What's not irrational about god sacrificing himself to himself?

[Another brick in the wall]

I'm all ears, people.

[Tenspace]

You mean like Prometheus? You could well say that he sacrificed himself for a very noble cause: he gave fire to humans. Jesus' single crucifixion is nothing compared to having your liver pecked out of your body every single day for the rest of eternity by a freaking eagle.

Tenspace

[thomas]

There is an irrationality in the person of Jesus. He was both wholly God and wholly human, at the same time. It was Jesus in his humanity who lived the perfect life in relationship with God the Father, was tortured and was sacrificed on the cross.

[DMofD&D]

But you just said that Jesus is Jesus and God, he is one person than. I can't see how you can be two people and one person at the same. That is so illogical I'm suprised even you still believe it -- you seemed like such a smart (wo)man. Oh well.

[Lurker]

Dungeon Master - The basic belief of nearly all religions (not just christianity) is that we are both physical and spiritual beings. You reject that, which is fine, but I would think you'd understand this very basic point.

[DMofD&D]

...He was both wholly God and wholly human, at the same time...
...It was Jesus in his humanity who lived the perfect life in relationship with God the Father...
But you just said that Jesus is Jesus and God, he is one person than.
But in the second sentence thomas implys that they are seperate people.

I can imagine a person having a spiritual counterpart, but they/he are either two people or one person. You can't be both.

[thomas]

I'm saying that Jesus was one person, spiritually and physically, and that he was both wholly God and wholly human at the same time. And, yes, it is illogical and irrational, but I believe it to be true.

[Sir Sin-O-Lot]

I'm saying that Jesus was one person, spiritually and physically, and that he was both wholly God and wholly human at the same time. And, yes, it is illogical and irrational, but I believe it to be true.
So this being defies all logic? Astounding.

[Lurker]

I'm saying that Jesus was one person, spiritually and physically, and that he was both wholly God and wholly human at the same time. And, yes, it is illogical and irrational, but I believe it to be true.
So this being defies all logic? Astounding.
Can the image below be one face and two faces at the same time? Outrageous!

http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/twofaces.jpg

[Tenspace]

I'm saying that Jesus was one person, spiritually and physically, and that he was both wholly God and wholly human at the same time. And, yes, it is illogical and irrational, but I believe it to be true.
So this being defies all logic? Astounding.
Can the image below be one face and two faces at the same time? Outrageous!

http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/twofaces.jpg
Ah, so religion is a cortical illusion! LOL! :D:D

Tenspace

[at78rpm]

How totally irrational! How would you think if I told you that the pine tree on my neighbor's property had white pine disease because a black fly bit me? There is no logical connection. Faith is garbage. Or do you side with Osama bin Laden, who feels his faith is the only true faith? And do you have any proof that it is not?

Emmett

[at78rpm]

Jesus is supposed to have been resurrected from the dead, was supposed to have been born of a virgin mother. Hoo boy. Julius Caesar was also thought to have been celestially begotten, which is why we speak of the Caesarean section. As Thomas Paine said, and truthfully, I quote him liberally, "A rising from the dead necessitates a corroboration from more than one or two people." Had an entire nation seen the risen Jesus, I might, just MIGHT, lend more credence to the fable. But no nation has attested to this: only a gang of people I've never met, and who wrote nothing.

As for God sacrificing himself to himself: what sense does that make? Why does it make sense that one dies for what I've done? And why would God kill his own son when he had already put Satan in a pit and defeated him? How did the bad guy get out?

Or maybe this fiction is so far-fetched that it is unbelievable. I certainly think so.

Emmett

[Little Earth Stamper]

Odin sacrificed himself to himself in order to get power over the magical runes. Who wouldn't want that?

[Lurker]

Ah, so religion is a cortical illusion! LOL! :D:D
It's not an illusion. Both instances are really in the picture at the same time, correct? If it were an illusion then one would look like it's there, even though it's not.

[Tenspace]

Ah, so religion is a cortical illusion! LOL! :D:D
It's not an illusion. Both instances are really in the picture at the same time, correct? If it were an illusion then one would look like it's there, even though it's not.
Would you like to delve into how the brain processes information? We could do that in another thread.

Ten

[DMofD&D]

Obviously, you don't give a damn in hell about logic, thomas. So let's try playing on your grounds.

In your view, god trumps all. Nothing can deny god's existence, not logic, not sense, not even the most irrefutable evidence in the world can debunk god... Except one thing -- If god says he doesn't exist, then he doesn't exist.

Now i'm going to break off for a minute here to ask you; if god said he doesn't exist, would you believe he doesn't exist?

[Little Earth Stamper]

Obviously, you don't give a damn in hell about logic, thomas. So let's try playing on your grounds.

In your view, god trumps all. Nothing can deny god's existence, not logic, not sense, not even the most irrefutable evidence in the world can debunk god... Except one thing -- If god says he doesn't exist, then he doesn't exist.

Now i'm going to break off for a minute here to ask you; if god said he doesn't exist, would you believe he doesn't exist?
That's a damn good question, despite also being goofy as all hell.

[Lurker]

Ah, so religion is a cortical illusion! LOL! :D:D
It's not an illusion. Both instances are really in the picture at the same time, correct? If it were an illusion then one would look like it's there, even though it's not.
Would you like to delve into how the brain processes information? We could do that in another thread.

Ten
Without absolutes it seems kind of pointless. As you said:

"The more I learn, the more I realize that everything is in a relative configuration. From the height of trees to the way the brain processes smell, I have yet to find an absolute strong enough to hang my hat on."

:D

[DMofD&D]

That's a damn good question, despite also being goofy as all hell.
Such is the price of talking like a theist.:lol:

[thomas]

Obviously, you don't give a damn in hell about logic, thomas. So let's try playing on your grounds.

In your view, god trumps all. Nothing can deny god's existence, not logic, not sense, not even the most irrefutable evidence in the world can debunk god... Except one thing -- If god says he doesn't exist, then he doesn't exist.

Now i'm going to break off for a minute here to ask you; if god said he doesn't exist, would you believe he doesn't exist?
You're mispresenting my position. I do think that God's existance can be argued and denied. Irrefutable evidence by its very definition can debunk God. I don't think any such evidence exists . Or maybe you've been sitting on this irrefutable evidence all along and forgot to share it with the rest of the world ?

"The whole secret of mysticism is that a person can understand everything with the help of what he does not understand. The logician seeks to make everything clear, and only succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows a few things to remain mysterious, and everything else becomes clear."

[DMofD&D]

Irrefutable evidence by its very definition can debunk God.
We do present irrefutable evidence. Carbon dating refutes a young earth. Chomosomes refute "interference from the female". Boats sailing over the ocean refute a flat earth. And God refutes God (remember Epicuris's riddle?). All of these methods have hypothesised, predicted, tested and prooved. They all debunk god, or would you care to explain why these proofs are wrong?

I havn't been sitting on irrefutable evidence all this time -- I've been waving it in your face all this time.

[Tenspace]

Without absolutes it seems kind of pointless. As you said:

"The more I learn, the more I realize that everything is in a relative configuration. From the height of trees to the way the brain processes smell, I have yet to find an absolute strong enough to hang my hat on."

:D
Oh, okay. Now I realize that I was talking about the Meaning of Life, not just the lack of absoluteness in the universe. Thanks for the point. ;)

Ten

[DMofD&D]

Still thomas you havn't answered my question.

[Lundie]

You're mispresenting my position. I do think that God's existance can be argued and denied. Irrefutable evidence by its very definition can debunk God. I don't think any such evidence exists . Or maybe you've been sitting on this irrefutable evidence all along and forgot to share it with the rest of the world ?
The point is moot. The onus is not on atheists to present evidence to debunk God, but on the proponents of God to present evidence to prove his existence. You presume the existence of the xian God as the status quo that is under attack whereas he is only a recent invention. If I came up to you now and proclaim Uga-Shaka, the God of the remote jungles of Congo as the creator of the cosmos, would you not demand evidence of such a claim?

