking the capability of doing this thing, what arrogance is there in exercising the ability? The story, in this light, plays out as the correction of a mistake.

Moreover, we're now quite capable of constructing spacecraft to allow us to reach far "higher" than the building of a tower ever could (after all, the physical constraints of building such a tower capable even of reaching to the moon make it a practical impossibility), yet we keep going further and further into space. One of our craft has even gone beyond the bounds of the solar system itself.

Really, isn't this story just another myth, exactly like a thousand other myths from a thousand other cultures? Perhaps it's based on the story of a really big tower that someone did build and which fell down because the base wasn't wide enough given the materials available at the time, and this was a good excuse for losing a lot of venture capital. "Well, we tried to build the tower, but God knocked it down. Acts of God aren't covered in the contract..."

Your interpretation of the story seems quite literal, and in that ligt it doesn't match at all well with what we know now. Did heaven used to be closer to the surface of the earth or somesuch?

You're way to sane to be religious! :p :fluffle: j/K

I can only wonder at your experience of religious people. Then again, perhaps not...(sigh).

Yes, because you reason things backwards: rather than looking at his actions to see if the Biblical God is just, you assume God is just and there must be a reason for any act, no matter how horrendous or barbaric.


Or perhaps I'm trying to see it in the light of the whole Bible story, including the life, death, and life of Jesus.


No, they did not wish to be scattered, so they tried to make a name for themselves. So God scattered them anyway. Woo, there's a predictable result: Omnipotent Being: 3, Puny Mortals: 0.

I have understood 'making a name for themselves' as trying to somehow increase their own 'greatness'. In order to do that, you simply rule out God's existance, or ignore it, and make yourself the center of your universe. In short, a recipe for arrogance, and eventually disaster. I see God as preventing this, in the best interests of the people.



God decides who his enemies are. A loving God would not decide anyone was his enemy: did Jesus, that very same God, not tell us to love our enemies? Should God not therefore also love his enemies rather than creating a pit of fire for them to be tortured in for eternity?


In this case, I suggest you have it backwards. God sets the rules, and when man crosses those boundaries, it is little wonder that he finds himself fighting on the wrong side, biting the hand that feeds him. God does love his enemies, i.e., Jesus died for the sins of everyone, including those who put him to death. As for hell, I suggest it is an unfortunate situation. I see it like this. When God created man, He gave him a free will. The only thing in all the universe that is not under the direct control of God is free will, and every creature with free will is therefore in possession of something that God does not control. God will not force you to be with Him in heaven. He respects your ownership of free will to such a degree that he has provided a place for you to go. We call it hell. It was not designed to torture you. It is simply a place where he is not. Thus it is devoid of any good thing that comes from him. 'Things', which I call gifts of God, like friendship, pleasure, comforts of life, love, understanding, mateship, all the good things of life. They are simply not there in hell, because they come from God, and he is not there. Thus, if you really insist on having things your own way, without God, then that is precisely what you will get. It is unfortunate, to be sure, but only part of the risk that God took in giving free will to creatures. That is why He has made sure that you know about it before hand, and gives you plenty of time to reconsider. I guess he knows that it isn't such a nice place.


It's loving to introduce pain, death and hell into existence at a stroke, and inflict suffering on two people's descendents forever because they comitted the victimless crime of desiring to know the difference between good and evil?

They were given a fairly stiff warning.

Really? Wasn't pursuit of knowledge the original sin?

No. The original sin was disobeying God. It wouldnt matter what it was exactly, if God had asked them not to do it, they shouldnt do it.

Humans are still plenty arrogant, so this would seem like an area in which the almighty failed. Too bad it hasn't seen fit to rid us of our arrogance in the matter of the belief that nations have that it's OK to stockpile weapons capable of wiping out the conditions necessary for life on earth. That seems pretty arrogant, doesn't it?


Agreed. When will humans ever learn?


More to the point, though, why is it arrogance to do something that one is capable of doing? If the same divinity gave manking the capability of doing this thing, what arrogance is there in exercising the ability? The story, in this light, plays out as the correction of a mistake.


Why is it arrogant to be arrogant? We are given the ability to be arrogant. Why not just be arrogant and enjoy it? The simple answer is that, among other things, arrogance tends to break down relationships, particularly the most important one, the one between God and man. Good and evil should be interpreted in relation to how a thing affects this relationship with God, according to my idea of Christianity.



Moreover, we're now quite capable of constructing spacecraft to allow us to reach far "higher" than the building of a tower ever could (after all, the physical constraints of building such a tower capable even of reaching to the moon make it a practical impossibility), yet we keep going further and further into space. One of our craft has even gone beyond the bounds of the solar system itself.


There is no reason (that I can see) why God would be opposed to us venturing out into space. If, however, we get arrogant about it, and decide that we have become gods worth worshipping, he is going to get upset about us rejecting him. He may intervene again.


Really, isn't this story just another myth, exactly like a thousand other myths from a thousand other cultures? Perhaps it's based on the story of a really big tower that someone did build and which fell down because the base wasn't wide enough given the materials available at the time, and this was a good excuse for losing a lot of venture capital. "Well, we tried to build the tower, but God knocked it down. Acts of God aren't covered in the contract..."


Except that the reason given for the incompletion of the tower was a confusion of languages, not a collapse. Yes, it may have been a myth. (By that I do not mean that it never happened, or that the details were not correct, but that myth is a way of finding meaning in events or observations.) Incidentally, the story is not inconsistent will what we know of languages. We have no reason to think that it did not happen, unless we are of the persuasion that such miracles did not happen (for one reason or another).


Your interpretation of the story seems quite literal, and in that ligt it doesn't match at all well with what we know now. Did heaven used to be closer to the surface of the earth or somesuch?

I cannot see how it doesn't match with what we now know about our material world. When it talks about building a tower unto the heavens, did that mean that it had to reach the heavens (whatever that meant) or that it was built in honour of the heavens. (Perhaps Astrology was the going religion back then.) At any rate, either way you take it, I cannot see how the construction of such a building was so improbable.

Agreed. When will humans ever learn?

So, ummm, why isn't the Big G gettin involved in this one? It's not OK to build a tower, but it's OK to set up to blow up the entire planet?

Why is it arrogant to be arrogant? We are given the ability to be arrogant. Why not just be arrogant and enjoy it? The simple answer is that, among other things, arrogance tends to break down relationships, particularly the most important one, the one between God and man. Good and evil should be interpreted in relation to how a thing affects this relationship with God, according to my idea of Christianity.

But switching everyone's language around doesn't break down relationships? C'mon. If this all-powerful being wanted to address arrogance, then arrogance wouldn't exist. But it does still exist. So either the being failed, or else the interpretation of the story is incorrect.

There is no reason (that I can see) why God would be opposed to us venturing out into space. If, however, we get arrogant about it, and decide that we have become gods worth worshipping, he is going to get upset about us rejecting him. He may intervene again.

The purpose of the tower was to reach far enough into the sky to reach heaven. Here's what it says in Genesis:

4 And they said, "Come, let us build for ourselves
a city, and a tower whose top will reach into
heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name; lest
we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole
earth."
5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the
tower which the sons of men had built.
6 And the LORD said, "Behold, they are one people,
and they all have the same language. And this is
what they began to do, and now nothing which they
purpose to do will be impossible for them."

Read that sixth line again... "nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them." Apparently, as long as they spoke one language, it wasn't impossible for them to build a tower right up to heaven. It doesn't say anything about arrogance; it says that they were to be prevented from a building a tower to heaven, and that the confusion of languages was done to prevent them from doing so.

Except that the reason given for the incompletion of the tower was a confusion of languages, not a collapse. Yes, it may have been a myth. (By that I do not mean that it never happened, or that the details were not correct, but that myth is a way of finding meaning in events or observations.) Incidentally, the story is not inconsistent will what we know of languages. We have no reason to think that it did not happen, unless we are of the persuasion that such miracles did not happen (for one reason or another).

Yes, it's very inconsistent. We're not aware of a time when everyone on the earth spoke the same language at which they would have been capable of building extremely tall towers. This required civilization, and if mankind ever did all speak a common language, it would have to have been at a time in which the population was very small and localized. This would certainly have predated civilization; by the time civilizations arose, humans were already living on several different continents. It doesn't jibe at all.

I cannot see how it doesn't match with what we now know about our material world. When it talks about building a tower unto the heavens, did that mean that it had to reach the heavens (whatever that meant) or that it was built in honour of the heavens. (Perhaps Astrology was the going religion back then.) At any rate, either way you take it, I cannot see how the construction of such a building was so improbable.

Well, for one thing, the story in Genesis gives a particular place where the tower was being built: Shinar. Shinar is an old Akkadian name for a place in Mesopotamia, so if the details of the story are correct, then that's where we should find such a tower, or at least its remains.

Given the time at which the place was called Shinar, then we should expect to see building techniques very much like those used to build the tallest stone structures in Egypt (such as the great pyramid). Lacking things like steel and reinforced concrete at the time, such a tower would have to be built with a very large base or else it would have simply fallen over after it got more than a few stories high. So, if such a tower tall enough to reach heaven, which I would assume was a very long way away if our spacecraft haven't been able to reach it, given that the LORD says in Genesis that the people in Shinar would have been able to achieve their purpose, then some evidence of it should exist. In fact, it should be larger than the base of the great pyramid, since we know for certain that the great pyramid doesn't rise high enough even to break out of earth's atmosphere. There should be something there, but there isn't. The great pyramid is visible from space, mind you. You've said you're a scientist, so I leave you to calculate how large the base of such a tower would have to be, keeping in mind that, given the technology of the time at which Mesopotamia had an Akkadian name, the only way to build something very tall was to distribute the load in the form of a pyramid.

All in all, this seems like an extremely unlikely story from any sort of factual basis. You've apparently evaluated the facts, since you've come to the conclusion that building such a tower wasn't improbable. But from what we do know, based on linguistics, the history of human migration (mind you, the story says the people who were going to build the tower came to Shinar; they apparently weren't natives), the building technology of the time, and the fact that we now launch spacecraft far "higher" than any tower could ever possibly reach without any of them being swatted out of the sky or having NASA technicians suddenly start spouting off in a mixture of Chaldean, Farsi, and Swahili, that this story seems very unlikely to be factual in the form it which it now appears. In other words, the details don't seem to match to anything at all resembling reality.

Now, I would grant that it could be something made up whole-cloth, or perhaps very, very loosely based on a real event. Perhaps some Akkadian building master had slaves from too many different tribes that all spoke different languages and so couldn't work together effectively to build a building, and this got magnified into a morality play. That's possible... but then the story's not particularly factual, either. Furthermore, it's not anything that any one of a million other cultures does in terms of creating myths. The story becomes just another story in that regard, and all in all a long way from being "the truth."

So, ummm, why isn't the Big G gettin involved in this one? It's not OK to build a tower, but it's OK to set up to blow up the entire planet?


It's one thing to have the bombs, quite another to detonate them. Who knows how many times 'the big G' has prevented this. Furthermore, the Bible does say that the earth will be destroyed one day. Perhaps God will use our bombs (that is only speculation).



But switching everyone's language around doesn't break down relationships? C'mon. If this all-powerful being wanted to address arrogance, then arrogance wouldn't exist. But it does still exist. So either the being failed, or else the interpretation of the story is incorrect.


Consistent with the idea of free will, it isn't God that removes our arrogance. It is us. God's role is to remind us of our responsibility/need to humble ourselves or to arrange the circumstances so that our arrogance does not destroy us. If God were to try to remove our arrogance from us, it would be a violation of free will.


The purpose of the tower was to reach far enough into the sky to reach heaven. Here's what it says in Genesis:



Read that sixth line again... "nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them." Apparently, as long as they spoke one language, it wasn't impossible for them to build a tower right up to heaven. It doesn't say anything about arrogance; it says that they were to be prevented from a building a tower to heaven, and that the confusion of languages was done to prevent them from doing so.


Yes, quite, it was me who suggested that their actions was due to their arrogancy. It does not say that they were arrogant. But it sure looks that way. As for reaching into the heavens, as I pointed out before, what do you suppose that means? Would that have to be higher than the clouds? Ozone layer? The moon? As a kid, I used to think heaven was on the other side of the clouds. I only know differently because of science. Perhaps I would still be thinking that if it wasn't for science. They didn't have science back then, so maybe they thought that.


