The Bible

WD> #3 Denying God and denying mythology is not the same. I do not view myths, be they about Isis, Zeus, Thor or Jesus as the truth about history. I view them as a mix of folklore, storytelling, morals and plain entertainment.
You can’t deny mythology. It exists – but you can’t claim it’s the way history really happened.
“Anyone can say GOD DOESN'T EXIST!. But that is lame and also rather lazy.”
No, it’s simply not accepting claims without proof.

“Anyone that says that GOD EXISTS! Has a harder task and that is to prove God exist.”
Which no one has been able to.

If you say the Bible is mythology – then we’re in agreement. But if you claim the Bible is FACT – then you need to whip out some proof.
But to answer your question: Yes, I’m saying the bible is not fact.

When I say scientists don’t care about religion I meant – they are NOT religious people. I can study Buddhism, Taoism, Islam and Hindi without BEING religious.

“After all Atheist deny the existence of God. I'm pretty sure you won't like an Atheist that is prejudice towards gays.....right?”
You’ll be hard-pressed to find aetheist who are. 😉

” I'm just curious. Answer me this question, do you accept everything that site says? You've seen to use quite a lot in your arguments.”
The site in question simply deals with issues in the Bible in an easy-to-look-up manner.

Ninjaturtle> ” Believe it or not, but some people go their whole lives and never have sex. Its true!”
Well, good for them! It is their own choice – an individual choice. But YOU want every single homosexual to NEVER have sex.

” There are some people who God chooses to remain single all their lives so that they can serve him without other distractions such as significant others. ”
How do you know God chose them. Has he told you that he did?

Jury> ” God will judge those who lived apart from the law by the law written on their hearts and their consciences also bearing witness.”
How do you know that? Has God told you the Bible is his word?

” However, ignorance of the law excuses no one. Thus, in our time, the law of God written in the Bible has spread all over the world. Consequently, when men have already known the law written in the Holy Scriptures but still disregard it, God will judge them by the law written in the Bible not by their hearts and consciences.”
Again – how do you know that is true? Has God told you the Bible is HIS word??

” He told us all.”
When? Prove that the Bible is the word od God – without using the Bible.

FE> ” OLD TESTMENT:
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
That was never written to you – a woman, was it??

” CAN someon prove that he Doesn't exits?” DO I REALLY need to bring out the flying reindeer – again?? You cannot logically prove a negative! Those making a positive assertion must prove it – extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Fire> Well, counting in the Bible the Earth is some 6000 years old. If a God-day was different than a human day it should say so in the Bible, so people could use math. This nonsense about ”God being out of time” (How can he then MAKE anything happen, if he’s out of time?)” and a God-day being longer than a human day (The crap about Jupiter has no meaning here. The Bible deals with the Earth, NOT Jupiter.) And it says DAY… Which is not up for discussion.

Originally posted by WindDancer
What the? of course that sounds backwards! Because you obviously quoted me from a single sentence! Did you forget the part where I say we can only [b]speculate.
[/b]

I didn't forget it, I intentionally neglected that part because of the point that you made about me "KNOWING" death is the end. Of course, you and I both know that neither of us "KNOW" anything about death because neither of us have experienced it.

I left the word out because I thought it was very apparent that all we were doing is stating our beliefs and speculating the questionable areas of eachothers beliefs.

So you reject the idea of reincarnation and all that other stuff that states. That's cool it's your opinion.

I only reject the idea because between, heaven/hell/and reincarnation...the whole afterlife is too mixed up to know what to believe.

I don't believe in coming back as a reincarnation, because then I wouldn't be the person I am right now. If I came back as a butterfly, I wouldn't have all my memories from a previous life, and if I did...then I'd be the world's smartest butterfly.

You keep saying that we made God. So if any posibilities of proving that God might exists are also made up? I guess any attempt to prove God goes out the window with you. So why continue to discuss about God since you have come to the decision that there is NO God. Which I'm curious how did you came to the point in saying that God is a creation of humans?

No, any attempt doesn't go out the window with me. But I can only hear so many "beliefs" before I start expecting proof and answers.

Maybe I'll get that proof when I die, but here in life, no such proof can be found. I believe the things that can be proven in theory, and I generally accept the things I can see with my eyes, especially when they are accompanied by an explanation...

FE> Okay, why are you ignoring half the questions I pose to you?

So: A homosexual must NEVER be in a relationship, receive love and have sex?? NEVER ever?

Do you understand that it is NOT their choice who they’re attracted to?

If we are to take the Bible literally, then:
- Must we KILL all homosexuals (Romans 1: 26-28)?
- Must we circumcise all boys (Genesis 17:14) or abandon them?
- Is bigamy allowed? (Starting in Genesis 4:19)?

Did Abraham commit adultery with Hagar?
Did Abraham marry his sister with God's blessing?
Did Lot allow the mob to rape his daughters?
Did Lot have sex with his daughters?