"The whole secret of mysticism is that a person can understand everything with the help of what he does not understand. The logician seeks to make everything clear, and only succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows a few things to remain mysterious, and everything else becomes clear."
I agree, ignorance does indeed make things easier to explain.

[Another brick in the wall]

Irrefutable evidence for the non-existance of god? I don't know if anything is irrefutable, but I'll give it a shot.

During the Black Death, people believed god was punishing them for their sins. All over Europe, people crowded into churches to pray for mercy. Of course, all this crowding together only helped the plague spread faster. Nowadays, we know that sickness is not caused by evil spirits. Believers are always quick to point out alleged scientific facts in their holy books, but these always seem to be contrived after the discovery has been made. Does the bible (or any other holy book) reveal the atomic structure of matter? The germ theory of disease? Evolution by natural selection?

[Little Earth Stamper]

Irrefutable evidence for the non-existance of god? I don't know if anything is irrefutable, but I'll give it a shot.

During the Black Death, people believed god was punishing them for their sins. All over Europe, people crowded into churches to pray for mercy. Of course, all this crowding together only helped the plague spread faster. Nowadays, we know that sickness is not caused by evil spirits. Believers are always quick to point out alleged scientific facts in their holy books, but these always seem to be contrived after the discovery has been made. Does the bible (or any other holy book) reveal the atomic structure of matter? The germ theory of disease? Evolution by natural selection?
Christ specifically didn't wash his hands because he believed that nothing you ate could make you unclean; It goes in one hole and out the other, and can't effect your spirit.

True as that may be, washing your hands has proven to be an excellent idea, and I'm not sure it was responsible of Christ to discourage it.

[Another brick in the wall]

I've heard various people say that hand washing has saved more lives than any other medical technology. It seems strange that the bible's (OT) elaborate hygeinic rituals fail to mention it. It's amazing that as late as 100 years ago, many people died needlessly of infections after surgery. Back then, surgeons washed their hands after the operation to get the blood off.

[Lurker]

Irrefutable evidence for the non-existance of god? I don't know if anything is irrefutable, but I'll give it a shot.
Tell that to DMofD&D. He seems to think he has the evidence when in fact he doesn't.

[thomas]

Irrefutable evidence by its very definition can debunk God.
We do present irrefutable evidence. Carbon dating refutes a young earth. Chomosomes refute "interference from the female". Boats sailing over the ocean refute a flat earth. And God refutes God (remember Epicuris's riddle?). All of these methods have hypothesised, predicted, tested and prooved. They all debunk god, or would you care to explain why these proofs are wrong?

I havn't been sitting on irrefutable evidence all this time -- I've been waving it in your face all this time.
Christianity is not premised on a young earth, so carbon dating doesn't debunk God. Christianity is not premised on a flat earth, so boats sailing over the ocean don't debunk God.

You'll have to help me with the chromosome thing. I'm no biologist. How does that debunk God ?

As for Epicurus, look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurean_paradox). Do you really think it is irrefutable evidence that God doesn't exist ?

[thomas]

Now i'm going to break off for a minute here to ask you; if god said he doesn't exist, would you believe he doesn't exist?
No, I would believe God was a liar.

[thomas]

The point is moot. The onus is not on atheists to present evidence to debunk God, but on the proponents of God to present evidence to prove his existence. You presume the existence of the xian God as the status quo that is under attack whereas he is only a recent invention. If I came up to you now and proclaim Uga-Shaka, the God of the remote jungles of Congo as the creator of the cosmos, would you not demand evidence of such a claim?
No, you're not following the thread. A previous post said that my position was that I'd believe in God even if there was irrefutable evidence that He didn't exist. I was just pointing out that that isn't my position. And also taking the chance to say that I don't think there is any such evidence. Do you agree. Is the existence of God a possibility ?

You are right to say that I would demand evidence that Uga-Shaka was creator of the cosmos. Do you have any such evidence ?

"The whole secret of mysticism is that a person can understand everything with the help of what he does not understand. The logician seeks to make everything clear, and only succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows a few things to remain mysterious, and everything else becomes clear."
I agree, ignorance does indeed make things easier to explain.
You only get one chance at life. You can sit back all your life and say "I don't know" or you can take a chance and make a few leaps.

[thomas]

That's a damn good question, despite also being goofy as all hell.
Such is the price of talking like a theist.:lol:
That's so damn disrepectful, DmofD&D.

[Another brick in the wall]

I agree with thomas. How do expect to have a conversation if you show nothing but thinly veiled contempt for the other side? Granted, I admit I've been flippant from time to time.

[Little Earth Stamper]

Thomas, do you have any evidence that your guy is the creator?

[Bloody Jay]

1. The bible cites the time of creation much later than carbon dating cites it. I'll take carbon's word for it.
2. It talks of a flat earth, like he said.
3. Evolution is provable. Man and woman were not just pulled out of thin air.
4. The only real 'evidence' that God exists is in the Bible. The Bible was written by a bunch of mortal men. I don't doubt Jesus's existence, but the miracles could have been exaggerations. There's no proof that any of it other than Jesus's life is true. Just look at The Iliad.

Those are my big four.

[thomas]

1. The bible cites the time of creation much later than carbon dating cites it. I'll take carbon's word for it.
Show me where the Bible dates the earth. I don't believe it does.

2. It talks of a flat earth, like he said.
Again, show me where the Bible categorically says the earth is flat. And don't go finding any literary uses of phrases like "the four corners of the earth" and claiming that they are intended to be statements about the composition of the earth. It seems that atheists are bigger fundametalist literalists than almost any Christian I know.

3. Evolution is provable. Man and woman were not just pulled out of thin air.
There is nothing in the Bible that is incompatible with evolution. Only the most literal reading of the text would suggest that.

4. The only real 'evidence' that God exists is in the Bible. The Bible was written by a bunch of mortal men. I don't doubt Jesus's existence, but the miracles could have been exaggerations. There's no proof that any of it other than Jesus's life is true. Just look at The Iliad.
Hardly irrefutable evidence that God doesn't exist though, is it ?

[thomas]

Thomas, do you have any evidence that your guy is the creator?
I don't start from that point. I don't think it's possible to know for certain how the universe came into existence. I start from a belief that Jesus was who he claimed to be, the son of god, and work out from that point.

Do you know of a good scientific test to determine defintively if the universe was created by a god ?

[DMofD&D]

Such is the price of talking like a theist
You are right thomas and I apologize.

[Slaptickle]

Now i'm going to break off for a minute here to ask you; if god said he doesn't exist, would you believe he doesn't exist?
No, I would believe God was a liar.
This is a good point, actually. I mean, what if I said I didn't exist? Would you doubt my existence?

However, there are fewer ramifications for me being a liar. There aren't massive numbers of people basing their daily decisions on the Word of Slaptickle. (Probably a good thing.)

If God did show himself to be a liar, how would this change your view of him?

[thomas]

If you stood in front of me and said that you didn't exist I'd consider you a madman.

You're chasing down a false argument. God has never said that he doesn't exist.

[Lundie]

Then again if I came to you now and claimed that I was the Son of God would you consider me a madman too?

Why should it be any different for a bloke who lived 2000 years ago?

[thomas]

I'd check to see if you met the necessary criteria for the return of Jesus to the earth. I'm pretty sure that an atheist can't be the son of god :)

[Another brick in the wall]

If god had a son, that implies he has a physical body. You might be shocked to learn that Mormonism teaches that god had sex with Mary. I was raised in the Mormon church which also teaches that god, Jesus, and the holy spirit are three completely separate beings. I could never fathom the whole trinity idea.

[Tenspace]

I'd check to see if you met the necessary criteria for the return of Jesus to the earth. I'm pretty sure that an atheist can't be the son of god :)
Umm... I thought we were all God's children?