Yes, it's very inconsistent. We're not aware of a time when everyone on the earth spoke the same language at which they would have been capable of building extremely tall towers. This required civilization, and if mankind ever did all speak a common language, it would have to have been at a time in which the population was very small and localized. This would certainly have predated civilization; by the time civilizations arose, humans were already living on several different continents. It doesn't jibe at all.


Studies on human genetics reveals that all humans alive today came from a female ancestor (mitochondrial Eve). That is consistent with there being originally a single civilisation. This is also consistent with there being a single language. And there are a lot of artifacts from around the globe that suggest ancient and flourishing civilisations, predating history. No one is in a good position to posit population sizes. And there is no good reason why there could have been a 'mother' civilisation for all of the ancient civilisations that we do know about. You are in danger of ruling out speculations with speculations. That certainly doesn't jibe.


Well, for one thing, the story in Genesis gives a particular place where the tower was being built: Shinar. Shinar is an old Akkadian name for a place in Mesopotamia, so if the details of the story are correct, then that's where we should find such a tower, or at least its remains.

Given the time at which the place was called Shinar, then we should expect to see building techniques very much like those used to build the tallest stone structures in Egypt (such as the great pyramid). Lacking things like steel and reinforced concrete at the time, such a tower would have to be built with a very large base or else it would have simply fallen over after it got more than a few stories high. So, if such a tower tall enough to reach heaven, which I would assume was a very long way away if our spacecraft haven't been able to reach it, given that the LORD says in Genesis that the people in Shinar would have been able to achieve their purpose, then some evidence of it should exist. In fact, it should be larger than the base of the great pyramid, since we know for certain that the great pyramid doesn't rise high enough even to break out of earth's atmosphere. There should be something there, but there isn't. The great pyramid is visible from space, mind you. You've said you're a scientist, so I leave you to calculate how large the base of such a tower would have to be, keeping in mind that, given the technology of the time at which Mesopotamia had an Akkadian name, the only way to build something very tall was to distribute the load in the form of a pyramid.


I've heard that there are the remains of many constructions there, (ziggurats??). They are temples/towers to the gods of the heavens, apparently. It may have been a big tower once, but now it may just be a big pile of dirt now. Or perhaps it's materials were used for smaller buildings. We actually don't know what to expect regarding its size. I don't know why you expect it to 'break out of the earth's atmosphere', for heaven's sake. How would a poor honest builder go about working without oxygen? Being a scientist doesn't mean I am much good in physics. (I haven't studied that since year 12).


All in all, this seems like an extremely unlikely story from any sort of factual basis. You've apparently evaluated the facts, since you've come to the conclusion that building such a tower wasn't improbable. But from what we do know, based on linguistics, the history of human migration (mind you, the story says the people who were going to build the tower came to Shinar; they apparently weren't natives), the building technology of the time, and the fact that we now launch spacecraft far "higher" than any tower could ever possibly reach without any of them being swatted out of the sky or having NASA technicians suddenly start spouting off in a mixture of Chaldean, Farsi, and Swahili, that this story seems very unlikely to be factual in the form it which it now appears. In other words, the details don't seem to match to anything at all resembling reality.


hang on, are you suggesting that altitude is somehow connected to the spontaneous generation of language, not enough oxygen in the brain, perhaps? How am I supposed to take you seriously? If the details do not resemble reality, it would be the part about the confusion of languages, and that would be because it was a miracle, a direct interference from God. Thus, in trying to imagine such an event, we are not really looking at reality, but a mixture of miracle and reality. perhaps that is where you are having the problem seeing it as likely. Remember, what appears likely or unlikely will depend on your experience of life, and on what you believe. For example, there are plenty of people who find a big bang likely, not because they have seen anything resembling a big bang, but because they believe it is the best way to account for much that we observe today.


Now, I would grant that it could be something made up whole-cloth, or perhaps very, very loosely based on a real event. Perhaps some Akkadian building master had slaves from too many different tribes that all spoke different languages and so couldn't work together effectively to build a building, and this got magnified into a morality play. That's possible... but then the story's not particularly factual, either. Furthermore, it's not anything that any one of a million other cultures does in terms of creating myths. The story becomes just another story in that regard, and all in all a long way from being "the truth."

Just how would you expect to be able to determine between a factual myth and an invented one? Would you expect a Bible story to be somehow different to a story from another culture. How would you detect this? I'm curious because you seem to be suggesting that because this story sounds so much like a story you would find in another culture, you suggest that it was invented, or taken way out of proportions. (We need not presume that all myths are false, or even contain false parts.) But you have no real way of measuring for it's truth, other than saying that you find it unlikely. But what is even more unsound about your method is that your labelling of the story as 'unlikely' is based on presupositions that I don't see as necessary, eg. that the tower had to break through the earth's atmosphere, and what appears to be your disbelief in miracles. If you don't believe in miracles, then you aren't going to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, which would mean that he isn't God, which would mean that Christianity is fake (and thus evil, because it is misleading people), and therefore why bother discussing the Tower of Babel, since it really is only an invention, a small part of a big lie. Why not just get to the point and say that you don't believe in miracles? Otherwise we are wasting our time discussing the 'facts' of this story when we approach it from such different world views. We have best get back to the topic of whether God exists.

It's one thing to have the bombs, quite another to detonate them. Who knows how many times 'the big G' has prevented this. Furthermore, the Bible does say that the earth will be destroyed one day. Perhaps God will use our bombs (that is only speculation).

Sorry, but I thought you said that God didn't knock the tower down, but switched everyone's languages around so they couldn't finish building it. Why ddn't this happen with nuclear weapons? Because god wants us to blow ourselves up with them? In other words, he's less concerned about the lingering horrible deaths of millions than he was about some Akkadians building a tall tower?

Yeah, that's what I call benevolent. See, this is exactly the kind of reasoning that starts me thinking that this form of religion is utterly psychotic.

Consistent with the idea of free will, it isn't God that removes our arrogance. It is us. God's role is to remind us of our responsibility/need to humble ourselves or to arrange the circumstances so that our arrogance does not destroy us. If God were to try to remove our arrogance from us, it would be a violation of free will.

So god wasn't trying to remove our arrogance when preventing the tower from being built, but it was in accordance with free will when he switched everyone's languages around and scattered them over the face of the earth to do so? You've just contradicted every single thing you've said so far. This is an absolute backflip. Explain how it isn't violating free will to prevent the people in Shinar from building the tower and how changing their languages isn't a violation of free will. You started this whole thing off by saying that the purpose for stopping the tower was to teach a lesson about arrogance; now you're saying that removing arrogance would violate free will. Which is it? A little consistency would be nice.

Yes, quite, it was me who suggested that their actions was due to their arrogancy. It does not say that they were arrogant. But it sure looks that way. As for reaching into the heavens, as I pointed out before, what do you suppose that means? Would that have to be higher than the clouds? Ozone layer? The moon? As a kid, I used to think heaven was on the other side of the clouds. I only know differently because of science. Perhaps I would still be thinking that if it wasn't for science. They didn't have science back then, so maybe they thought that.

But it says in Genesis that GOD said that they could do it. It's right there; he had to stop them because they COULD fulfill their purpose. Are you saying that the guys who were building the tower were the same people who wrote Genesis?

Studies on human genetics reveals that all humans alive today came from a female ancestor (mitochondrial Eve). That is consistent with there being originally a single civilisation. This is also consistent with there being a single language. And there are a lot of artifacts from around the globe that suggest ancient and flourishing civilisations, predating history. No one is in a good position to posit population sizes. And there is no good reason why there could have been a 'mother' civilisation for all of the ancient civilisations that we do know about. You are in danger of ruling out speculations with speculations. That certainly doesn't jibe.

Yes, the Eve/Out Of Africa hypothesis is a well supported model. The thing is, we don't know that Eve was a Homo sapiens, and in any case she would have lived something like 2.5 million years ago. The oldest civilizations only go back about 6,000 years. That's not speculation; that's been worked out. Not a single scientist would support this notion of yours that mitochondrial Eve was a member of a civilization, and there's yet to be evidence found that even says she was Homo sapiens. In fact, it's very likely that she was an Australopithecene, most likely gracilis. Nowhere near being civilized, and certainly having no technology for the construction of towers into heaven. That species might have started using fire, but even that much is uncertain so far.

I've heard that there are the remains of many constructions there, (ziggurats??). They are temples/towers to the gods of the heavens, apparently. It may have been a big tower once, but now it may just be a big pile of dirt now. Or perhaps it's materials were used for smaller buildings. We actually don't know what to expect regarding its size. I don't know why you expect it to 'break out of the earth's atmosphere', for heaven's sake. How would a poor honest builder go about working without oxygen? Being a scientist doesn't mean I am much good in physics. (I haven't studied that since year 12).

Physics? I'm just talking about the volume of a regular pyramid. The fact remains that in the Genesis account, God says that the builders were potentially capable of fulfilling their goal of building a tower to reach heaven unless he (actually, it says "we", doesn't it?) intervened by making them speak different languages. If they were just building another temple, a ziggurat, why was this one stopped and all the others allowed to go ahead? You're reaching, and you're avoiding the central point of the story:

4 And they said, "Come, let us build for ourselves
a city, and a tower whose top will reach into
heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name; lest
we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole
earth."
5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the
tower which the sons of men had built.
6 And the LORD said, "Behold, they are one people,
and they all have the same language. And this is
what they began to do, and now nothing which they
purpose to do will be impossible for them."

hang on, are you suggesting that altitude is somehow connected to the spontaneous generation of language, not enough oxygen in the brain, perhaps?

Now you're just making things up. I never said anything of the kind.

If the details do not resemble reality, it would be the part about the confusion of languages, and that would be because it was a miracle, a direct interference from God.

So what you're saying then is that God didn't reveal the Bible. If the languages were confused, and this is the explanation for the details not resembling reality, then someone with a confusion about language must have written it. So much for inerrancy, then.

Thus, in trying to imagine such an event, we are not really looking at reality, but a mixture of miracle and reality.

Ah, here's something we can agree on. Miracles are something other than reality. They're not real. This, at least, begins to make sense. So, we've now established that Genesis was written by someone with a confused language and describes something other than reality. We seem to be coming very much into agreement now.

So, can we at least agree that at least a portion of Genesis wasn't divinely revealed and describes things that didn't really happen? This would be a good distance from what you said at the start of this exchange.

perhaps that is where you are having the problem seeing it as likely.

Yes, I often have problems seeing things that are something other than reality as being likely. It's one of those strange habits one develops from the exercise of critical thought.

Remember, what appears likely or unlikely will depend on your experience of life, and on what you believe. For example, there are plenty of people who find a big bang likely, not because they have seen anything resembling a big bang, but because they believe it is the best way to account for much that we observe today.

Yeah, that's called evidence. I would find it equally unlikely the statement "Abraham Lincoln flew out of my window last Thursday," since it contradicts all the available evidence about physics, history, and biology, whether I was there or not. Are you saying you'd be likely to believe that?

In that case, I have a bridge for sale. Cheap.

Just how would you expect to be able to determine between a factual myth and an invented one?

I wouldn't. Myths aren't factual. If it's a factual story, then it's history. In that case, one would look for evidence to evaluate veracity.

Would you expect a Bible story to be somehow different to a story from another culture. How would you detect this? I'm curious because you seem to be suggesting that because this story sounds so much like a story you would find in another culture, you suggest that it was invented, or taken way out of proportions. (We need not presume that all myths are false, or even contain false parts.)

I'd make that determination by looking at the myths of other cultures. Or perhaps I'd whip out a book like Godfrey Higgins' "Anacalypsis," since he wrote a rather encyclopedic treatise on just this subject.

But you have no real way of measuring for it's truth, other than saying that you find it unlikely.

No, I can evaluate the evidence for and against it, and I've already presented some of that. It doesn't make sense from several different angles. It is both illogical and contradicts what we know factually. I can measure the likely truth of something based on these things, just like I can make a good estimate of the likelihood of a story told by a con man or a lie told by a child with its hand stuffed in the cookie jar. This insistence that if one wasn't there to have direct experience of a thing then one cannot make a judgment regarding the veracity of a claim is incredibly unscientific. Exactly what field of biology are you in?