I do believe they have a choice so, we don't agree there. I beleive if they become a christian they're desires will change. YES i have answered your questions time and time you just dont except the answers.

How can one be so short-sighted and ignorant...

OHH cuz they dont agree w/you storm?? lol come on thats what the threads are about exprssing opinions and beliefs.

Absolutely not. I just can' t believe what you just said about homosexuals.

Originally posted by Fiery Eyes
I do believe they have a choice so, we don't agree there. I beleive if they become a christian they're desires will change. YES i have answered your questions time and time you just dont except the answers.

LIke what kind of science, yerssot? I don't believe in evolution if thats what you're asking me.

so you believe that carbon dating and all other methodes scientists use to date ancient corpses with are wrong?

Originally posted by The Omega
[B]WindDancer> First of all: Thank you for taking the time to write and long and extensive post. Appreciated 🙂

#1 I’m not familiar with everyone you mention, but I hope that’s not necessary for getting the idea of their theories.
So let me see if I get the ideas: Anselm starts out with an ide of ”a being of which no greater can be conceived.”
Aquinas tries to prove the existence of God from a rational understanding of ordinary objectys that we experinece with our senses?

So Aquinas uses this?
1. Premise: Every event has a cause
2. Premise: The universe has a beginning
3. Premise: All beginnings involve an event
4. Inference: This implies that the beginning of the universe involved an event
5. Inference: Therefore the beginning of the universe had a cause
6. Conclusion: The universe had a cause

The proposition in line 4 is inferred from lines 2 and 3. Line 1 is then used, with the proposition derived in line 4, to infer a new proposition in line 5. The result of the inference in line 5 is then re-stated (in slightly simplified form) as the conclusion.
Even if we reach the conclusion that The Universe had a cause, this cause need not be God. Time had no meaning before Big Bang, there were only strange qunatum fluctuations and strings. If you wait long enough the improbable will happen. If you wait forever – the impossible will happen. If there is NO time (which cause and effect depends upon) the impossible happens.

”What causes this motion? You can obviously say it's physics. But if we make the question more deeper we come up with....What is the purpose of this motion? Why should it keep moving? Is it God using his powers to move and object? Sure we can explain motion using Physics. But can physics tell us the purpose of the motion? Because, our intellects always want to find a purpose for a thing. In this case the movement.”
The purpose? Woaw, wait. To me that is taking a rather drastic step in the middle of everything. Who says something must HAVE a purpose?

The tree and not-be. Auch! 🙂
”Will we find God since he is our creator? Possible. We need to unlock our first experiences in order to find God.”
I assume you mean: Is it possible to find God as being humankinds primordial creator?[B]

I also would like to thank you for taking the time and reading my posts. Kinda enjoying the topic now. Onto the argument: is a rather taskful thing to go much in depth about Aquinas and Anselm and it will require an extensive essay type of counter argue their philosophy. Before he composed the ontological argument, which appears in his book entitled Proslogion, the formulated three arguements indicate his philosophical orientation, namely, his acceptance of realism and his of nominalism. His realism comes out in his belief that words are not simpy sounds of grammatical conventions, but stand for real things outside of the mind. The first thing to notice about the ontological argument is that Anselm's though proceeds from within his mind, rather than starting, as Aquinas did, with assumption that each proof must begin with some empirical evidence from which the mind can then move logically to God. Anselm followed Augustine's doctrine of divine illumination (which is something I'm saving for a latter argument) which gave him direct access to certain truths. Indeed, Anselm ask the reader of his arguments, before begining the ontological argument , to enter the inner chamber of your mind" and to shut out all things save God and whatever may aid you in seeking God" In other words using meditation. Which causes the mind to be at ease with the body. Since the body is physical and the mind a non-physical object. Anselm asks the readers to pause and medidate before entering the argument.

Clearly, Anselm is assured of the existence of God before he begins, saying, again, that "unless I belive, I shall not understand". In other words through prayer and meditation a human can sense the presence of God in our world. Again, God is not hidding from us. Remenber when I mention earlier about our minds being like computers that store knowledge and are locked inside? Well, in a philosophical/religious application that lock can be open. Only throught extensive medidation and prayer can a being feel connected to God.

You asked me about purpose. For me everything in the universe has a purpose and whatever the causation of that purpose gives us a reason why we should inquire into our existence. You may not find a purpose in a thing, but someone else might find a purpose in a thing itself. Motion does have purpose. If there were no motion in our existence then there would be no experience. And since experience and existence are bond (according to Locke) then there is a purpose.

in example what Fire said:

Originally posted by Fire
so you believe that carbon dating and all other methodes scientists use to date ancient corpses with are wrong?

and medicine? and technology of ie... flying, and stuff?

Originally posted by Fire
so you believe that carbon dating and all other methodes scientists use to date ancient corpses with are wrong?