Ten

[Another brick in the wall]

No, we're more like god's embarrassing failure that he swept under the rug. At leat according to some African religions.

[thomas]

Umm... I thought we were all God's children?
Really ? What gave you that impression ?

[Rhinoqulous]

Or it could be that the word almah (????) can be translated as both virgin and young woman. So maybe Jeus' birth was no more miraculous than a teenager getting knocked up. :D

Rhinoq

edit: I guess this forum doesn't recognize Hebrew script, and replaces it with ????

[thomas]

If you're trying to claim that the New Testament doesn't claim that Mary was a virgin then I think you've not read the text.

[Lundie]

If you're trying to claim that the New Testament doesn't claim that Mary was a virgin then I think you've not read the text.
Who wrote the NT? Who told the guy who wrote the NT? Surely the idea of the virgin birth of Jesus has to be seeded from somewhere. Or should we file that under "the bible says it so it must be true"?

[Rhinoqulous]

If you're trying to claim that the New Testament doesn't claim that Mary was a virgin then I think you've not read the text.
Why does Matthew 1 list the genealogy of Jesus back to Abraham if he was a virgin birth? Why does John not recount the same tale? I could go on with Luke and Mark, but you get my point. Is this one of those parts of the Bible we're supposed to take literally and not metaphorically, and if so, how do we know it's literal and not metaphorical?

Rhinoq

[Another brick in the wall]

Give it up. No matter how far you back him into a corner, he can always say that he doesn't know but god exists anyway.

[Philboid Studge]

Or it could be that the word almah (????) can be translated as both virgin and young woman. So maybe Jeus' birth was no more miraculous than a teenager getting knocked up. :D

Rhinoq

edit: I guess this forum doesn't recognize Hebrew script, and replaces it with ????
Please see the highly informative and astute comment (#2) here. (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=22806#p22806)

[Lurker]

Why does Matthew 1 list the genealogy of Jesus back to Abraham if he was a virgin birth? Why does John not recount the same tale? I could go on with Luke and Mark, but you get my point. Is this one of those parts of the Bible we're supposed to take literally and not metaphorically, and if so, how do we know it's literal and not metaphorical?
Re: geneology

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/geneology.html

note the graphic at the bottom of the page

[Another brick in the wall]

But according to Christians, Joseph wasn't his biological father, so it doesn't make sense to include his geneology.

[Rhinoqulous]

But according to Christians, Joseph wasn't his biological father, so it doesn't make sense to include his geneology.
That's what I'm saying. Unless this is one of those parts of the Bible we're not to take literally, but if it is, how do we know when it's literal and when it is not?

Rhinoq

[Another brick in the wall]

Different sects of Christianity take different things to be literal or metaphorical. It's a weak answer, but it's the best I can muster.

[Lurker]

But according to Christians, Joseph wasn't his biological father, so it doesn't make sense to include his geneology.
Adoption into a family gives you geneology rights.

[Slaptickle]

If you stood in front of me and said that you didn't exist I'd consider you a madman.

You're chasing down a false argument. God has never said that he doesn't exist.
I'm far too lazy to chase down any arguments. I asked because I wanted to know.

[Tenspace]

Umm... I thought we were all God's children?
Really ? What gave you that impression ?
Thirty-five years of belief as a Jew. You know, there's like 200 references in the bible that say things like, "Ye [are] the children of the LORD your God", and "Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God", and "And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad" (a specific reference to the Jews).

Maybe I'm impressionable, but that's what we were taught at temple.

Tenspace

[thomas]

If god had a son, that implies he has a physical body. You might be shocked to learn that Mormonism teaches that god had sex with Mary. I was raised in the Mormon church which also teaches that god, Jesus, and the holy spirit are three completely separate beings. I could never fathom the whole trinity idea.
Yeh, one of the reasons I reject Mormonism is because of the claim that God has a physical body. In fact J. Smith re-translated verses of the Bible to remove verses that clearly say, in Greek, God is spirit.

[thomas]

If you're trying to claim that the New Testament doesn't claim that Mary was a virgin then I think you've not read the text.
Who wrote the NT? Who told the guy who wrote the NT? Surely the idea of the virgin birth of Jesus has to be seeded from somewhere. Or should we file that under "the bible says it so it must be true"?
Take a look at this excellent website (www.earlychristianwritings.com) if you want to know more about the various views on how the bible was written and by whom.

[thomas]

If you're trying to claim that the New Testament doesn't claim that Mary was a virgin then I think you've not read the text.
Why does Matthew 1 list the genealogy of Jesus back to Abraham if he was a virgin birth? Why does John not recount the same tale? I could go on with Luke and Mark, but you get my point. Is this one of those parts of the Bible we're supposed to take literally and not metaphorically, and if so, how do we know it's literal and not metaphorical?
Good question. For me I read the gospels as literal accounts of the life of Jesus. In a sense, I feel a Christian needs to do this, because unless Jesus was who he said he was and did in fact fulfil the OT prophecies about him then Christianity is false and a waste of time.

They do claim for themselves to be literal accounts and the early church also held them to be literal. So if they are not literal accounts then they are deliberate attempts at fraud. I've yet heard a decent conspiracy theory that would account for all the evidence.

[thomas]

Give it up. No matter how far you back him into a corner, he can always say that he doesn't know but god exists anyway.
That's pretty cynical. Show me one place where I did that.

[thomas]

Thirty-five years of belief as a Jew. You know, there's like 200 references in the bible that say things like, "Ye [are] the children of the LORD your God", and "Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God", and "And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad" (a specific reference to the Jews).

Maybe I'm impressionable, but that's what we were taught at temple.

Tenspace
In my reading those references all refer to those who God chose ( the Israelites ) or later those who chose God ( the Christians ). Do you think those references apply to atheists in your reading ?

[Tenspace]

Thirty-five years of belief as a Jew. You know, there's like 200 references in the bible that say things like, "Ye [are] the children of the LORD your God", and "Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God", and "And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad" (a specific reference to the Jews).

Maybe I'm impressionable, but that's what we were taught at temple.

Tenspace
In my reading those references all refer to those who God chose ( the Israelites ) or later those who chose God ( the Christians ). Do you think those references apply to atheists in your reading ?
What does atheism have to do with this? My point is that the bible states over 200 times that we are all (as in mankind) the Children of God. Do you refute this?

Ten

[Another brick in the wall]

Give it up. No matter how far you back him into a corner, he can always say that he doesn't know but god exists anyway.
That's pretty cynical. Show me one place where I did that.
So why did god tell the Jews to circumcise themselves and then say to christians that it's optional? Why wasn't christianity the first religion?
I don't know. Second-guessing God seems like a waste of time.

[thomas]

I wasn't backed into a corner. Show me one good reason why I should know the answer to that question, or what bearing it has on the truth of Christianity ?

[Little Earth Stamper]

...
They do claim for themselves to be literal accounts and the early church also held them to be literal. So if they are not literal accounts then they are deliberate attempts at fraud. I've yet heard a decent conspiracy theory that would account for all the evidence.
If the Aztec accounts of Coatlicue and Huitzilopochtli are not literal accounts then they are deliberate attempts at fraud.

What is your theory to explain this?

[Another brick in the wall]

I wasn't backed into a corner. Show me one good reason why I should know the answer to that question, or what bearing it has on the truth of Christianity ?
It's a contradiction: 2 religions, 2 sets of rules, 1 god.

[thomas]

...
They do claim for themselves to be literal accounts and the early church also held them to be literal. So if they are not literal accounts then they are deliberate attempts at fraud. I've yet heard a decent conspiracy theory that would account for all the evidence.
If the Aztec accounts of Coatlicue and Huitzilopochtli are not literal accounts then they are deliberate attempts at fraud.

What is your theory to explain this?
You'll have to help me here, being more of an expert in the aztecs than me. Where in the aztec literature do they claim to be literal historical accounts of history ?