But what is even more unsound about your method is that your labelling of the story as 'unlikely' is based on presupositions that I don't see as necessary, eg. that the tower had to break through the earth's atmosphere, and what appears to be your disbelief in miracles. If you don't believe in miracles, then you aren't going to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, which would mean that he isn't God, which would mean that Christianity is fake (and thus evil, because it is misleading people),

I've stated as much previously, but in particular about the kind of literalism which you've so wholeheartedly embraced, it would seem. You have yourself come out and justified your own belief in miracles by making a statement that a Biblical story is a "mixture of miracles and reality." It sounds from thatlike you have the same suspicion.

and therefore why bother discussing the Tower of Babel, since it really is only an invention, a small part of a big lie. Why not just get to the point and say that you don't believe in miracles?

OK. I don't believe in miracles. They are, as you've pointed out, something other than reality. I don't spend much time trying to convince myself of things that aren't real. I would call such an effort, in fact, delusional.

Otherwise we are wasting our time discussing the 'facts' of this story when we approach it from such different world views. We have best get back to the topic of whether God exists.

We can at least establish so far that it wasn't the author of Genesis. Having established that, what reason is there to believe that Genesis is true? So far, no evidence supporting that claim has been shown, and our discussion of this one story has led you to state that its author's language was confused.

I can only wonder at your experience of religious people. Then again, perhaps not...(sigh).

Well, those i've asked about religion & the more deep/serious questions tended to get upset, or didn't have a clue what i was talking about ;)

and the fact that we now launch spacecraft far "higher" than any tower could ever possibly reach without any of them being swatted out of the sky or having NASA technicians suddenly start spouting off in a mixture of Chaldean, Farsi, and Swahili

LOL! Dude, you nearly made me spill my drink with that line :p

Studies on human genetics reveals that all humans alive today came from a female ancestor (mitochondrial Eve).

Got any more info on this? A link to the article(s)? Sounds like an intresting read

Got any more info on this? A link to the article(s)? Sounds like an intresting read
Google is your friend. ;)

Wikipedia has a good article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve) on it, with a link at the very bottom to an actionbioscience.org article.

Google is your friend. ;)

Wikipedia has a good article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve) on it, with a link at the very bottom to an actionbioscience.org article.

BTW, that theory may be in for some changes, too. I only know this because my ol' lady (who would kill me if she knew I just called her that ;)) is working with an author who is publishing some very interesting research she's done on Homo floresiensis, aka the Hobbit. She's found some very strong evidence that our Hobbit friends arrived in Indonesia earlier than the out-of-Africa migration would have taken place; i.e., either the date for the emigration is going to be pushed back significantly, or else the Hobbit's ancestors arose independently outside of Africa. It may even be published already (it was or will be in Nature), but after getting an earful about it on a regular basis, I haven't bothered looking for myself...

Religion is just a teddy bear for people to hug, so that when they die, they get to live for as long as they want. Where as, in the REAL world, we die and we no longer exist. We have no soul. Our brain stops sending and recieving signals, our heart stops beating. We sit motionless in a grave, or we are cremated, where we no longer exist.

That probably sounded as thought it was coming out of the mouth of say Simple Plan but it's the truth.

They were given a fairly stiff warning.

A stiff warning delivered to one's ancestors before one's birth is hardly due diligence on the part of the warner...

The reason I stopped believing in god is because science creates theories on how things work, and then uses experiments to give you cold, hard evidence. The only 'evidence' of god is the bible. But that is of no worth. I could write a bible and say that its true, but that doesnt make it so.

EDIT: I just recently wrote I nice long post about this exact thing in my xanga just the other day. Http://www.xanga.com/ChrisDalyOwnsYou if you wanna check it out.

Braurong, let's see if I've got this straight:
The Old testament fire & brimstone version of god is loving and Just because The New Testament god is... :confused:
Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
vs.
Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;


Now correct me if if wrong, but I seem to recall you stating that the bible was written by god and is inerrant, so how do you explain the difference in attitude towards enemies (not just in the selected excerpts, but in general between old and new testaments). Did god make a mistake the first time around? :confused:

There are many people on this forums who would insist that there is no God becasue it cannot be explained by any kind of scinetific process. Who would essentially claim that there is no meaning to the universe, and that the universe just 'is', with no meaning or anything behind it. However to claim this is not scientific. It is philosophical, and no more defensable than any claim that there is a God. The idea that the universe has no meaning and life has no meaning etc is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one. And just because science cant explain any meaning that there may or may not be, that doesnt instantly mean there is no meaning. In short, the idea that the universe has no meaning is about as sceintific as the idea that it does. IE not at all

So we might as well all worship Odin and Thor.

So you criticise him/her for what he/she accepts as truth, ignoring the fact that if it is truth, it will remain truth, regardless of whether it is believed or not? Nice reasoning.
As per THIS post ... well, as i had to post last noche,
it's not funny if you have to explain the joke.

Now that does make you sound a little fanatic. I'm Australian working in biology in Germany. The position was open to anyone, and I got it based on my credentials that had nothing to do with my philosophical outlook. You seem to be saying that the only people capable of good science cannot also believe in God as a creator of biology. You are seriously mislead.
Let's see how "fanatic" applies here.
Biology: mutability of species or not? Simple question, and explain.

I had in mind the government of China, which has had a history of opposition to religion, and I suspect the latest reforms towards tolerance have a lot to do with international pressure than any ideal within their version of communism which would see religion in a positive light.

Edit: Not that this equals evidence of Atheism that condones the actions of that government. Perhaps one might argue that this is an abuse of Atheism, and I would not disagree. But to be fair, I don't see anything in the Bible that discourages us from pursuing knowledge in the area of science either. That history is full of religious people who ridiculed and even opposed pursuit of knowledge does not therefore mean that God wanted them to do this. I hold the Bible as the most reliable source of information on the will of God, and nowhere do I see any suggestion that science is discouraged. Quite the opposite.
Okay, how do you reconcile your edit with the sequence in *many of* the Bible(s) that have "God" stating SPECIFICALLY that "he" shall confound the wise?
Are you saying that the Bible supports collecting the knowledge available to you, even though it states quite clearly that truly understanding that knowledge is useless?

Really? Wasn't pursuit of knowledge the original sin?
Ka-POW!!! :sniper:
Nice shot. *bows*

That's called ''putting your spin on things''. That only works if you don't see it in the whole context of God sending Jesus to earth to die for the sins of the world. If he really was scared of humans, he hardly would have come down here without all his powers.
NO, that's called putting *YOUR* spin on things.
That was the old testament.
Jesus and such was the new testament.
Now would you care to specify which group is putting the spin on things: people following the Jewish faith, for which christians not only owe their basis of law and deific example, but THEIR VERY QUALIFICATION as fulfillment of prophecy (which many have noted Jesus didn't actually do, he missed a few calls),
or christians, who've amended and reordinated the script a LARGE number of times, each time whittling away a bit at the core "Word" until it fits them politically?

I would argue that whatever he did, he did it in the best interests of the humans involved. The point of prevention of a tall tower was so that all of mankind would not come to believe that they themselves are gods, and get caught up in the worship of themselves. Of course, I would expect that you are going to immediately point to the 'unnecessary' destruction of human life, e.g. the Great Flood (I think we have been over that before), as being contradictory to what we would expect of a God of love. In such cases, if you really want to see it from my point of view, you have to see that physical death is not the worst thing that can happen to humans, and that physical death is by far to be preferred than spiritual death, or the state of being a perpetual enemy of God. And thus, he throws humans out of the garden so that they would not live forever, and be forever trapped in that horrible position of being enemies of God. This would mean that physical death has a way of bringing us to a point where our life is judged according to our actions, bringing an end to both good lives and bad. It served as a limitation. I certainly don't see fear as having any part of God's motivation. But rather love. As John wrote, perfect love removes all fear.
You know, it's pathetic to attribute a quality of enmity, to a being of supposed omniscience and omnipotence ("God"), with a species as obviously "flawed" as humans.
You don't seem to understand the vast chasm of capacity here.
In "god"'s omnipotence, the *ONLY* enemy would be someone of relatively equal weaponry or cunning. Do you see yourself or your species as such?

So we might as well all worship Odin and Thor.
Nah...
Dagda, Brigid, Nuada, Lugh, Dian Cecht, Ogma, and Lir... The Tuatha Dé Danann

God decides who his enemies are. A loving God would not decide anyone was his enemy: did Jesus, that very same God, not tell us to love our enemies? Should God not therefore also love his enemies rather than creating a pit of fire for them to be tortured in for eternity?



It's loving to introduce pain, death and hell into existence at a stroke, and inflict suffering on two people's descendents forever because they comitted the victimless crime of desiring to know the difference between good and evil?
Many good points, but i love the first re-post here the best. You said it better than i could've. *bows*

You know, it's pathetic to attribute a quality of enmity, to a being of supposed omniscience and omnipotence ("God"), with a species as obviously "flawed" as humans.
You don't seem to understand the vast chasm of capacity here.
In "god"'s omnipotence, the *ONLY* enemy would be someone of relatively equal weaponry or cunning. Do you see yourself or your species as such?
Not to mention that given omniscience, any outcome, regardless of circumstances, will be fully known in advance. Thus enmity becomes nonsensical. Even if - let's say Thor - starts a fight with God next week, God already knew about the conflict & the outcome, back when God became omniscient.

It's the funny little omniscience vs. omnipotence paradox. Those qualities really can't co-exist. If God knows all there is to know, He doesn't truely have the power to affect anything. Everything He'll ever do will be known to him in advance.

Maybe that's why he's such an evil old fart. It must truely be the very definition of frustration, to be reduced to a spectator of, not only the world in general, but one's own actions.

<snip>
It's the funny little omniscience vs. omnipotence paradox. Those qualities really can't co-exist. If God knows all there is to know, He doesn't truely have the power to affect anything. Everything He'll ever do will be known to him in advance.
<snip>
Explain please, not quite following how they are mutually exclusive

Explain please, not quite following how they are mutually exclusiveIf God is omniscient, then He is unable to act in any meaningful way. Example:

If I already now know - beyond any possibility for error - that I'll die 4:15 pm tomorrow because I'll fail to check for traffic when I cross (insert street name), and thus get crushed to death by an ambulance.
If I know that, beyond any margin of error, how can I be omnipotent, if I don't wish to die?

Omniscience & omnipotence are mutually exclusive. Because omniscience don't allow free will.

It's the funny little omniscience vs. omnipotence paradox. Those qualities really can't co-exist. If God knows all there is to know, He doesn't truely have the power to affect anything. Everything He'll ever do will be known to him in advance.



That's why God created everything. Cause he was bored shitless. But he knew he was going to be bored shitless because he's all-knowing. But if he's bored he doesn't have to be 'cause he's all-powerful.......
I guess if you die and you go to Hell, the worst that they can do to you is make you "god".

That's why God created everything. Cause he was bored shitless. But he knew he was going to be bored shitless because he's all-knowing. But if he's bored he doesn't have to be 'cause he's all-powerful.......
I guess if you die and you go to Hell, the worst that they can do to you is make you "god".

And here I was expecting sodomy with a pineapple.

And here I was expecting sodomy with a pineapple.
Sorry to disapoint you ;)

If God is omniscient, then He is unable to act in any meaningful way. Example:

If I already now know - beyond any possibility for error - that I'll die 4:15 pm tomorrow because I'll fail to check for traffic when I cross (insert street name), and thus get crushed to death by an ambulance.
If I know that, beyond any margin of error, how can I be omnipotent, if I don't wish to die?

Omniscience & omnipotence are mutually exclusive. Because omniscience don't allow free will.
Never looked at it that way before

lol, I was kidding about Science being dumber than Religion...

I wasn't about Science being on a witch hunt.

I firmly believe that science seeks the answers to questions without having to cling to the irrational or simply belief. I am a Christian who also believes that science holds the key to finding the truth. Which makes me on the side of Science.

My wife is a Wiccan. So I guess if I was on a witch hunt, I found one.

My wife also points out that I tend to be a smart ass at times.

Consistent with the idea of free will, it isn't God that removes our arrogance. It is us. God's role is to remind us of our responsibility/need to humble ourselves or to arrange the circumstances so that our arrogance does not destroy us. If God were to try to remove our arrogance from us, it would be a violation of free will.



Yes, quite, it was me who suggested that their actions was due to their arrogancy. It does not say that they were arrogant. But it sure looks that way.
I think the sequence on Job, whichever Bible you bother to use, professes an interesting perspective on your quote.
It should be noted how much free will, loving providence, and *DRAMA* are involved in this passage, as well. Read it some time, if it interests you enough!
I should also add that "god", on a wager with Satan, bereaved Job of home, hearth, and health, up to this point. Excellent contrast of faculty, i imagine.