I'm not saying anything like that...i'm not a scholar on science hun. 🙂

But Carbon Dating and a lot of other methodes place life (human and others) before the beginning of time according to the bible.
How do you explain that?

Ok, who said there was no life, there's tons of questions everyone has, are the answers all in the bible, nooo. no everything was documented.

True, but doesn't the bible give us any info on how old mankind is ? I mean if the book has that much truth in it doesn't it mention that?

I mean I always read that according to the bible mankind is only 10.000 years old

Originally posted by Fiery Eyes
I'm not saying anything like that...i'm not a scholar on science hun. 🙂

you haven't studied theology either, I think, and you talk about (your) religion but can still answer questions about it

what have I not answered?

if you believe in c-14 dating or any other dating used by scientists or not

Originally posted by The Omega
WD> #2 “All possible beings, therefore, at one time did not exist, will exist for a time, and will finally pass out of existence.”
How did you reach that conclusion? Something being possible doesn’t mean it will happen – statistically speaking it CAN, but it does not have to.

No, The Omega I haven't reach that conclusion yet. I'm still debating that myself. But, I can't deny it yet until it has been discarded by philosophers.

Originally posted by The Omega
Huh? The first planet around some planet didn’t beget any children… Sure, other planets did start to form, but a planet does not CAUSE other planets to form.
Life began as organic molecules. The first time these molecules bonded to create actual life, that was it. The first microbe (or amoeba or something) started without other microbes. Just as the first star ignited without other stars “parenting” it.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding something… ?

No you didn't misunderstand. You're bringing scientific factors into philosophical theory. Good luck with that. I've seen ppl try it, and they get more scientific than philosophical. I can't argue with you because I don't have the capacity to understand molecular bonding.

Originally posted by The Omega
Well, that is OUR, humankinds, view of other creatures. Lions are the kings, hyenas are evil … and then it turned out hyenas may actually hunt and lions scavenge.
This hierarchy is based on animals we view with awe, animals we fear, and animals we loathe. The hierarchy is mankind’s invention.

The hierchy thingy was more of a metaphor used by Aquinas. Lions are just animals with the same purpose as other animals. To kill and hunt in order to survive. Let's not get into Zoology. For the purpose of the argument let's be philosophical.

Originally posted by The Omega
Parts of the human body are still controlled by intelligence – the human brain. That’s why they behave in an orderly manner.
"it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly".
Many organisms show features of appallingly bad design. This is because evolution via natural selection cannot construct traits from scratch; new traits must be modifications of previously existing traits. This is called historical constraint. A few examples of bad design imposed by historical constraint:
In parthenogenetic lizards of the genus Cnemdophorus, only females exist. Fertility in these lizards is increased when another lizard engages in pseudomale behavior and attempts to copulate with the first lizard. These lizards evolved from a sexual species so this behaviour makes some sense. The hormones for reproduction were likely originally stimulated by sexual behaviour. Now, although they are parthenogenetic, simulated sexual behaviour increases fertility. Fake sex in a parthenogenetic species doesn't sound like good design to me.
In African locust, the nerve cells that connect to the wings originate in the abdomen, even though the wings are in the thorax. This strange "wiring" is the result of the abdomen nerves being co-opted for use in flight. A good designer would not have flight nerves travel down the ventral nerve cord past their target, then backtrack through the organism to where they are needed. Using more materials than necessary is not good design.
In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better.

You're giving me proofs of organic creatures. And that's great! I can't deny the data for I would be a fool to argue agains't evolutionary facts. But we are discussing philosophical proofs of God. Not lizards and their traits. The reason I mention parts of the body was to illustrate a unique link between one thing and another. In order for walking we must have feet, legs, muscles, and so on. Let's keep it with the analytical thinking not with physical proofs. After all it is philosophy.

Originally posted by The Omega
Using Analogy to prove God.
This makes NO sense to me. Without the Archer the arrow wouldn’t exist. No one would even think of arrows. The arrow and the archer are linked, yes, but only because the archer came UP with the idea of sticking a pointy stone to a small rod and firing it at animals.
What makes us human is just that. Human traits.

Pardon if I cannot make better illustrations in order to make a point. Is not easy to remenber everything Aquinas wrote. Which btw-are volumes and volumes of philosophical books. Or as he calls it Summa Theologica So if doesn't make sense.....I tried my best to make a point....and didn't achieve anything.

Originally posted by The Omega
That’s a hypothesis.

Umm....yeah, sounds like it. Do you discards all hypothesis?

Originally posted by The Omega
I’d say god derives his/her/its existence from humanity, and THIS fact account for the common elements in myths and religious stories.

Let's get to post #3 before we get to God and Mythology and mankind.....err, actually I've just noticed you already gotten there.

Originally posted by The Omega
Because humans have attributed to divinities attributes they see as preferable.

Preferable or possible? Which one is more suited for the argument to prove God's existence.