[thomas]

I wasn't backed into a corner. Show me one good reason why I should know the answer to that question, or what bearing it has on the truth of Christianity ?
It's a contradiction: 2 religions, 2 sets of rules, 1 god.
Sorry, I don't understand your point. Could you elaborate please.

[Blod]

Show me where the Bible dates the earth. I don't believe it does.
Some new earth creationists estimate the Earth's age at 6,009 years. This is based on the calculations performed by John Lightfoot and Bishop Ussher in the 17th century CE. They concluded that the earth was created on 4004-OCT-23 - some 6,009 years ago. However, those estimates were imprecise. They are based on the age of fathers in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) at the time of the birth of their sons. In some cases, the Bible ignores entire generations of families, thus introducing the potential for a considerable error into the calculations. This indeterminacy has persuaded most new-earth creationists to accept a range of 6,009 to 10,000 years for the Earth's age.

The difference between either 6,009 or 10 thousand and 4.5 billion years is enormous. The ratio of 6,009 years to 4.54 billion years is about 755,500 to 1. Even the using the longer 10,000 year estimate, the ratio is 454,000 to 1. This is an enormous difference.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ageearth.htm
the 24h concept of the 6 days in genesis
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c002.html
show me where the Bible categorically says the earth is flat.
Expresively "the earth is flat" isn't said anywhere, but a 10 year old can reason the below:
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/tektonics/flat_earth_bible.html
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Flat_Earth.htm
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

There is nothing in the Bible that is incompatible with evolution. Only the most literal reading of the text would suggest that.
Really? So what about "Adam and Eve"? And also are you stating here that these two were infected with AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, etc etc (some being exclusively human illnesses) but nontheless continued to live and had offsprings - and all the myth that follows?

[Blod]

What's not irrational about god sacrificing himself to himself?
Further that way: What's not irrational about god dying and resurrecting (after being dead there should be no more god right?) for the sake of his/its/her/? creation?

[The Judge]

What's not irrational about god sacrificing himself to himself?
Further that way: What's not irrational about god dying and resurrecting (after being dead there should be no more god right?) for the sake of his/its/her/? creation?
The analogy is somewhat of a false one because traditionally "god" sacrificed his son. The issue is clouded by the xian belief in the "holy trinity" and the oneness of "god" but in terms of sacrificing - it was jesus who "sacrificed" himself and "god" who sacrificed his son (being omniscient he knew what would happen - what a nice dad!). Neither of them sacrificed themselves to themselves.

[Another brick in the wall]

How can that be if god and Jesus are the same person? Yet another contradiction.

[Another brick in the wall]

I wasn't backed into a corner. Show me one good reason why I should know the answer to that question, or what bearing it has on the truth of Christianity ?
It's a contradiction: 2 religions, 2 sets of rules, 1 god.
Sorry, I don't understand your point. Could you elaborate please.
God gave one set of rules to the Jews then gave another, different set of rules to Christians. Why?

[leguru]

'Cause they still have foreskins? :lol:

[nvxplorer]

What's not irrational about god sacrificing himself to himself?
Further that way: What's not irrational about god dying and resurrecting (after being dead there should be no more god right?) for the sake of his/its/her/? creation?
Beyond this, what was it that god sacrificed? Sacrifice implies loss, death in this case. Since god's son was also god, and rose from the dead (could god be dead?), what exactly was sacrificed?

[peepnklown]

God committed suicide and watched to promote sadism.

[Blod]

"The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed because men must needs be ashamed of it. And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And He was buried, and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible." ;) :lol:

Tertullian, (150-225CE) early Christian "father", De Carne Christi, 5. - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, by Roberts & Donaldson, Chapter 5, p. 525

[thomas]

Hey Blod, given that Tertullian was a Christian, what do you suppose that he meant by that statement. What was the context for this ?

[Blod]

Hey Blod, given that Tertullian was a Christian, what do you suppose that he meant by that statement. What was the context for this ?
Given that Tertullian was an Irrational and pretty proud of his idiotic dogmatic phrase in its pure horrific Absurdity - the context of it is nothing else but NONSENSE!

Trying to upgrade Absurdity into Reality and Fiction into Fact?! - This is called no less than idiocy, and to be a militant idiot is what makes it a more severe idiocy! If these guys would've given some look, just some look, on things written so much more earlier by Anaxagoras, Epicurus, Democritus, Heraclitus, instead of tracking and burning human knowledge down (sth I myself will never forgive to any religion), maybe, just maybe, some ray of reason would "miraculously" infiltrate their cerebral desert.

So in a sense I can get why the Romans did hunt the first christianimals, I just can't get why they didn't finish the whole comedy right at the time. Why should we concern ourselves with these tragicomic nonsense some millennium and half later. But hey, logic's methods were never introduced to the masses, because then, things would get pretty hard for all the unqualified parasites (priests, hodjas, shamans and rulers who saw the narcotic effect of religion - hiding under their undeserved religious pseudomoral protection), to make their unworthy living in a world of reason.

These ppl are the “devolvers” that have been applying dysgenics upon the whole humankind for quite some thousand years. And what's scarier is that they're proud of it. They killed, destroyed, disabled and dramatically reduced the thinkers, the innovators, the true creators, the true progressists, the darers of life and instead they did advance and perpetuate (and still do) the dumb, useless, ignorant follower zeroids (excuse me the Nietzsche paraphrase). Why? Well guess who are the really unqualified and unworthy.

So in our time we still have ppl that are afraid of their own shadow - and sputter out things like "Well but... what if the unknown indefinable absurd X really exists" or "well but... we are doomed, by this XYZ imperceptible nonbeing that can be reached only by antilogic, somewhere not, and everywhere, that can't be described by no means, but nonetheless has human characteristics like loving and caring and angry, other sort of contradictious characteristics that lo and behold, are defined within nature and not out of it, still this nonbeing is unnatural, extranatural, supernatural (other XYZs just to add to it)" or "but there must exist something out there that watches when I piss and scratch my balls", etc, etc, etc. if anyone made sense, - in a pitiful fear based upon propaganda thousand years old.

Such is the outcome of the actions of Tertullian & Co. This kind of humans is their final product. Anyone likes it? (I guess some do like it).

To have someone tell you that “because something can’t be, then it is” and to further celebrate it as "reason", well, there’s no amount of lame rationalization and no amount of lame apologetics to manage and fix it (except maybe in some fictive dreamworld).

Hm, that's the context of it pretty much.

[thomas]

Oh, and I thought he just meant that the very idea of a resurrection is so absurd that it makes it more unlikely that somebody would make such a thing up, in the hope of being believed, and therefore increases the likelihood that it actually occurred.

[Blod]

That's what I'm saying. It's not like he was just an irrational he actually believed these absurdities by rationalization, was militant about it, he and the whole band of them. That's the scary tragicomic part.

[thomas]

It's only scary and tragicomic if it isn't true.

[Blod]

Are you saying that absurds are real?

[thomas]

I'm saying that the resurrection seems to be impossible without accepting the supernatural can occur. Or put another way, if the resurrection occured then the supernatural can occur.

[Blod]

What's supernatural? If "god" is X, "supernatural" is Y. Definition?

Are you saying absurd = supernatural? If that's the case, are you still saying absurds are real?

[thomas]

I think absurd is a subjective measure that depends on one's point of view and perspective. It has little relevance to the reality of a thing except maybe to speak of probability.

Supernatural is used in two senses. One is to define an order of existence beyond the visible, observable universe. The second is to describe an event that departs from what is usual or normal and appears to transcend the laws of nature. I mean something of both when I talk about the resurrection being supernatural. It was caused by something beyond the visible, observable universe, by means of intervention in that universe and resulted in something beyond the usual and normal occurences of the laws of nature. Obviously we can only observe such a thing from our perspective within the visible, observable universe.

[Blod]

I think absurd is a subjective measure that depends on one's point of view and perspective. It has little relevance to the reality of a thing except maybe to speak of probability.