JOB 40:6-7

KJ Then answered the LORD unto Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
Gird up thy loins like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou onto me.

NIV The the LORD spoke to Job out ot he storm:
"Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and and you shall answer me.

Living Bible (Italicized in book) Then the LORD spoke to Job again from the whirlwind:
"Stand up like a man and brace yourself for battle.

NRSV Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind:
"Gird up your loins like a man;
I will question you, and you declare to me.

Yep free will, alright.

Oh yes, you posted something interesting about "free will" ...

The only thing in all the universe that is not under the direct control of God is free will, and every creature with free will is therefore in possession of something that God does not control. :gundge:
Whoa, i guess that might explain the infantile behaviour of "god" in the old testament .... also, your quote seems to deny omnipotence.
I can see that with the issue of veracity with the Tower of Babel, why someone might not endorse things from the Old Testament ... you know, a parable, et cetera ... especially if you're putting a spin on it.

We have best get back to the topic of whether God exists.
What is the topic line again? You know, the title/nature of this thread?

I firmly believe that science seeks the answers to questions without having to cling to the irrational or simply belief. I am a Christian who also believes that science holds the key to finding the truth. Which makes me on the side of Science.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It cannot be!!!!!!!!! A christian who can think ;)

My wife is a Wiccan. So I guess if I was on a witch hunt, I found one.
Is she cute? If so, can I hunt her? :p

My wife also points out that I tend to be a smart ass at times.
Better a smart ass than a dumb ass
:D

Sorry, but I thought you said that God didn't knock the tower down, but switched everyone's languages around so they couldn't finish building it. Why ddn't this happen with nuclear weapons? Because god wants us to blow ourselves up with them? In other words, he's less concerned about the lingering horrible deaths of millions than he was about some Akkadians building a tall tower?

Yeah, that's what I call benevolent. See, this is exactly the kind of reasoning that starts me thinking that this form of religion is utterly psychotic.



So god wasn't trying to remove our arrogance when preventing the tower from being built, but it was in accordance with free will when he switched everyone's languages around and scattered them over the face of the earth to do so? You've just contradicted every single thing you've said so far. This is an absolute backflip. Explain how it isn't violating free will to prevent the people in Shinar from building the tower and how changing their languages isn't a violation of free will. You started this whole thing off by saying that the purpose for stopping the tower was to teach a lesson about arrogance; now you're saying that removing arrogance would violate free will. Which is it? A little consistency would be nice.



But it says in Genesis that GOD said that they could do it. It's right there; he had to stop them because they COULD fulfill their purpose. Are you saying that the guys who were building the tower were the same people who wrote Genesis?



Yes, the Eve/Out Of Africa hypothesis is a well supported model. The thing is, we don't know that Eve was a Homo sapiens, and in any case she would have lived something like 2.5 million years ago. The oldest civilizations only go back about 6,000 years. That's not speculation; that's been worked out. Not a single scientist would support this notion of yours that mitochondrial Eve was a member of a civilization, and there's yet to be evidence found that even says she was Homo sapiens. In fact, it's very likely that she was an Australopithecene, most likely gracilis. Nowhere near being civilized, and certainly having no technology for the construction of towers into heaven. That species might have started using fire, but even that much is uncertain so far.



Physics? I'm just talking about the volume of a regular pyramid. The fact remains that in the Genesis account, God says that the builders were potentially capable of fulfilling their goal of building a tower to reach heaven unless he (actually, it says "we", doesn't it?) intervened by making them speak different languages. If they were just building another temple, a ziggurat, why was this one stopped and all the others allowed to go ahead? You're reaching, and you're avoiding the central point of the story:





Now you're just making things up. I never said anything of the kind.



So what you're saying then is that God didn't reveal the Bible. If the languages were confused, and this is the explanation for the details not resembling reality, then someone with a confusion about language must have written it. So much for inerrancy, then.



Ah, here's something we can agree on. Miracles are something other than reality. They're not real. This, at least, begins to make sense. So, we've now established that Genesis was written by someone with a confused language and describes something other than reality. We seem to be coming very much into agreement now.

So, can we at least agree that at least a portion of Genesis wasn't divinely revealed and describes things that didn't really happen? This would be a good distance from what you said at the start of this exchange.



Yes, I often have problems seeing things that are something other than reality as being likely. It's one of those strange habits one develops from the exercise of critical thought.



Yeah, that's called evidence. I would find it equally unlikely the statement "Abraham Lincoln flew out of my window last Thursday," since it contradicts all the available evidence about physics, history, and biology, whether I was there or not. Are you saying you'd be likely to believe that?

In that case, I have a bridge for sale. Cheap.



I wouldn't. Myths aren't factual. If it's a factual story, then it's history. In that case, one would look for evidence to evaluate veracity.



I'd make that determination by looking at the myths of other cultures. Or perhaps I'd whip out a book like Godfrey Higgins' "Anacalypsis," since he wrote a rather encyclopedic treatise on just this subject.



No, I can evaluate the evidence for and against it, and I've already presented some of that. It doesn't make sense from several different angles. It is both illogical and contradicts what we know factually. I can measure the likely truth of something based on these things, just like I can make a good estimate of the likelihood of a story told by a con man or a lie told by a child with its hand stuffed in the cookie jar. This insistence that if one wasn't there to have direct experience of a thing then one cannot make a judgment regarding the veracity of a claim is incredibly unscientific. Exactly what field of biology are you in?



I've stated as much previously, but in particular about the kind of literalism which you've so wholeheartedly embraced, it would seem. You have yourself come out and justified your own belief in miracles by making a statement that a Biblical story is a "mixture of miracles and reality." It sounds from thatlike you have the same suspicion.



OK. I don't believe in miracles. They are, as you've pointed out, something other than reality. I don't spend much time trying to convince myself of things that aren't real. I would call such an effort, in fact, delusional.



We can at least establish so far that it wasn't the author of Genesis. Having established that, what reason is there to believe that Genesis is true? So far, no evidence supporting that claim has been shown, and our discussion of this one story has led you to state that its author's language was confused.
Boy howdy, you sure can clean a post or two up, can't you!

*bows*

And here I was expecting sodomy with a pineapple.
Uhm, giving or receiving? I fear there be a difference there. :eek:

Not to mention that given omniscience, any outcome, regardless of circumstances, will be fully known in advance. Thus enmity becomes nonsensical. Even if - let's say Thor - starts a fight with God next week, God already knew about the conflict & the outcome, back when God became omniscient.

It's the funny little omniscience vs. omnipotence paradox. Those qualities really can't co-exist. If God knows all there is to know, He doesn't truely have the power to affect anything. Everything He'll ever do will be known to him in advance.

Maybe that's why he's such an evil old fart. It must truely be the very definition of frustration, to be reduced to a spectator of, not only the world in general, but one's own actions.
This qualifies that the very birthing of "man"-KIND is by sin, through punishment. I've posted this before, but the Genesis intro of Adam and later Eve and her punishment of painful childbirth, and their comparison to the 6th and 7th days of creation, cinch the idea that "god" basically only perpetuated the human race as punishment ... torture, indeed ... 'specially helps those who believe that humans are BORN with "original sin" ... you know, from happy, loving, devout christian parents, even! Then their child has to undo it all!

Uhm, giving or receiving? I fear there be a difference there. :eek:
I would assume since it was a comment about hell that it would be receiving
And here I was expecting sodomy with a pineapple.
I would assume by the phrasing that if it was giving then he would have to have been referring to heaven instead

Uhm, giving or receiving? I fear there be a difference there. :eek:
Fear not ; Thy rod and Thy staff, will comfort thee.

Fear not ; Thy rod and Thy staff, will comfort thee.
:eek:
That doesn't help at all!!!
:eek:
:eek:

My rod and my staff just get me eschewed from movie theaters and church gatherings!
Thanks! Some comfort you are!
*sob*

EDIT: OMG i hadn't even factored in the pineapple!!!
Argh! Friggin' blue/local obscenity laws!
back to flagellism, i guess

I would assume since it was a comment about hell that it would be receiving

I would assume by the phrasing that if it was giving then he would have to have been referring to heaven instead
Well, as Pinhead might say, when prompted for his identity ....

"Demons to some, angels to others...."

BTW, did you know that Clive borrowed the Cenobites from an actual ecstatic torture group used in the Inquistion?
F'd up. But the book was good .... Ep 1/4 were the only that had anything to do with it, sadly enough. :(

Well, as Pinhead might say, when prompted for his identity ....

"Demons to some, angels to others...."

BTW, did you know that Clive borrowed the Cenobites from an actual ecstatic torture group used in the Inquistion?
F'd up. But the book was good .... Ep 1/4 were the only that had anything to do with it, sadly enough. :(Are you implying there's only 4 Hellraiser movies?

- Last time I checked there was twice that. Pinhead's gotten a wee bit heavier over the years though. I usually refer to him a kugel-kopf these days.

Are you implying there's only 4 Hellraiser movies?

- Last time I checked there was twice that. Pinhead's gotten a wee bit heavier over the years though. I usually refer to him a kugel-kopf these days.
Good nickname! :D
No, i know there's many more, it's just that i haven't bothered watching the rest, since they cinched up with the book on episode 4. Only 1 AND 4 have anything to do with the book.
You can't fault him the girth, though ... it's a pretty predictable result of hedonism and rampant, liberal indulgence!!!! ;)

Wait, would you consider him a liberal or a conservative? In some ways, he's both. And LINO ... "Libertarian" In Name Only.

Good nickname! :D
No, i know there's many more, it's just that i haven't bothered watching the rest, since they cinched up with the book on episode 4. Only 1 AND 4 have anything to do with the book.
You can't fault him the girth, though ... it's a pretty predictable result of hedonism and rampant, liberal indulgence!!!! ;)

Wait, would you consider him a liberal or a conservative? In some ways, he's both. And LINO ... "Libertarian" In Name Only.A couple of them are alright though. If memory serves, No. 6 & 8 are watchable. But check IMDB first, in case I got the numbers wrong. The two others are shite.

Dunno if I'd consider Kugel-kopf anything in particular..
I believe in honesty, hard work & looking out for your own. I've yet to meet a real conservative (not neo-fascists etc) who wouldn't say the same. I doubt most people would call me a conservative though.
Kugel's sort of the same, right? - Bit hard to place, since the info's lacking.

Uhm, but back to science & god.

So.. How did God make gravity? Not even the damned ungodly scientists (christian or otherwise) can demonstrate how the thing works. Great opportunity for the fundies of NS to earn a friggin Nobel prize & convert some of us heathen fools. Come come, a challenge has been issued!

<snip>
Uhm, but back to science & god.

So.. How did God make gravity? Not even the damned ungodly scientists (christian or otherwise) can demonstrate how the thing works. Great opportunity for the fundies of NS to earn a friggin Nobel prize & convert some of us heathen fools. Come come, a challenge has been issued!
:cool: He just said: "Let there be weight." :p

A couple of them are alright though. If memory serves, No. 6 & 8 are watchable. But check IMDB first, in case I got the numbers wrong. The two others are shite.

Dunno if I'd consider Kugel-kopf anything in particular..
I believe in honesty, hard work & looking out for your own. I've yet to meet a real conservative (not neo-fascists etc) who wouldn't say the same. I doubt most people would call me a conservative though.
Kugel's sort of the same, right? - Bit hard to place, since the info's lacking.

Uhm, but back to science & god.

So.. How did God make gravity? Not even the damned ungodly scientists (christian or otherwise) can demonstrate how the thing works. Great opportunity for the fundies of NS to earn a friggin Nobel prize & convert some of us heathen fools. Come come, a challenge has been issued!
I imagine that gravity is the proving ground of kinesia and the grave, between the stasis purported by the catholic church early on and the supposed free will of god's chosen subjects.

EDIT: i was so distracted by my malfunctioning " " on my keyboard that i didn't notice to include the n.

I recommend something called "The Real Story" from Three-Fisted Tales of Bob, it says some pretty f*cking awesome things along certain familiar lines.

:cool: He just said: "Let there be weight." :pNo, no, hahaha. I was asking about gravity, not McDonalds :p

- And I was asking about how he made it work. I want details, not just some vague shit about God talking to himself. Dunno what that's to do with gravity at all.

- And I was asking about how he made it work. I want details, not just some vague shit about God talking to himself.
I know what you were asking, but do you really think that any of the bible thumpers will be able to come up with a "better" explanation than I did on their behalf?

Sorry, but I thought you said that God didn't knock the tower down, but switched everyone's languages around so they couldn't finish building it. Why ddn't this happen with nuclear weapons? Because god wants us to blow ourselves up with them? In other words, he's less concerned about the lingering horrible deaths of millions than he was about some Akkadians building a tall tower?

Yeah, that's what I call benevolent. See, this is exactly the kind of reasoning that starts me thinking that this form of religion is utterly psychotic.


I did say that the end of the world with nuclear bombs was mere speculation on my part. However, I don't have that much of a problem with a God who destroys his enemies when such destruction is the only option left. Obviously, he would try all sorts of persuasion to bring everyone to him through faith. Most people get (in the West) about 70 years. That is long enough, I would say. If you successfully find a way to reject or ignore God after so long, you deserve to get your reward.

Once you see God as not stopping at anything in an attempt to get people to turn to Him, even the death of his own son, then it isn't a problem to see him using war and death and pain and terror. A little bit of pain now is not much compared to an eternity without him. I know I am asking a lot for you to see God this way, but it does seem logical to me. What we have is an extreme form of love that God has for humans. Modern humans get so caught up in the hear and now. They think that love from God means some sort of cushy benevolent relationship that one would expect from a half decent grandfather, or Santa Claus, that would never involve death or pain. They want it all the pleasures and happiness of life, and they want it now, and think that it is their right to expect it. It is very much at odds with a God who is looking at both this life and the next and is desperately working hard to get you to find a bit of faith within yourself. His motivation is a very fierce love that doesn't stop at even the cost of his own son. God isn't tame, but he is good. And yes, this form of religion is extreme, but what part about the life of Jesus wasn't extreme? Perhaps it is the watered-down version of Christianity that has done the most misleading of the masses, you know, that Christianity is all about being good to each other, going to church, etc., etc. Certainly, this watery grandfather version of God is hardest to reconcile with the God of the Bible who might possible rain down fire and brimstone. The God of the old testament is certainly a fierce warrior, a fighter. The God of the new testament is no less a fighter, but in the New testament, we get a better glimpse of the lover side of him.


So god wasn't trying to remove our arrogance when preventing the tower from being built, but it was in accordance with free will when he switched everyone's languages around and scattered them over the face of the earth to do so? You've just contradicted every single thing you've said so far. This is an absolute backflip. Explain how it isn't violating free will to prevent the people in Shinar from building the tower and how changing their languages isn't a violation of free will. You started this whole thing off by saying that the purpose for stopping the tower was to teach a lesson about arrogance; now you're saying that removing arrogance would violate free will. Which is it? A little consistency would be nice.


To mix up someones language is not the same as forcing them to change their mind. God simply changed the circumstances, and the people made their own choice to abandon the building site (perhaps not all of them did). God saw that the people would continue in their error unless he changed the circumstances. There is no indication that the people were more humble after the event, but simply that they felt it better to disperse. I see a clear line of consistency in this. It really isn't that complicated.



But it says in Genesis that GOD said that they could do it. It's right there; he had to stop them because they COULD fulfill their purpose. Are you saying that the guys who were building the tower were the same people who wrote Genesis?


And I've never understood why you think that these people intended to build a tower to the outer limits of our atmosphere. It simply only had to be the highest structure that have ever been attempted, according to local knowledge. No mention of height is ever given, and I suggest that you are trying to set up something of a strawman in your arguments.


Yes, the Eve/Out Of Africa hypothesis is a well supported model. The thing is, we don't know that Eve was a Homo sapiens, and in any case she would have lived something like 2.5 million years ago. The oldest civilizations only go back about 6,000 years. That's not speculation; that's been worked out. Not a single scientist would support this notion of yours that mitochondrial Eve was a member of a civilization, and there's yet to be evidence found that even says she was Homo sapiens. In fact, it's very likely that she was an Australopithecene, most likely gracilis. Nowhere near being civilized, and certainly having no technology for the construction of towers into heaven. That species might have started using fire, but even that much is uncertain so far.


I have understood it as the oldest civilisations that we know about go back 6,000 years. The lack of evidence for older civilisations does not prove that there was none. Particularly when you introduce great floods that are likely to bury the evidence.

At any rate, I did not say that mitochondrial eve was a member of a civilisation, only that the finding that we are all related to one mother is consistent with there being only one civilisation at one time. And while she may have been homosapiens, according to the genetic data, she would have not lived much longer than 100 000 years ago (although that depends on the settings of a very faulty clock--rate of mutational accumulations).


Physics? I'm just talking about the volume of a regular pyramid. The fact remains that in the Genesis account, God says that the builders were potentially capable of fulfilling their goal of building a tower to reach heaven unless he (actually, it says "we", doesn't it?) intervened by making them speak different languages. If they were just building another temple, a ziggurat, why was this one stopped and all the others allowed to go ahead? You're reaching, and you're avoiding the central point of the story:


Bollocks, you are trying to get me to explain your fanciful ideas of what it 'must' have been like.




Now you're just making things up. I never said anything of the kind.


Yeah, but it was funnier, at the time....


So what you're saying then is that God didn't reveal the Bible. If the languages were confused, and this is the explanation for the details not resembling reality, then someone with a confusion about language must have written it. So much for inerrancy, then.


That's called jumping the gun. What is a reality to you and I, getting up out of bed and going to work or study, etc., etc., might not be the same reality for the little kids in India or Africa whose reality is mostly about where the next meal comes from. Perception of reality and reality are terms that get confused all the time. In my 'reality', water does not turn to wine. However, that doesn't mean that it did not happen once before. It is only possible if the force that holds all of reality together provides the energy to make it happen. I don't even pretend to understand how it could happen, and thus I am certainly in no position to say whether it is possible. I believe in God, and therefore, I believe that Jesus turned water into wine. Not all that complicated, really.


Ah, here's something we can agree on. Miracles are something other than reality. They're not real. This, at least, begins to make sense. So, we've now established that Genesis was written by someone with a confused language and describes something other than reality. We seem to be coming very much into agreement now.

So, can we at least agree that at least a portion of Genesis wasn't divinely revealed and describes things that didn't really happen? This would be a good distance from what you said at the start of this exchange.


Miracles belong to a deeper reality than the one that we are familiar with. A miracle is where something more real than the material world interferes with the laws of nature. I certainly believe that God is capable of working miracles, since all of the material reality that we can detect (ie. the universe) was created by him and is held together by him. I do not think we agree on this point.


Yes, I often have problems seeing things that are something other than reality as being likely. It's one of those strange habits one develops from the exercise of critical thought.


Perhaps it isn't necessarily a product of critical thought. You can get it from taking the wrong substances (or the right one, depending on where you are coming from).


Yeah, that's called evidence. I would find it equally unlikely the statement "Abraham Lincoln flew out of my window last Thursday," since it contradicts all the available evidence about physics, history, and biology, whether I was there or not. Are you saying you'd be likely to believe that?

In that case, I have a bridge for sale. Cheap.


So you are suggesting that because miracles are contrary to all the findings of physics, biology, etc., that there therefore cannot happen. That is risky. Last time I checked, my idea of biology was that it focussed on non-miraculous events, and thus has nothing to say about miracles, and thus cannot be used to argue the impossibility of miracles.


I wouldn't. Myths aren't factual. If it's a factual story, then it's history. In that case, one would look for evidence to evaluate veracity.


I reckon every myth has some truth to it. And for all we know, a myth might be completely true, unless we have some good arguments against that possibility. (I don't go along with the popular misconception of myth as necessarily false. I see the modern use of the word 'myth' as having been emptied all of meaning.) You seem to be confusing myth with invented stories, and contrasting that with history. The difference between myth and history is not such a clearly drawn line anyway, and will depend on the perspective of the writer of the history, as your history teacher should have clearly told you.




No, I can evaluate the evidence for and against it, and I've already presented some of that. It doesn't make sense from several different angles. It is both illogical and contradicts what we know factually. I can measure the likely truth of something based on these things, just like I can make a good estimate of the likelihood of a story told by a con man or a lie told by a child with its hand stuffed in the cookie jar. This insistence that if one wasn't there to have direct experience of a thing then one cannot make a judgment regarding the veracity of a claim is incredibly unscientific. Exactly what field of biology are you in?


I do not hold that attitude that because we were not there, we cannot speculate. But I do say that we cannot disprove miracles with mere speculation, particularly when we approach the Bible with the belief that there were no miracles, only myths (by that I mean your definition of myth, the worthless sort).

Bacterial biochemistry and genetics.



I've stated as much previously, but in particular about the kind of literalism which you've so wholeheartedly embraced, it would seem. You have yourself come out and justified your own belief in miracles by making a statement that a Biblical story is a "mixture of miracles and reality." It sounds from thatlike you have the same suspicion.


Like I said before, it really depends on your definition of reality and miracle. I did have a premonition that you would take this the wrong way. Ah, well.


OK. I don't believe in miracles. They are, as you've pointed out, something other than reality. I don't spend much time trying to convince myself of things that aren't real. I would call such an effort, in fact, delusional.


How is one to know if the belief in miracles is more delusional than the dis-belief in miracles? However, I suggest that if you have truly had a personal experience of God (through faith) in your life, the issue of miracles is pretty much settled.


We can at least establish so far that it wasn't the author of Genesis. Having established that, what reason is there to believe that Genesis is true? So far, no evidence supporting that claim has been shown, and our discussion of this one story has led you to state that its author's language was confused.

I come from the opposite angle. Since I believe in miracles, and in God and the Bible, what reason do I have for not believing the Book of Genesis? Obviously, I am allowed to use my reason and imagination to try to understand how the writer saw things, and then try to work with his limited knowledge of the material world, to get to some sort of speculation about how things 'really' were. But I certainly do not come to a conclusion that the author was trying to be misleading.

So.. How did God make gravity? Not even the damned ungodly scientists (christian or otherwise) can demonstrate how the thing works. Great opportunity for the fundies of NS to earn a friggin Nobel prize & convert some of us heathen fools. Come come, a challenge has been issued!

I know! I know!

"Gravity" is actually the product of divine suction. Jehovah simply sent the Angel Who Sucks (errrr... I think his name is Shlurpiel in Hebrew). This Angel sucks with divine constancy throughout all eternity.

In a nutshell, "gravity" is just the product of atheist science. The Truth is that we are all being sucked on by an angel.

Can I be a Nobel laureate now? This is a lot easier than actually working on a dissertation.

Braurong, let's see if I've got this straight:
The Old testament fire & brimstone version of god is loving and Just because The New Testament god is... :confused:
Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
vs.
Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;


Now correct me if if wrong, but I seem to recall you stating that the bible was written by god and is inerrant, so how do you explain the difference in attitude towards enemies (not just in the selected excerpts, but in general between old and new testaments). Did god make a mistake the first time around? :confused:

Excellent point. I will try to address it as best I can. If you look at the way the God of the new testament treats his enemies in the last book (Revelations), you will find that it isn't much different to the way he treated them in the first book (Genesis). Yes, there is an emphasis on the destruction of his enemies, but there is a very good reason for that. God is love. Love is holy, but is twisted when tainted by evil. Yes, God loves us humans, but that love is a terrible thing. It will not stop at anything, not even the death of God. It cannot. It is supreme. And God knows that he cannot enjoy fellowship with humans unless the issue of evil has been dealt with. So you will often find severe warnings in the Bible, for people to turn from evil and come clean with God. Ignoring the warnings usually resulted in judgement. Noah preached for over a hundred years before the flood came. God's attitude towards evil has not changed. And those who refuse to be parted from their evil are heading towards trouble (to put it mildly). (I find that most people have not realized the horror of evil, or do not even know what it is. This is part of the problem with the confusion over God's reaction to evil.)

A further point to be made is that evil has a measure. For example, Jesus condemned some Jewish cities for their unbelief in God (unbelief being considered a form of evil) and that these cities would recieve a more severe punishment than Sodom and Gomorrah, because in these cities Jesus preached the Gospel. However, the cities of S and G, while being full of sexual indecency, did not get to hear Jesus and the Gospel, and thus recieved a lesser punishment. Thus evil is measured according to the light that it rejects, not according to our standard of morals. Thus, when a Christian who knows and loves God rejects Him, this is a greater evil than someone who has never heard of God's love. In other words, God's justice means that some people receive more punishment than others, depending on what they did with the light that they recieved.