Supernatural is used in two senses. One is to define an order of existence beyond the visible, observable universe. The second is to describe an event that departs from what is usual or normal and appears to transcend the laws of nature. I mean something of both when I talk about the resurrection being supernatural. It was caused by something beyond the visible, observable universe, by means of intervention in that universe and resulted in something beyond the usual and normal occurences of the laws of nature. Obviously we can only observe such a thing from our perspective within the visible, observable universe.
And the proofs for this are? What are its characteristics?

"Order of existence"? - but "existence" is a natural concept and includes EVERYTHING! So is this "supernatural" natural? Then why call it another name? Further along, there cannot happen anything against or beyond the laws of nature. This is a major logical flaw. Everything that happens in nature uses the laws of nature, it doesn't bend or twist them, it uses them! So again what is supernatural? And what does this have to do with the points presented above, by Brick, NVexplorer and me? They present logical contradictions, therefore absurds. Are you saying that those are no absurds? Or are you saying that those are absurds but that absurds are real?

(And btw how is the absurd sth subjective? It's by the non-contradiction law that we identify the absurds! That law is a major principle in logic and evidenced by fact!)

[Rhinoqulous]

Thomas, don't you think the concept of Jesus as God and Jesus as Man is an absurdity (or at least a paradox)? Kierkegaard believed this was the key to Christianity; that faith comes from the rejection of the rational in the face of the ultimate absurdity; the God-Man. Just wondering if you've ever read K or heard about this before, Thomas.

Rhinoq

[Little Earth Stamper]

Thomas, don't you think the concept of Jesus as God and Jesus as Man is an absurdity (or at least a paradox)? Kierkegaard believed this was the key to Christianity; that faith comes from the rejection of the rational in the face of the ultimate absurdity; the God-Man. Just wondering if you've ever read K or heard about this before, Thomas.

Rhinoq
How, precisely is the paradox of wave/partical duality different from the paradox of the god-man?

Well, one way is that there's so much evidence of wave-partical duality that we really have no choice but to accept it, no matter how paradoxical it is.

But in conceptual terms, if a wave can also be a partical, isn't it possible that a god could also be a man?

[Blod]

How, precisely is the paradox of wave/partical duality different from the paradox of the god-man?

Well, one way is that there's so much evidence of wave-partical duality that we really have no choice but to accept it, no matter how paradoxical it is.

But in conceptual terms, if a wave can also be a partical, isn't it possible that a god could also be a man?
Hello there! I think that one, isn't really a paradox. It's just that at times light is a wave and at times a particle (or at least we categorize it as such on each occasion) but not both at the same time, so it's not an absurd/paradox. I'm not sure though, someone correct me.

[Rhinoqulous]

How, precisely is the paradox of wave/partical duality different from the paradox of the god-man?

Well, one way is that there's so much evidence of wave-partical duality that we really have no choice but to accept it, no matter how paradoxical it is.

But in conceptual terms, if a wave can also be a partical, isn't it possible that a god could also be a man?
Good point, but I think they're different. Wave/particle duality is a conceptual paradox; the behavior of particles is determined by the experiment we use; i.e., if we set up a dual-slit experiment to find point particles, we will find point particles, and vice-versa (we could get even more funky and go into delayed choice experiments, but we don't need to). So a wave can be a particle, but not at the same time it's a wave (and again, any physic nut can correct my mistakes).

The God-Man paradox is different in that Jesus was supposedly fully God and Fully Man at the same time. His "Godness" as a perfect being is in contradiction to his humanity as fallen being. This isn't me, this is what Kierkegaard thought, and K thought this was not a problem (he was a Christian Existentialist). I was just wondering what Thomas thought of this, and if he had heard of it before.

Rhinoq

[thomas]

Thomas, don't you think the concept of Jesus as God and Jesus as Man is an absurdity (or at least a paradox)? Kierkegaard believed this was the key to Christianity; that faith comes from the rejection of the rational in the face of the ultimate absurdity; the God-Man. Just wondering if you've ever read K or heard about this before, Thomas.
Way back in post #3 I wrote "There is an irrationality in the person of Jesus. He was both wholly God and wholly human, at the same time. It was Jesus in his humanity who lived the perfect life in relationship with God the Father, was tortured and was sacrificed on the cross.". I've not read Kierkegaard, but have been exposed to some of his views in summary.

[thomas]

And the proofs for this are? What are its characteristics?
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what question you are asking ? The proofs for what ?

"Order of existence"? - but "existence" is a natural concept and includes EVERYTHING!
My definition included the concept of it being beyond the visible and observable.

So is this "supernatural" natural? Then why call it another name?
No, the distinguishing point was in the defintion. A supernatural being is not visible or observable, the natural is both of those things. Please don't respond by saying "how can we know about it if is isn't visible or observable". That would just show you didn't read both aspects of my definition of supernatural.

Further along, there cannot happen anything against or beyond the laws of nature. This is a major logical flaw. Everything that happens in nature uses the laws of nature, it doesn't bend or twist them, it uses them! So again what is supernatural?
How do you define the "laws of nature" ? Maybe our disagreement lies in that definition ?

And what does this have to do with the points presented above, by Brick, NVexplorer and me? They present logical contradictions, therefore absurds. Are you saying that those are no absurds? Or are you saying that those are absurds but that absurds are real?
Please define what you mean by absurds. We may be talking at cross-purposes.

(And btw how is the absurd sth subjective? It's by the non-contradiction law that we identify the absurds! That law is a major principle in logic and evidenced by fact!)
When I say that absurd is subjective, I'm thinking of examples like people at points in the past saying it was absurd that the world was round, or that it was absurd that machines could be made that would fly.

[Rhinoqulous]

Way back in post #3 I wrote "There is an irrationality in the person of Jesus. He was both wholly God and wholly human, at the same time. It was Jesus in his humanity who lived the perfect life in relationship with God the Father, was tortured and was sacrificed on the cross.". I've not read Kierkegaard, but have been exposed to some of his views in summary.
Yes, but do you think that the only way to reconcile the paradox of the God-Man is by rejecting rationality? This has always been my biggest problem with K (and Faith based arguments in general); you need to actually accept the absurdity and reject reason for it to work. I can't do that; I like my reason and logic.

Rhinoq

[ocmpoma]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality

[thomas]

Yes, but do you think that the only way to reconcile the paradox of the God-Man is by rejecting rationality? This has always been my biggest problem with K (and Faith based arguments in general); you need to actually accept the absurdity and reject reason for it to work. I can't do that; I like my reason and logic.
The way I look at it is that human logic and human rationality are the best tools we have to figure out the most we can about our state of existence and the world around us. But I do think there are limits to what we can comprehend, given the configuration of our brains, and some things may turn out to be always unfathomable using those techniques. So, it's not so much rejecting rationality and logic as it is realising those tools may well have their limits.

Even using our feeble human intellects I think we can start to imagine that a God capable of creating and sustaining each atom and molecule of the universe could do and understand things beyond our capacity to grasp. Do I understand how Jesus could be fully human and fully God at the same time ? No ! Do I reject the possibility that God could produce such a result in His universe ? Also, no !

Another angle to consider on this topic, is that the concept of Jesus being fully human and fully god at the same time is really a construct of human Christian theology and not a detailed, direct revelation of scripture. That isn't to deny that it is well supported by scripture and almost demanded by the text. But anyway Christian theology at its best is just humans struggling to find words and a usage for those words that attempts to describe the indescribable.

And a final thing to smoke in your pipe, Dr "logical" Spock, is that humans are much more emotional and relational beings than they are rational and logical ones. The Christian God relates to us much more on a level that meets our emotional and relational needs than He seems to be concerned with primarily addressing our desire to understand. Not that we can't or shouldn't reach up to God and try to understand, just that it seems almost silly to assume we would understand Him.

[Blod]

And the proofs for this are? What are its characteristics?
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what question you are asking ? The proofs for what ?
For the supernatural, when you say that it is: "...something beyond the visible, observable universe, by means of intervention in that universe and resulted in something beyond the usual and normal occurences of the laws of nature. Obviously we can only observe such a thing from our perspective within the visible, observable universe..."

Everything that exists is natural, and everything can only exist, it cannot not exist. Existence is a natural concept so using natural concepts to describe "extranatural" concepts, just doesn't make sense. Meaning, superatural doesn't have a meaning, unless you provide hard proof for it, but on this case you actually can't anyway, because by definiton what exists is natural and conceptually speaking if something is "extranatural" (supernatural etc.) then it doesn't exist. Existence is a strict natural concept and characteristic. So "supernatural" remains "meaningless".

"Order of existence"? - but "existence" is a natural concept and includes EVERYTHING!
My definition included the concept of it being beyond the visible and observable.
But you are using a natural concept - existence - do describe something that is non-natural! Existence is by definition visible and observable! If something exists, we CAN sense it.

So is this "supernatural" natural? Then why call it another name?
No, the distinguishing point was in the defintion. A supernatural being is not visible or observable, the natural is both of those things. Please don't respond by saying "how can we know about it if is isn't visible or observable". That would just show you didn't read both aspects of my definition of supernatural.
Takes the same answer as the other fragment above.

Further along, there cannot happen anything against or beyond the laws of nature. This is a major logical flaw. Everything that happens in nature uses the laws of nature, it doesn't bend or twist them, it uses them! So again what is supernatural?
How do you define the "laws of nature" ? Maybe our disagreement lies in that definition ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law



On the absurd case, just to not repeat myself, this got discussed here (http://www.ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=682&p=11). So it is clear that I speak of the absurds by Logic not of subjective everyday use of the word with its loose non-specific meaning. In short, absurd is a contradiction, a non-real, an irrationality - all these as defined and validated by Logic.


So, it's not so much rejecting rationality and logic as it is realising those tools may well have their limits.
By conceptually upgrading an absurd to reality, you are automatically rejecting Logic.

Do I understand how Jesus could be fully human and fully God at the same time ? No ! Do I reject the possibility that God could produce such a result in His universe ? Also, no !
So you are rejecting logic. You would have an irrationality/absurd as reality?

Another angle to consider on this topic, is that the concept of Jesus being fully human and fully god at the same time is really a construct of human Christian theology and not a detailed, direct revelation of scripture.
Actually it is detailed in the scriptures. The theologian rationalization afterwards has taken a different course to try and soften it in our eyes. How can one soften an absurd though? It is a plain absurd.


And a final thing to smoke in your pipe, Dr "logical" Spock, is that humans are much more emotional and relational beings than they are rational and logical ones. The Christian God relates to us much more on a level that meets our emotional and relational needs than He seems to be concerned with primarily addressing our desire to understand. Not that we can't or shouldn't reach up to God and try to understand, just that it seems almost silly to assume we would understand Him.
Appeal to emotion? "God" is absurd, the only emotion I personally get out of absurdities is indifference (if that's an emotion), but it's just me.


So in the end, all this talk on absurdity originated by Tertullian's absurds in logic, so returning in topic about subjective irrationalities:

What's not irrational about god sacrificing himself to himself?
Further that way: What's not irrational about god dying and resurrecting (after being dead there should be no more god right?) for the sake of his/its/her/? creation?
Beyond this, what was it that god sacrificed? Sacrifice implies loss, death in this case. Since god's son was also god, and rose from the dead (could god be dead?), what exactly was sacrificed?
What's not irrational about them? :) - here: "irrational" as in the everyday common meaning of it. :D

[Blod]

These three points may seem a bit easy off and like just for fun, but actually they're pretty strong points.

on the first one - you have the absurd X in a sadomazo or selfmutilation, or sth, action, that in itself may not be irrational but relating to it's purpose it surely is idiotic tho

on the second one - the absurd X sacrifices for its(?) creation,and comes into existence by not existing anymore, hm

so on the third one - did the absurd X really sacrifice anything? Cause you believe X still "exists", so what really happened there?

It's so tragicomic, it really is.

[thomas]

Everything that exists is natural
Unless we can get beyond this point, the rest of the discussion is pointless. I understand that you start from a pre-supposition that everything that exists is natural and therefore by definition exclude the possibility of God and the supernatural. By this I take it you mean that everything is comprised of matter and subject to the Physical Laws that you pointed out. Correct ?

My evidence for the existence of God would be to point to the times in history when He intervened in the natural world. For example, talking to Moses through the burning bush, Jesus walking on water, the apostles healing people. These incidents are my external evidence for the supernatural. The other evidence I have is my direct personal experience of God. I'm not saying that you should accept these evidences as proof, that's certainly up for debate, just that that is why I say the supernatural exists.

How do you define the "laws of nature" ? Maybe our disagreement lies in that definition ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law
So do you have a list of such laws ? If not, how do you know "there cannot happen anything against or beyond the laws of nature". Or maybe you've just set up a circular definition ?

On the absurd case, just to not repeat myself, this got discussed here (http://www.ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=682&p=11). So it is clear that I speak of the absurds by Logic not of subjective everyday use of the word with its loose non-specific meaning. In short, absurd is a contradiction, a non-real, an irrationality - all these as defined and validated by Logic.
But still this is subjective, not absolute. By which I mean your pre-suppositions may make things appear to be absurd when in fact they are not. For example, your pre-supposition that all things are natural, makes the supernatural absurd by definition, but says nothing about truth or reality.

Do I understand how Jesus could be fully human and fully God at the same time ? No ! Do I reject the possibility that God could produce such a result in His universe ? Also, no !
So you are rejecting logic. You would have an irrationality/absurd as reality?
No, I'm not rejecting human logic, just accepting that it may have its limitations. Do you accept that possibility, or are you close-minded to that ?

Another angle to consider on this topic, is that the concept of Jesus being fully human and fully god at the same time is really a construct of human Christian theology and not a detailed, direct revelation of scripture.
Actually it is detailed in the scriptures. The theologian rationalization afterwards has taken a different course to try and soften it in our eyes. How can one soften an absurd though? It is a plain absurd.
Please detail by chapter and verse where it says Jesus is fully human and fully God in the Bible. Like I said, you can strongly infer it from the text, but I don't think it actually spells it out in detail. Your initial quote from Tertuallian shows that Christian theologians have not attempted to "soften" anything.

And a final thing to smoke in your pipe, Dr "logical" Spock, is that humans are much more emotional and relational beings than they are rational and logical ones. The Christian God relates to us much more on a level that meets our emotional and relational needs than He seems to be concerned with primarily addressing our desire to understand. Not that we can't or shouldn't reach up to God and try to understand, just that it seems almost silly to assume we would understand Him.
Appeal to emotion? "God" is absurd, the only emotion I personally get out of absurdities is indifference (if that's an emotion), but it's just me.
Are you denying that humans are more emotional and relational than they are rational and logic ? Wake up ! Look around you, consider what you see and then let me know if you want to continue with that position or give it up.

So in the end, all this talk on absurdity originated by Tertullian's absurds in logic, so returning in topic about subjective irrationalities:

What's not irrational about god sacrificing himself to himself?
Further that way: What's not irrational about god dying and resurrecting (after being dead there should be no more god right?) for the sake of his/its/her/? creation?

Returning to post #3 ! The Jesus who lived the perfect human life, in relationship with God His father and who offered himself for sacrifice and was resurrected was wholly human. So God did not die and was not resurrected, the only perfect human did that. So really ABITW's question is somewhat interesting but doesn't match any claim of Christianity.

Beyond this, what was it that god sacrificed? Sacrifice implies loss, death in this case. Since god's son was also god, and rose from the dead (could god be dead?), what exactly was sacrificed?
What's not irrational about them? :) - here: "irrational" as in the everyday common meaning of it. :D
Jesus sacrificed His perfect human life in His humanity. A real loss. He substituted himself for us. There's a whole bunch of theology around this act, that we could go into in more detail if you want ?