Now, I think I can see you pointing out punishment as evidence of God not being a God of love. But remember that I pointed out how his love was a terrible thing. The Bible does say that God punishes those whom he loves. Obviously, the love that we have for our neighbours is hardly to be the same as the love that God has for humans. We love our neighbours when we do what we think to be in their best interests, all things considered. Since we don't know what will happen tomorrow, we simply treat others the way that we would like to be treated. That is the natural outworking of love mixed with ignorance. However, in God's position, he knows exactly what each one of us needs, so the outworking of His love will be exactly the thing that is most likely to turn us back to him, to believe in Him. It most likely will involve a good deal of pain, for most people, since the surrender of ones life to God (becoming a Christian, using the Biblical definition of a Christian) is usually not recieved very well. However, since we possess a free will, it is possible to fight against the love of God, and successfully avoid being caught by it. This means that there is no option left for God but to destroy those people, or even worse, to give them what they wanted, existance without God. If you go to hell, it will have meant that you have fought against God, and won (at least, in one sense).

Okay, how do you reconcile your edit with the sequence in *many of* the Bible(s) that have "God" stating SPECIFICALLY that "he" shall confound the wise?
Are you saying that the Bible supports collecting the knowledge available to you, even though it states quite clearly that truly understanding that knowledge is useless?

If you read those parts of scripture in context, you may see that the wise people referred to in this case are those who think that they have everything worked out and know better than God. Thus, when God calls them wise, he doesn't really think that they have true wisdom, because the knowledge that they do have is preventing them from knowing God. It's a little like Jesus' comment about coming to rescue the sick, those who need a doctor, not the healthy. Nobody is really healthy, since all have sinned, but there are some who have convinced themselves that they are not sinners, and Jesus knew this. He also knew that such people who hold such 'knowledge' are the furtherest from God. Like I said before, not all knowledge is good and beneficial. In fact, anything that does hinder one from knowing God is not only worthless, it is tragic and a senseless waste. For example, if your understanding of science prevents you from believing in God, that knowledge will contribute to your destruction. However, there is nothing necessarily wrong with science, and knowledge is yet another good gift from God.....a gift that should not get in the way of more important things.

"Gravity" is actually the product of divine suction. Jehovah simply sent the Angel Who Sucks (errrr... I think his name is Shlurpiel in Hebrew). This Angel sucks with divine constancy throughout all eternity.

In a nutshell, "gravity" is just the product of atheist science. The Truth is that we are all being sucked on by an angel.


Heehehehehehheee! Aw, shit...Shlurpiel, preserve us.

I'm going to submit that to FOX network as a great new show for next fall..."Sucked by an Angel", starring Nicky Cox and Andy Dick...

If God is omniscient, then He is unable to act in any meaningful way. Example:

If I already now know - beyond any possibility for error - that I'll die 4:15 pm tomorrow because I'll fail to check for traffic when I cross (insert street name), and thus get crushed to death by an ambulance.
If I know that, beyond any margin of error, how can I be omnipotent, if I don't wish to die?

Omniscience & omnipotence are mutually exclusive. Because omniscience don't allow free will.
No doubt it has, but not by that example.

A person with prescience of their own fate may wish to change it, but that has nothing to do with God's Will.

There are many people on this forums who would insist that there is no God becasue it cannot be explained by any kind of scinetific process. Who would essentially claim that there is no meaning to the universe, and that the universe just 'is', with no meaning or anything behind it. However to claim this is not scientific. It is philosophical, and no more defensable than any claim that there is a God. The idea that the universe has no meaning and life has no meaning etc is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one. And just because science cant explain any meaning that there may or may not be, that doesnt instantly mean there is no meaning. In short, the idea that the universe has no meaning is about as sceintific as the idea that it does. IE not at all
It's a classic conundrum of epistemology: what distinguishes true (adequate) knowledge from false (inadequate) knowledge? Science is the most effective epistemological system for interpreting the universe, something it has demonstrated time and time again. But there are many questions to which science has no answers, most of them having to do with "why?"

Uhm, but back to science & god.

So.. How did God make gravity? Not even the damned ungodly scientists (christian or otherwise) can demonstrate how the thing works. Great opportunity for the fundies of NS to earn a friggin Nobel prize & convert some of us heathen fools. Come come, a challenge has been issued!
Well, the thing about religion, see, is that it's not science. It isn't important to religion how God made gravity, just that God made gravity.

Why do you make me want to defend Christianity against lame attacks? /whine

I know what you were asking, but do you really think that any of the bible thumpers will be able to come up with a "better" explanation than I did on their behalf?
I hope they don't even try.

Its not that science cannot answer the 'why' questions, its that they have no answer. A religion can make up an answer but it does not become true simply because science cannot offer a better alternative.

It's a classic conundrum of epistemology: what distinguishes true (adequate) knowledge from false (inadequate) knowledge? Science is the most effective epistemological system for interpreting the universe, something it has demonstrated time and time again. But there are many questions to which science has no answers, most of them having to do with "why?"
Ooh! well said.

Its not that science cannot answer the 'why' questions, its that they have no answer. A religion can make up an answer but it does not become true simply because science cannot offer a better alternative.
That is absolutely correct, which is why religion does not just "make up" answers and claim them to be true.

For instance, the story of the creation of the world and mankind is not a story that answers the question, "How was the world made," but one that answers the question, "What is my relationship to god and the world?"

Which makes religious people ultimately smarter. The Universe is already explained. They know everything. Science can't explain everything. Which means anyone who follows science is ultimately dumber, since everything is not explained.


Believing that the myths of a bunch of 3,000 year old desert nomads explain the universe doesn't make you smarter. What it makes you is gullible.

Ooh! well said.
Thank you. [ blushes ]

Once in awhile I manage to come up with a pretty decent post. Contrary to popular belief, I'm not always "the verbal mugger" I'm made out to be. :D

Its not that science cannot answer the 'why' questions, its that they have no answer. A religion can make up an answer but it does not become true simply because science cannot offer a better alternative.
Which kind of begs the question. There are many ways of knowing, not all of which have to do with science. The key, IMHO, is to constantly prove all things and retain those which are effective.

Believing that the myths of a bunch of 3,000 year old desert nomads explain the universe doesn't make you smarter. What it makes you is gullible.
Not necessarily. Nomads are as capable of thought and wisdom as anyone else. I choose what to believe then measure it against other epistemological systems to prove its validity. If it doesn't stand up, I change it.

Believing that the myths of a bunch of 3,000 year old desert nomads explain the universe doesn't make you smarter. What it makes you is gullible.
Well, it would if "the myths" were the literal story, but they are not. The myth is what is contained in the story.

McVenezuela did you just say that God made an angel to suck shit?
Well, the thing about religion, see, is that it's not science. It isn't important to religion how God made gravity, just that God made gravity.

Why do you make me want to defend Christianity against lame attacks? /whine
But the two are interconnected, aren't they?

First & foremost, a lot of people refuse to acknowledge physical evidence/scientific theories, because they feel some of them contradicts the Bible. If the Christianity didn't deal with how, that wouldn't be an issue, but it does. Constantly.

Secondly, if Christianity only dealt with the why's of things, it wouldn't be any more useful than FSMism, for example. What I mean is, if Genesis doesn't explain how we came to be, then it doesn't really explain our relationship with God either. Because what's to say He made us?

But the two are interconnected, aren't they?

First & foremost, a lot of people refuse to acknowledge physical evidence/scientific theories, because they feel some of them contradicts the Bible. If the Christianity didn't deal with how, that wouldn't be an issue, but it does. Constantly.

Secondly, if Christianity only dealt with the why's of things, it wouldn't be any more useful than FSMism, for example. What I mean is, if Genesis doesn't explain how we came to be, then it doesn't really explain our relationship with God either. Because what's to say He made us?
Christians who take the Bible literally deal with "how", they try to compare and compete with science, and are an embarassment to all theists.

Christianity is more useful than FSMism, for example, because it uses symbolism that actually has meaning, part of a cohesive and comprehensive mythology (though not its own).

Genesis explains our relationships regardless of how things came to be, because it begins with a single human mind, rather than with an objective view of everything in general, and weaves a story from there. It begins with a premise: "1First this: God created the Heavens and Earth--all you see, all you don't see."

Excellent point. I will try to address it as best I can. If you look at the way the God of the new testament treats his enemies in the last book (Revelations), you will find that it isn't much different to the way he treated them in the first book (Genesis). Yes, there is an emphasis on the destruction of his enemies, but there is a very good reason for that. God is love. Love is holy, but is twisted when tainted by evil. Yes, God loves us humans, but that love is a terrible thing. It will not stop at anything, not even the death of God. It cannot. It is supreme. And God knows that he cannot enjoy fellowship with humans unless the issue of evil has been dealt with. So you will often find severe warnings in the Bible, for people to turn from evil and come clean with God. Ignoring the warnings usually resulted in judgement. Noah preached for over a hundred years before the flood came. God's attitude towards evil has not changed. And those who refuse to be parted from their evil are heading towards trouble (to put it mildly). (I find that most people have not realized the horror of evil, or do not even know what it is. This is part of the problem with the confusion over God's reaction to evil.)
So in the days of the OT if you ignored god's warnings he killed you, and yet nowadays people ignore 'the word of god' and manage to avoid the wholesale destruction of the area in which they live...
A further point to be made is that evil has a measure. For example, Jesus condemned some Jewish cities for their unbelief in God (unbelief being considered a form of evil) and that these cities would recieve a more severe punishment than Sodom and Gomorrah, because in these cities Jesus preached the Gospel. However, the cities of S and G, while being full of sexual indecency, did not get to hear Jesus and the Gospel, and thus recieved a lesser punishment. Thus evil is measured according to the light that it rejects, not according to our standard of morals. Thus, when a Christian who knows and loves God rejects Him, this is a greater evil than someone who has never heard of God's love. In other words, God's justice means that some people receive more punishment than others, depending on what they did with the light that they recieved.
Not sure what this has to do with my question :confused:
Now, I think I can see you pointing out punishment as evidence of God not being a God of love. But remember that I pointed out how his love was a terrible thing. The Bible does say that God punishes those whom he loves. Obviously, the love that we have for our neighbours is hardly to be the same as the love that God has for humans.
So to be loved by god is to be punished?
We love our neighbours when we do what we think to be in their best interests, all things considered. Since we don't know what will happen tomorrow, we simply treat others the way that we would like to be treated. That is the natural outworking of love mixed with ignorance. However, in God's position, he knows exactly what each one of us needs, so the outworking of His love will be exactly the thing that is most likely to turn us back to him, to believe in Him. It most likely will involve a good deal of pain, for most people, since the surrender of ones life to God (becoming a Christian, using the Biblical definition of a Christian) is usually not recieved very well. However, since we possess a free will, it is possible to fight against the love of God, and successfully avoid being caught by it. This means that there is no option left for God but to destroy those people, or even worse, to give them what they wanted, existance without God. If you go to hell, it will have meant that you have fought against God, and won (at least, in one sense).
And again the only point I see you making is that to accept god's love is to suffer, now that's a strong point for conversion :rolleyes:

Also all this begs the question of...
If god is omnipotent, why is it that the only way he can show his 'love' for mankind is to make them suffer?
Which, by the way, is the same thing you're saying will happen if we don't accept his love.

Or perhaps I'm trying to see it in the light of the whole Bible story, including the life, death, and life of Jesus.

No, you're not. Paul's interpretation of the Jesus story makes no sense: God decides humans [who he created] should be punished for listening to a serpent [which he created] and eating fruit from a tree [which he created]. Therefore, in spite of the fact that the entire episode was due to his error of putting the tree and the serpent in the garden, God blamed us, threw us out of the garden of Eden, and bought death, disease and suffering into the world in case that wasn't enough.

God then comes to Earth in a superpowered body, and gets us to nail it to a cross. Through that he admits the commandments he gave to Moses were ridiculous, and that we can only get to heaven by a combination of good works, and accepting that he killed a human-shaped avatar of himself because apologising for his unending grudge against us over a victimless crime he created every detail of was too damn difficult for him.