[thomas]

These three points may seem a bit easy off and like just for fun, but actually they're pretty strong points.

on the first one - you have the absurd X in a sadomazo or selfmutilation, or sth, action, that in itself may not be irrational but relating to it's purpose it surely is idiotic tho

on the second one - the absurd X sacrifices for its(?) creation,and comes into existence by not existing anymore, hm

so on the third one - did the absurd X really sacrifice anything? Cause you believe X still "exists", so what really happened there?

It's so tragicomic, it really is.
I understand how your pre-suppositions and misunderstandings and ignorance about Christian theology lead you to that conclusion. But at least take the time to understand correctly what it is that Christians are claiming.

[leguru]

My evidence for the existence of God would be to point to the times in history when He intervened in the natural world. For example, talking to Moses through the burning bush, Jesus walking on water, the apostles healing people. These incidents are my external evidence for the supernatural. The other evidence I have is my direct personal experience of God. I'm not saying that you should accept these evidences as proof, that's certainly up for debate, just that that is why I say the supernatural exists.
This clearly illustrates the difficulty in theists and atheists communicating. We are talking apples and oranges. Theists are involved in subjective reality and atheists are trying to communicate in objective reality, two mutually exclusive terms. An oxymoron, like millitary intelligence. :lol:

[Blod]

My evidence for the existence of God would be to point to the times in history when He intervened in the natural world. For example, talking to Moses through the burning bush, Jesus walking on water, the apostles healing people. These incidents are my external evidence for the supernatural. The other evidence I have is my direct personal experience of God. I'm not saying that you should accept these evidences as proof, that's certainly up for debate, just that that is why I say the supernatural exists.
After you have called the Bible and your "feelings" your "personal experience" maybe "your inner world" as evidence and history, well I'm sorry, but my desire for debate really vanished.

And no, I cannnot not call everything (that exists) as natural, or physical. You know, even in greek the root "physis" in "physical", means nature. Human concepts do not exist. "The supernatural" just like "nothing" are human concepts, they do not exist. If you *feel* the supernatural, it means you are delusional, and not that you got some evidence, but pls that's just me, don't worry. Existence is what CAN be observed and sensed, by definition. Not my definition, but by human definition, I guess in all nations. If you are creating an imaginary world there, you may as well modify the meanings or create new words too, but pls bring us your new dictionary beforehand. Till then, I already have hard time with my English, let alone to learn the modified English of others. No time for that sorry.

As leguru said too, you can't take the subjective road and pretend to talk objectively man. I retire from the debate when logic too has retired from it.

The hjdhjdsksldjdg exists in qtrwtepeç and controls my blood flow and has written Its laws in a book that I found yesterday in the park. I know hjdhjdsksldjdg because I can feel It, I have personal experience with It (It doesn't mind to call It It.) and It fulfills my void existence. These are my strong evidence beyond any doubt. Who are you to question this pure evidence.

[thomas]

My evidence for the existence of God would be to point to the times in history when He intervened in the natural world. For example, talking to Moses through the burning bush, Jesus walking on water, the apostles healing people. These incidents are my external evidence for the supernatural. The other evidence I have is my direct personal experience of God. I'm not saying that you should accept these evidences as proof, that's certainly up for debate, just that that is why I say the supernatural exists.
After you have called the Bible and your "feelings" your "personal experience" maybe "your inner world" as evidence and history, well I'm sorry, but my desire for debate really vanished.
You can cop out if you can't answer my points in detail. I don't mind.

I talked above about evidences of existing that were observed and sensed. Why do you want to reject them as evidences of existence, of evidence of God acting in this universe ? Are you saying that there is a category of experienced observation and sense data that should be ignored or rejected because it doesn't fit with your pre-suppositions about the world ?

And no, I cannnot not call everything (that exists) as natural, or physical. You know, even in greek the root "physis" in "physical", means nature. Human concepts do not exist. "The supernatural" just like "nothing" are human concepts, they do not exist.
Are you saying that it is impossible that the supernatural can exist ? What is the proof of the impossibility ? And don't just trot out our objectivist pre-suppositions as proof.

If you *feel* the supernatural, it means you are delusional, and not that you got some evidence, but pls that's just me, don't worry. Existence is what CAN be observed and sensed, by definition. Not my definition, but by human definition, I guess in all nations.
I pointed to evidences that were observed and sensed indications that the supernatural exists. You rejected them out of hand.

If you are creating an imaginary world there, you may as well modify the meanings or create new words too, but pls bring us your new dictionary beforehand. Till then, I already have hard time with my English, let alone to learn the modified English of others. No time for that sorry.

As leguru said too, you can't take the subjective road and pretend to talk objectively man. I retire from the debate when logic too has retired from it.
Logic is still here. I offered up objective evidence for my position that you don't want to allow into the argument for some reason ?

[Little Earth Stamper]

I see the term "supernatural" as essentially meaningless.

To me science is this process:

1. We do something

2. We find out what happens when we do it

3. We try to find out why what happens happens

In fact, I wouldn't have a huge problem leaving out step 3.

What this means is that anything outside of science would have to be either unobservable, even indirectly, or it would have to behave in such a way that we couldn't even make a logical guess about how it would behave.

It's clear then that something outside science cannot be talked about in any meaningful way.

If, when we say supernatural, we don't mean, "outside of science" but instead mean, "outside of currently understood natural laws" then this solves some problems, but raises others. For example, in Newton's time the behavior of light would be seen as supernatural, because it seemed to work in odd ways outside of known science. But really, I don't think of the behavior of light as being supernatural.

So, supernatural is not really a useful term to use in these discussions.

[Blod]

You can cop out if you can't answer my points in detail. I don't mind.

I talked above about evidences of existing that were observed and sensed. Why do you want to reject them as evidences of existence, of evidence of God acting in this universe ? Are you saying that there is a category of experienced observation and sense data that should be ignored or rejected because it doesn't fit with your pre-suppositions about the world ?
Hehe, cop out huh?! Yes thomas, I fear your strong arguments, that's why I'm not answering. Man, you call your totally subjective feelings and your mythological pamphlet collection as objective evidence and expect me to answer!!! Maybe I should tell yout that it's not me you want to talk to anymore!

As you can see, I haven't come here to give lectures on logic and arguments and objectivity. I write here in my spare time, and in my spare time I don't concern myself with ppl that cannot draw the line between rationality and irrationality. Until you call your pamphlets and personal feelings objective evidence and have a close everyday relationship with the subject of those pamphlets, maybe talk to "him" and take orders from "him" too, then you're on the other side of the line man. I may as well start talking about my evidence on hjdhjdsksldjdg that exists in qtrwtepeç! In fact I already did, mind you, so why do you reject them as evidences of existence, as evidence of hjdhjdsksldjdg controlling my blood flow and every thing and every non-thing in universe and all interverses, even your "God". hjdhjdsksldjdg in fact is super-supernatural and isn't bound by no logic, it can't be sensed, it can't be percepted but I have evidence. Are you saying that my inner feelings and my righteous book don't qualify as objective evidence?

Can you tell the difference between evidence and inner feelings, between proof and Bible? And can you see that you are using an argumentum ad infinitum upon your "evidence". If you can't see any of these, than as we say down here, I'm just talking to the wall, and I have no time and no desire to talk to the wall, cause it's boring (I'll repeat myself ad infinitum) and pointless (you still wan't get what I say) and boring again.

[calpurnpiso]

Blod wrote:

"Can you tell the difference between evidence and inner feelings, between proof and Bible? And can you see that you are using an argumentum ad infinitum upon your "evidence". If you can't see any of these, than as we say down here, I'm just talking to the wall, and I have no time and no desire to talk to the wall, cause it's boring (I'll repeat myself ad infinitum) and pointless (you still wan't get what I say) and boring again. "

Talking to a wall?.....Hmmm...remember that those folks that can't tell the difference between religion induced delusions and tangible realities are simply neurologically challenged. Their brains function just like those folks suffering from schizophenia or temporal lobe epylepsy.....Ohh..and they do talk to walls!...ruinous, decrepit ancient walls mind you..and they almost nock themselves out silly on those walls. They even write notes to the wall....I'm certain the spirit within the wall occasionally answers them!
Alas, this Abrahamic psychosis is extremely virulent in "Nutty Land, specially the City of Nuts, Jerusalem...ROTFLMAO...It is impossible to discuss reality with the mentally ill, they live in a kingdom not of this world.

The problem is that since they are affected by an Abrahamic Belief system-- a mental illness who after hundreds of years have acquired a clean bill of mental health even after the father of psychoanalysis (Freud) define it as an unhealthy form of delusion causing neurosis ---they are viewed as mentally healthy.We know better!...:)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/577180.stm

[Nicole]

It seems to me that the sacrifice of Jesus (a fictional story or reality depending on your belief) makes quite a bit of sense in terms of a marketing strategy. If you want to promot a product (in this case; Christianity) you stage an advertising blow out. What's more effective than a death/rebirth story to get the consumers lined up. Martyrdom has been used by movements throughout history. There's also the attractive quality of making the big name brand (The Romans) look bad in the process.

If you believe in Jesus as the son of God then you can just say he took one for the team. If you don't then you can just admire the genius in ruthless marketing.

[thomas]

Hehe, cop out huh?! Yes thomas, I fear your strong arguments, that's why I'm not answering. Man, you call your totally subjective feelings and your mythological pamphlet collection as objective evidence and expect me to answer!!! Maybe I should tell yout that it's not me you want to talk to anymore!
Maybe if you could cut out the bluff and bluster we could actually talk about the point. It's clear that you're adamently opposed to the conclusions that I draw. I call that closed-minded. I'm open to your points, if you can actually get to the point where you make them.

Here's the point I see we're at. I claim that historical events such as the resurrection of Jesus are objective events. Now, I can see why you could argue that it wasn't an historical event, but assuming it actually occurred wouldn't it then be an objective reality ?

Let's see if we can even reach agreement on this simple point. History can be an objective reality. Discuss.

[ocmpoma]

"Now, I can see why you could argue that [the resurrection] wasn't an historical event, but assuming it actually occurred wouldn't it then be an objective reality ?"

That's a good one.

[Blod]

Here's the point I see we're at. I claim that historical events such as the resurrection of Jesus are objective events. Now, I can see why you could argue that it wasn't an historical event, but assuming it actually occurred wouldn't it then be an objective reality ?

Let's see if we can even reach agreement on this simple point. History can be an objective reality. Discuss.
It's funny how you would set objective reality by agreement. I am left speechless or eyeless or sth. Like it depends on our agreement for an atom to be an atom (well except the linguistic one). It's also funny that you haven't understood nothing I said above.
(And btw it's not called close-mindedness, it's called mental sanity, just to clarify it a bit! My valves function properly and my filter system too, so they close when they have to. This prevents the system from accepting garbage inside. ;))

But anyway, given that I am somehow used to this phenomenon (XYZ-ism), let's play your game, it seems funny, but don't get angry and don't cheat, ok.

Assuming the resurrection actually occurred, or better yet, I am assuming your "god" exists in "supernature" :D. Now, I can see why you could argue that "hjdhjdsksldjdg" (my ubergod, from now on "It") doesn't exist, but assuming it actually exists, wouldn't it then be an objective reality ?

* Note that "It" created and controls your god and lies on supersupernature, It is the creator of every thing and non-thing, it surpassess logic and belief all together. All are limited for It. We can acces It only by not using our brains at all, this should be really simple. All It asks, is to cutt off the power supply to our brains, otherwise we'll be sent to Ubergehennah for a multilevel eternity.

So let's see if we can even reach agreement on this simple point. Your shot.

Oh sorry, wait,

here comes my little brother. :) He says that "It" actually is nothing compared to his "Megagod™ 3000 Ultratransformers". Megagod™ has created It and supersupernature. Megagod™ himself lies in ultranature decamorph, something like the tenth scale variety of thousand supersupernatures. Megagod™ is so advanced that actually has neither sent a book to reveal himself to humans. We just know, deep inside, by instinctual information.

The required actions to unite with Megagod™ are to be performed before my brother, who is actually Megagod's™ spokesman on our planet Earth of Universe Sun 0 (Megagod™ has created some 6.534 other universes). My brother's rank is of the 1-st Terraleague of the Soundstream of the Order of Dragonball. If you fuck with him, Megagod™ kills all the firstborn of It, with first your god, Jahveh and its mutations, then annihilates supernature, and then my ubergod It gets scared and destroys Earth just so to calm Megagod's™ horrible vices. These are all revealed to every 1-st Terraleaguer and have happened several times up to now. We're no less than the 2.481.632-nd restructuration. My brother said so and it's all true.

Now that we're with all our feet deep into objectivity: game pls

[Blod]

The problem is that since they are affected by an Abrahamic Belief system--
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/577180.stm
btw thx for that link, it came handy elsewhere ;)

[thomas]

Here's the point I see we're at. I claim that historical events such as the resurrection of Jesus are objective events. Now, I can see why you could argue that it wasn't an historical event, but assuming it actually occurred wouldn't it then be an objective reality ?

Let's see if we can even reach agreement on this simple point. History can be an objective reality. Discuss.
It's funny how you would set objective reality by agreement. I am left speechless or eyeless or sth. Like it depends on our agreement for an atom to be an atom (well except the linguistic one). It's also funny that you haven't understood nothing I said above.
(And btw it's not called close-mindedness, it's called mental sanity, just to clarify it a bit! My valves function properly and my filter system too, so they close when they have to. This prevents the system from accepting garbage inside. ;))
Do you agree or disagree that history can be an objective reality. Yes or no.

[Blod]

What's objectivity got to do with my agreement? History is objective, as far as it provides sufficient evidence to back it's claims. What's got Bible to do with history?


edit: You're already cheating eh, don't bypass my brother's objective evidence!

[thomas]

Not cheating, just removing your subjective claims and trying to focus on the objective ones.

I think you're saying that if the Bible had sufficient evidence to back it's claims you would accept is as a piece of objective history. Correct ?

[Blod]

The grand "if", yeah.

Btw what bible are you talking about? The various pamphlets you mean(?), found and rearranged and censored and recorrected and recensored etc etc? And who's that human that can put the word "bible" and the word "evidence" in one sentence in direct positive relation to each other?

[Blod]

You are cheating, man. You took me to assume resurrection and god and supernature as objective reality and you don't take mine. So we can't even reach an agreement on the rules of the game.

[thomas]

The grand "if", yeah.
Good, now we're making some progress. Let me push this point further. If the resurrection had sufficient evidence to back it's claims would you also accept that as a piece of objective history. I think your previous statement included this but I just want to make sure I don't leap too far here.

[Blod]

The grand "if", yeah.
Let me push this point further. If the resurrection had sufficient evidence to back it's claims...
You have surpassed Tertullian! :o Unbelievable! At least that guy "believed" in absurdity, but you've got evidence on top of it, hm. Yea ok, man, bring it on, this is getting really funny.

You ain't accepting my evidence of the ultranature decamorph tho! They are substantially of the same "evidential" nature with yours, don't you think...:rolleyes:

[calpurnpiso]

Since there is no secular evidence there was ever a "christ", except for the many forms this SOLAR deity manifested itself with, it is fair to conclude there was never a resurrection..except for the "resurrection" of vegetables in spring which had 'died" in Winter.

Christians have to be either suffering from mental retardation or another form of neurological disorder, where any idiotic delusions is accepted as a reality, to believe the Christian tales, which are NO DIFFERENT than the many pagan mythologies that preceeded it, are based on historical facts....but since crazy is as crazy does....:)