It's like you as a father finding your son playing with a power drill you never should have left out, blaming him for your mistake, throwing him out of the house, deliberately slamming your own hand in the car door in front of him and then telling him you'll let him back in if he spends the rest of his life telling you you're the best father ever for suffering so he didn't have to stay outside in the cold.

I have understood 'making a name for themselves' as trying to somehow increase their own 'greatness'. In order to do that, you simply rule out God's existance, or ignore it, and make yourself the center of your universe.

Where does any of that appear in the Bible? Again, you're thinking backwards, starting from the assumption that there must have been a good reason and trying to think of excuses. The rub is you can find an excuse for anything if one of your initial assumptions was that the wronged party must have had it coming to them, or that the person wronging them must have been acting in their best interest.

God does love his enemies, i.e., Jesus died for the sins of everyone, including those who put him to death.

No, Jesus only died for those who would later accept him. Jesus would not have needed to exist if God didn't mean to use the whole thing as a reason to seperate people into those who go to heaven and those who go to hell. God could have forgiven all sin in the world with a single word, because he is God.

We call it hell. It was not designed to torture you. It is simply a place where he is not.

No, it's not. Hell is a pit of fire that burneth with brimstone, haven't you read Revelation? And since God designed humans to require the things you claim to be absent in Hell, it obviously was designed to torture people. That's like saying a decompression chamber wasn't designed to suffocate you, it's just a room where air is not. It's ridiculous.

Thus, if you really insist on having things your own way, without God, then that is precisely what you will get. It is unfortunate, to be sure, but only part of the risk that God took in giving free will to creatures.

That isn't free will. Free will is the ability to make a choice without conditions, not the ability to mindlessly obey or be subject to arbitary torture. If I say you can freely vote for Presidential elections but if you vote for the wrong candidate you'll be abducted in the night and tortured to death, that is not a free choice.

They were given a fairly stiff warning.

They were told they would 'surely die.' But death didn't exist, so how could Adam and Eve even understand the concept? Why did God put the tree or the serpent where they could get to it? Why did God need a tree of knowledge at all, since he had all knowledge already?

?\ Why did God need a tree of knowledge at all, since he had all knowledge already?

Gymnospermic backup system? External hard-drive that you can decorate for holidays?

Seems like keeping an easily bite-accessed (bite chew, not bite 8-bits) database right in the habitat of people you don't want to have the information is like keeping your secret German fetish porn-stash in your new Mormon girlfriend's purse...

Gymnospermic backup system? External hard-drive that you can decorate for holidays?

Seems like keeping an easily bite-accessed (bite chew, not bite 8-bits) database right in the habitat of people you don't want to have the information is like keeping your secret German fetish porn-stash in your new Mormon girlfriend's purse...
LMAO :D

See, if you gave up on the religion thing, in recognizing its fallacy, you'd be saving their lives (not - sorry, AFTER-lives) from damnation! You'd be THEIR saviour!
Or, do you really think that whole *UNSUBSTANTIATED by scripture* hell/damnation idea really carries all that weight (psychological baggage)?

ummm... since when has the idea of hell/damnation been unsubstantiated by the bible, last thing I knew it was...

have you ever even read the bible...?

I firmly believe that science seeks the answers to questions without having to cling to the irrational or simply belief. I am a Christian who also believes that science holds the key to finding the truth. Which makes me on the side of Science.

My wife is a Wiccan. So I guess if I was on a witch hunt, I found one.

My wife also points out that I tend to be a smart ass at times.

ummm... if you have a witch for a wife, i sincerely doubt your christianity....

unless she became a wiccan after you knew her, of you became a christian after knowing her....

No, Jesus only died for those who would later accept him. Jesus would not have needed to exist if God didn't mean to use the whole thing as a reason to seperate people into those who go to heaven and those who go to hell. God could have forgiven all sin in the world with a single word, because he is God.


He DID, but because he wants us to have free will, we still have to accept the forgiveness...

he didn't just want to THRUST salvation upon us...

He DID, but because he wants us to have free will, we still have to accept the forgiveness...

It's not free will when there's a gun to your head. He could save everyone from a horrible fate and chose not to, and that is wrong no matter how you cut it. And what's to forgive? It was God's carelessness that put the tree in the garden and God's unjust punishment. God should be asking us for forgiveness for his unjust treatment of generation after generation of humans because of the supposed sins of our ancestors [and his various plagues and massacres], not the other way around.

No, you're not. Paul's interpretation of the Jesus story makes no sense: God decides humans...

-snip-

...need a tree of knowledge at all, since he had all knowledge already?

Greatest. Post. Ever.

It's not free will when there's a gun to your head. He could save everyone from a horrible fate and chose not to, and that is wrong no matter how you cut it. And what's to forgive? It was God's carelessness that put the tree in the garden and God's unjust punishment. God should be asking us for forgiveness for his unjust treatment of generation after generation of humans because of the supposed sins of our ancestors [and his various plagues and massacres], not the other way around.

okay, for a start, it IS free will, we have been told the results of both sets of choices, and people pull the trigger on the gun to their own head (if you cant to put it that way)

Yes. God COULD have chosen to save everyone, but then where's the free will? and what use is us loving and worshipping him if we are forced to?

Also, God put the tree in the garden to give us free will, and his punishment is NOT unjust, because we KNEW what would happen.

although all those arguments require you to believe that we have free will, so if you don't, there's no point you even replying.

Also, God put the tree in the garden to give us free will, and his punishment is NOT unjust, because we KNEW what would happen.


Question.
What knowledge did Eve and Adam have before they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge?

okay, for a start, it IS free will, we have been told the results of both sets of choices, and people pull the trigger on the gun to their own head (if you cant to put it that way)

No, it is not. If one way gets you treasure and the other gets you pain, it is not a free choice. If there is no clear evidence the choice even has to be made [or can be made], it is unfair to punish people for failing to make it.

If I had you executed for failing to observe no-sock day even though I hadn't done anything but issue a vague, self-contradictory decree that it was no sock day at some point, [and various other people had told you you'd be executed if you didn't wear socks] you would not have chosen to be executed.

Yes. God COULD have chosen to save everyone, but then where's the free will? and what use is us loving and worshipping him if we are forced to?

Non sequitur. You don't seem to understand: God can save everyone, regardless of whether they have chosen to love or worship him for it or not. We still have free will, but he doesn't construct a torture chamber for us if we get the wrong answer by him.

Also, God put the tree in the garden to give us free will, and his punishment is NOT unjust, because we KNEW what would happen.

No, we did not. Death did not exist: how could we comprehend it? And if God wanted us to have free will, why punish us for exercising it? Since we had no knowledge of the difference between good and evil, how could we comprehend that disobeying God was wrong?

ummm... if you have a witch for a wife, i sincerely doubt your christianity....

Eh? What? Sorry? Huh?
Are you saying a christian shouldn't be allowed to fall in love with a non christian? :rolleyes:

Question.
What knowledge did Eve and Adam have before they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge?

That's a sizzling one :p

Question.
What knowledge did Eve and Adam have before they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge?

ARGH! I already said this...

It's the tree of the KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL....

not the tree of knowledge....

No, it is not. If one way gets you treasure and the other gets you pain, it is not a free choice. If there is no clear evidence the choice even has to be made [or can be made], it is unfair to punish people for failing to make it.

well, there IS clear evidence, it's called the bible, other christians, and the intrinsic knowledge of good and evil...

If I had you executed for failing to observe no-sock day even though I hadn't done anything but issue a vague, self-contradictory decree that it was no sock day at some point, [and various other people had told you you'd be executed if you didn't wear socks] you would not have chosen to be executed.

Yes i would, that's where the fact comes in that If other christians don't witness to you, it's on their heads. however, God can still talk to you...



Non sequitur. You don't seem to understand: God can save everyone, regardless of whether they have chosen to love or worship him for it or not. We still have free will, but he doesn't construct a torture chamber for us if we get the wrong answer by him. see, you're contradicting yourself...

you call that free will, but if he forces us all to be saved, that's not free will...



No, we did not. Death did not exist: how could we comprehend it? And if God wanted us to have free will, why punish us for exercising it? Since we had no knowledge of the difference between good and evil, how could we comprehend that disobeying God was wrong?

God told us we would die, that was all we needed. And who said we didn't know of it? it may have existed, just that noone died because we were protected by our obedience to God.

He gave us free will, and left it up to our obedience and faith in what he told us to choose the correct path.

We didn't know that disobeying God was wrong, we just knew we shouldn't do it, because he's God and he told us not to...

If the fact "just because he's God" doesn't make sense to you, then nothing else will.... There are things like that that just have to be accepted, and until you do, this discussion can go no further...

Eh? What? Sorry? Huh?
Are you saying a christian shouldn't be allowed to fall in love with a non christian? :rolleyes:

yes, it's in the bible...

it says "do not yoke yourselves together with unbelievers"

ARGH! I already said this...

It's the tree of the KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL....

not the tree of knowledge....

No, it was a tree of knowledge that made one wise, and also gave one the knowledge of good and evil.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Gen 3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou [wast] naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

Knowing if you are wearing clothes or not is not 'knowledge of good and evil.'

No, it was a tree of knowledge that made one wise, and also gave one the knowledge of good and evil.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Gen 3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou [wast] naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

Knowing if you are wearing clothes or not is not 'knowledge of good and evil.'

you seem to have overlooked... Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

well, there IS clear evidence, it's called the bible, other christians, and the intrinsic knowledge of good and evil...

That's not clear. Why do you think Christian sects exist if it's so clear?

you call that free will, but if he forces us all to be saved, that's not free will...

Saving someone from arbitary torture at your own hands isn't an infringement of their free will. God chooses who goes to hell; God need not send anyone to hell; unless they were to specifically request it of him, doing so does not infringe on their free will.

Also, forcing someone to be happy, often also known as 'cheering them up' is seldom taken as the gross infringement of free will you seem to think it is.

God told us we would die, that was all we needed.

Even though we couldn't understand the concept of death because nobody had ever died? Yeah, right.

We didn't know that disobeying God was wrong, we just knew we shouldn't do it, because he's God and he told us not to...

We didn't know it was wrong, but we knew we shouldn't do it...In other words, we knew it was wrong? That's sig-worthy.

you seem to have overlooked.

Which obviously overrules the two verses I quoted, doesn't it?

well, there IS clear evidence, it's called the bible, other christians, and the intrinsic knowledge of good and evil...

The concept of good & evil, moral & immoral are social constructs by humans to maintain soceity, the bible is nothing more then a book written by meer humans decades after the death of jesus, inspired greatly by older myths & legends, popular belief doesn't constitute truth....

I could go on & on & on to tell you how stupid that statement was, but i disgress

Yes i would, that's where the fact comes in that If other christians don't witness to you, it's on their heads. however, God can still talk to you...

Do you know what psychology calls hearing voices in your head?
And i love Jehova's witnesses, it's fun to bombard them with science, reason & logic when they ring on your door with salvation in a book

see, you're contradicting yourself...
you call that free will, but if he forces us all to be saved, that's not free will...

Ilogical.
The choice (according to christianity) is this:
Believe in the wanker in the skies == eternal bliss in heaven
Don't believe in the wanker in the skies == Eternal damnation & suffering

That there does constitute with suppression of free will, since if you don't, you'll be punished.

Not only that, we have to take this whole ordeal on faith, with no proof whatsoever (no, the bible proofs jack shit)

God told us we would die, that was all we needed. And who said we didn't know of it? it may have existed, just that noone died because we were protected by our obedience to God.

A being that cannot die cannot fathom the meaning of what it is to die.

He gave us free will, and left it up to our obedience and faith in what he told us to choose the correct path.

Without a moral conception they shouldn't have been able to see wether or not disobedience was "bad"

We didn't know that disobeying God was wrong, we just knew we shouldn't do it, because he's God and he told us not to...

You are already assuming knowledge of good & evil, right or wrong there, before *THEY* ate the fruit...

If the fact "just because he's God" doesn't make sense to you, then nothing else will.... There are things like that that just have to be accepted, and until you do, this discussion can go no further...

It can't be accepted without any motive to accept it.
Where's my motive to accept & believe the bible when i can find no logic, no reasonning & no proof in it?

yes, it's in the bible...

it says "do not yoke yourselves together with unbelievers"

...

I thought the bible didn't teach hatred towards unbelievers?

That's not clear. Why do you think Christian sects exists if it's so clear?



Saving someone from arbitary torture at your own hands isn't an infringement of their free will. God chooses who goes to hell; God need not send anyone to hell; unless they were to specifically request it of him, doing so does not infringe on their free will.



Even though we couldn't understand the concept of death because nobody had ever died? Yeah, right.



We didn't know it was wrong, but we knew we shouldn't do it...In other words, we knew it was wrong? That's sig-worthy.


see? there's no point talking to you because your heart has been hardened, and you're too arrogant to be botherd trying to understand anyone else's opinions. hence, there's no point continuing this discussion, because you're never going to listen.

Which obviously overrules the two verses I quoted, doesn't it?
yes, because it clearly states that it IS the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which is a form of wisdom is it not? and also, we can't say whether knowing you're naked or not is a form of knowing the difference between good and evil, because we have never known otherwise.

...

I thought the bible didn't teach hatred towards unbelievers?

who said it was hatred?

we can still love them...

see? there's no point talking to you because your heart has been hardened, and you're too arrogant to be botherd trying to understand anyone else's opinions.

Ah, the classic 'if you stopped demolishing my arguments for a minute you'd agree with me.' Concession accepted.

yes, because it clearly states that it IS the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which is a form of wisdom is it not?

Yes, but it doesn't preclude the tree giving any other kind of knowledge.

and also, we can't say whether knowing you're naked or not is a form of knowing the difference between good and evil, because we have never known otherwise.

God created us naked. God had us walk around naked. Would God put us in such a state if being naked was evil? After all, he knew we were naked the whole time.

You are already assuming knowledge of good & evil, right or wrong there, before *THEY* ate the fruit...


gargh.... NO I AM NOT.

there is a HUGE difference with knowing that it is wrong, and simply not doing it because God said so.

there is a HUGE difference with knowing that it is wrong, and simply not doing it because God said so.

No, there is none whatsoever. You must still know that if God says not to do it, it is wrong to disobey him. Playing with words won't get you out of this one.

No, there is none whatsoever. You must still know that if God says not to do it, it is wrong to disobey him. Playing with words won't get you out of this one.

so why exactly are you even arguing with me?

If you are completely and utterly devoted to someone, and will do whatever they say, can you be said to know the difference between right and wrong? no.

and since adam and eve were completely and totally devoted to God, and wanted to obey him, if not for the interruption of the serpent, they would not have disobeyed God, because they had no cause to.

EDIT: I have to say, I just love they way that everything that comes fom your mouth is utter truth, and completely factual... nice try at being God, but it won't get you out of this one...

who said it was hatred?

we can still love them...

Contradictions Contradictions Contradictions....
You can love them, but can't be inlove *with* them?

gargh.... NO I AM NOT.

there is a HUGE difference with knowing that it is wrong, and simply not doing it because God said so.

No there's not, if you don't know it's wrong to be disobedient then there's no motive to be obedient

Contradictions Contradictions Contradictions....
You can love them, but can't be inlove *with* them?

how old are you? twelve?

there is a rather large difference between LOVING someone and being IN LOVE with them...

just because we shouldn't be IN LOVE with non-christians doesn't mean we can't LOVE them...

and since adam and eve were completely and totally devoted to God, and wanted to obey him, if not for the interruption of the serpent, they would not have disobeyed God, because they had no cause to.

Why? They were devoted, but didn't know the difference between right and wrong, so how could they possibly know that disobeying his orders was either right or wrong? A puppy can be utterly devoted to you and still not know it's not supposed to crap in your slippers, you know.

No there's not, if you don't know it's wrong to be disobedient then there's no motive to be obedient

it's called devotion, faith, and love.

by your own logic if you have never been devoted to God, and have never had faith in him, then you cannot comprehend these facts, and hence, cannot continue on this train of dicussion.

No, there is none whatsoever. You must still know that if God says not to do it, it is wrong to disobey him. Playing with words won't get you out of this one.

It's all metaphor anyway, the story of the garden; it's about the difference between mankind and the rest of the animals, the quality of our minds, and the ability to know right from wrong - morality.

As soon as you have this thing, this ability to look at thoughts and actions from a moral perspective, coupled with general cognition, you can _choose_ to make moral or immoral decisions.

Humanity's choice to commit immoral - evil - thoughts/actions when they could have chosen moral (good! :p) alternatives sets us apart from other animals, and the commission of immoral/evil thoughts/actions offends the biblical god.

That's my understanding of the bible's creation myth, anyway. The author(s) uses the metaphor of the 'knowledge of good and evil' to say A) man differs from animals in his appreciation of a moral dimension to decisions B) when we do evil, it angers god.

edit: within the metaphor, god is obliged to cast out Adam and Eve due to the fact that they are no longer animal, they no longer get a 'free ride' in paradise - possessing morality as well as intelligence, they must pay their own way, and make their own way towards it.

so why exactly are you even arguing with me?

If you are completely and utterly devoted to someone, and will do whatever they say, can you be said to know the difference between right and wrong? no.

and since adam and eve were completely and totally devoted to God, and wanted to obey him, if not for the interruption of the serpent, they would not have disobeyed God, because they had no cause to.

EDIT: I have to say, I just love they way that everything that comes fom your mouth is utter truth, and completely factual... nice try at being God, but it won't get you out of this one...

So shouldn't it be the snake that should've been punished for making them aware that they could disobay him? You make them sound like stupid drones or machines...

If that's the concept god had for mankind then i'm *GLAD* the serpent made them disobay...

Why? They were devoted, but didn't know the difference between right and wrong, so how could they possibly know that disobeying his orders was either right or wrong? A puppy can be utterly devoted to you and still not know it's not supposed to crap in your slippers, you know.

and you compare a puppy to humans?

So shouldn't it be the snake that should've been punished for making them aware that they could disobay him? You make them sound like stupid drones or machines...

If that's the concept god had for mankind then i'm *GLAD* the serpent made them disobay...

and I say again...

it's called devotion, faith, and love.

by your own logic if you have never been devoted to God, and have never had faith in him, then you cannot comprehend these facts, and hence, cannot continue on this train of dicussion.


as a side note, it's disobey not "disobay"

and you compare a puppy to humans?

Yes. What's the difference between a loving puppy and a human who's trying to please you but has absolutely no concept of right or wrong?

how old are you? twelve?

there is a rather large difference between LOVING someone and being IN LOVE with them...

just because we shouldn't be IN LOVE with non-christians doesn't mean we can't LOVE them...

Petty potshots won't make you prove your point, if you must know i'm 28, 29 next month. Am aware of the difference with love & being inlove, i just don't see why any book that tells me who i can & can not love is just.

Why should the bible disallow one form of love & allow for the other?

Also, you proved that the bible explicitly forbids falling in love with an unbeliever, yet your still to provide a quote that allows for brotherly love for an unbeliever..

Don't you find the idea that a book & a religion can tell you whom to fall inlove with preposterous? I do.

Damn, that post looked like crap :p

Yes. What's the difference between a loving puppy and a human who's trying to please you but has absolutely no concept of right or wrong?

at least two things: intelligence, and opposable thumbs.

and hence, cannot continue on this train of dicussion.

as a side note, it's disobey not "disobay"

Real slick there. You sure showed him.

it's called devotion, faith, and love.

by your own logic if you have never been devoted to God, and have never had faith in him, then you cannot comprehend these facts, and hence, cannot continue on this train of dicussion.

Ilogical.

You don't need faith & devotion to understand that the absence of moral thought provides means to do immoral things, no matter if you're devoted, have faith or love.

Elgesh']It's all metaphor anyway, the story of the garden; it's about the difference between mankind and the rest of the animals, the quality of our minds, and the ability to know right from wrong - morality.

As soon as you have this thing, this ability to look at thoughts and actions from a moral perspective, coupled with general cognition, you can _choose_ to make moral or immoral decisions.

Humanity's choice to commit immoral - evil - thoughts/actions when they could have chosen moral (good! :p) alternatives sets us apart from other animals, and the commission of immoral/evil thoughts/actions offends the biblical god.

That's my understanding of the bible's creation myth, anyway. The author(s) uses the metaphor of the 'knowledge of good and evil' to say A) man differs from animals in his appreciation of a moral dimension to decisions B) when we do evil, it angers god.

edit: within the metaphor, god is obliged to cast out Adam and Eve due to the fact that they are no longer animal, they no longer get a 'free ride' in paradise - possessing morality as well as intelligence, they must pay their own way, and make their own way towards it.

Problem is, Zhantuu isn't argueing from within that standpoint

So shouldn't it be the snake that should've been punished for making them aware that they could disobay him?

To my knowledge, the serpent was punished in Genesis Chapter 3 Verse 14-15:
"So the Lord God said to the serpent 'Because you have done this, Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offpring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

God then continues to punish Eve and then Adam for sinning against him :)
Just a little clarification

at least two things: intelligence, and opposable thumbs.

What human has ever had intelligence but no concept of right or wrong? Surely their intelligence would give them an understanging of right and wrong.

Can't fault you on the opposable thumbs thing though.

and I say again...

it's called devotion, faith, and love.

by your own logic if you have never been devoted to God, and have never had faith in him, then you cannot comprehend these facts, and hence, cannot continue on this train of dicussion.

as a side note, it's disobey not "disobay"

Devotion, faith & love without *MORAL* means that you can still disobey (so i'm not a native English speaker, who cares?) an order, because you *LACK* the moral to *UNDERSTAND* that in disobeying him you are doing something *WRONG*

your still to provide a quote that allows for brotherly love for an unbeliever...

try Matthew 22:39, Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:27, and Luke 6:35

What human has ever had intelligence but no concept of right or wrong? Surely their intelligence would give them an understanging of right and wrong.

Can't fault you on the opposable thumbs thing though.


ahh, see? you're assuming that we've ALWAYS known the difference between right and wrong...

adam and eve initially didn't, and they were intelligent.

at least two things: intelligence, and opposable thumbs.

What good is intelligence without moral? Because that's what the Apple truly prepresents, moral thought, the difference between good & evil, right or wrong

What good is intelligence without moral? Because that's what the Apple truly prepresents, moral thought, the difference between good & evil, right or wrong

(it's not an apple, it's a fruit) and the fruit represents a fruit, not an abstract concept.

To my knowledge, the serpent was punished in Genesis Chapter 3 Verse 14-15:
"So the Lord God said to the serpent 'Because you have done this, Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offpring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

God then continues to punish Eve and then Adam for sinning against him :)
Just a little clarification

Hmm... isn't a serpent already crawling on his belly? :p
And it's good to see god has such a great temper & sense for forgiveness :p

try Matthew 22:39, Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:27, and Luke 6:35

I can't don't own a bible.
(Yes, there are people who don't possess such a book)

I can't don't own a bible.
(Yes, there are people who don't possess such a book)

http://blueletterbible.com/

The power of the interweb is YOURS!

And with that, I'm off to bed. Night!

(it's not an apply, it's a fruit) and the fruit represents a fruit, not an abstract concept.

Hmmm.... The fruit Adam & Eve weren't supposed to eat was an apple, the apple represented the food of god, and the knowledge between good & evil.

So, eighter it should be taken litterally (with all the problems that brings, see my posts & GMC's posts) or it's not supposed to be taken litterally, but as a story of morals & as a metaphor, wich then begs the question, how much of the rest of the bible is litteral & what is metaphor?

I can't don't own a bible.
(Yes, there are people who don't possess such a book)

please don't assume I made such a rash generalisation.

although unfortunately I did assume you knew you could find one on the net, sorry, my bad.

http://blueletterbible.com/

The power of the interweb is YOURS!

And with that, I'm off to bed. Night!

Oooh! Now you've done it! Now i can throw quotes arround as much as i want too!
Wooohooo! :p

please don't assume I made such a rash generalisation.

although unfortunately I did assume you knew you could find one on the net, sorry, my bad.

I probably could if i had wanted to go find one

Hmmm.... The fruit Adam & Eve weren't supposed to eat was an apple, the apple represented the food of god, and the knowledge between good & evil.

So, eighter it should be taken litterally (with all the problems that brings, see my posts & GMC's posts) or it's not supposed to be taken litterally, but as a story of morals & as a metaphor, wich then begs the question, how much of the rest of the bible is litteral & what is metaphor?

(it's not an apple at all, it's just an unspecified fruit)

and see, that's where some christians fall down, seeing metaphors in everything.

i however do not, and I believe that the story is either literal or symbolic, but NOT metaphoric...