News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

Main Menu

God made the universe look old so it would look pretty

Started by Sophus, December 20, 2010, 08:50:49 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

LegendarySandwich

I would have responded to Bornagain, but Sophus and hackenslash have already done so, and so much better than I could have hoped to.

:(

Sophus

Quote from: "hackenslash"
Quote from: "Sophus"there are over [strike:3vhpdm77]4,000[/strike:3vhpdm77] 30,000 sects of Christianity.

FIFY.
Ooooh, thanks! I missed a digit. I've always heard 30,000 or 40,000. Wikipedia says 38,000. Guess I should change it to nearly 40,000.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

elliebean

Quote from: "Bornagain"I know I will not change your mind on how you believe but let me ask you a question? What makes you know for certain that there is no God?
Not many here claim to know that for certain. Try asking yourself this quesion: how do you know for certain some other god doesn't exist?

QuoteThere are things that may support evolution but there are also things that point to special creation.
Like what?

QuoteThe Bible does say that a day to God is like 1,000 years to us. Is that to say that the earth is Billions of years old? Don't know. The earth may be 6,000 years old or it may be billions of years old.
1,000 years X 6 [god] days = 6,000 years. So the earth (and the rest of "creation") took all of 6,000 years to form?

QuoteDoesn't really matter.
Then why read it?

QuoteThe Bible is not really a science book anyway.
If only everyone could agree on that, without jumping into...

QuoteThe Bible is more of a history book.
...that. The Bible isn't even a reliable source for the history of itself.

QuoteThe Bible explains periods of time and catastrophic events, i.e. the flood, that have been confirmed by scientific studies.
What studies? Where?

QuoteHow is it that a book so old can correctly label the big world events but can't explain creation?
Which "big world events" does it correctly predict? Even then, how would it follow that it should explain the entirely unrelated subject of "creation"?

QuoteThe cultures and the people of the Bible are confirmed throughout historic and scientific studies.
I take it you mean cultures and peoples, not people. otherwise, you'll have a very difficult time defending that statement. In fact, I'm not sure even all the cultures and peoples of the Bible are confirmed to have existed.

QuoteJesus Himself is not questioned in His existence.
Well you're in for a shock. We have a whole thread [initially intended to be] devoted to that very topic. It sucked. People on both sides get really snippy whenever the historicity of Jesus is challenged. Personally, I think he was completely fictional.

QuoteThe thing about Christians is we either believe all of the Bible or we believe none of it.
Tell that to the Christians here.

QuoteHistory and your own science backs up many portions of the Bible.
Such as?

QuoteCreation just happens to be one that is not 100% decided by science because it can never be proven.
That depends on what you mean by "creation". Science neither looks for, nor seeks to refute, creator gods. That just isn't a part of what science does or can do. That isn't a failing of science, it just isn't science's job. So whose job is it? Nobody's, it's a silly question. Evolution, on the other hand, is proven.

QuoteHow is it that certain parts of the Bible, that were inspired by the same God, can be proven right but the parts that can't are automatically considered fallacy?
1. What parts of the Bible are proven right?
2. How do you know all those parts of the Bible were inspired by the same god?
3. How do you know any part of the Bible was inspired by any god?
4. How do you know the god/gods in question was/were telling the truth?
5. How do you know the Bible, in part or in whole, wasn't made up to trick you by some other god?
6. How do you know the Bible, in part or in whole, wasn't made up to trick you by some ancient, power-hungry humans.
7. How do you know the whole thing isn't based on the hearsay and primitive folklore of bored, bronze-age goat herders with a penchant for drama?
[size=150]â€"Ellie [/size]
You can’t lie to yourself. If you do you’ve only fooled a deluded person and where’s the victory in that?â€"Ricky Gervais

hackenslash

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I would have responded to Bornagain, but Sophus and hackenslash have already done so, and so much better than I could have hoped to.

:(

You do yourself an injustice. I have read your posts with interest, and you do a good job of debunking nonsense, and in a very direct and unambiguous way. Sometimes, I know I am guilty of being over-sensitive to semantics (which I don't concede as a failing) and often being too wordy and indirect. You seem to get straight to the point, and I would enjoy readin your rebuttal, as I would undoubtedly learn something of value.

Besides, There has never been a case of somebody else providing a rebuttal in which something I missed wasn't picked up on. I don't usually miss much, but I ALWAYS miss something. Do it for my benefit, please.
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.

LegendarySandwich

I'm going to do it anyway.

Quote from: "Bornagain"I know I will not change your mind on how you believe but let me ask you a question? What makes you know for certain that there is no God?
I know for certain that the traditional Abrahamic god doesn't exist because of logical contradictions -- i.e. the contradictions between his supposed powers and the problem of evil, for example (I'm sure there more that I don't know of). Now, I don't deny that any deistic type god exists, but I don't believe in any because I have no reason to do so.

QuoteThere are things that may support evolution but there are also things that point to special creation.
Every piece of evidence we've found supports evolution. Nothing we've found supports the Bible, or "special creation".

QuoteThe Bible does say that a day to God is like 1,000 years to us.
So he could have deliberately fooled us by saying that he created the universe in six days? Why would he do that?

QuoteIs that to say that the earth is Billions of years old? Don't know.
All the related evidence says that the Earth is billions of years old, so you should know with reasonable certainty.

QuoteThe earth may be 6,000 years old or it may be billions of years old. Doesn't really matter.
It matters in the sense that God could have been purposefully misleading us or not. Admitting that the Earth is billions of years old just reduces the credibility of the Bible that much more.

QuoteThe Bible is not really a science book anyway.
Too bad. A lot of good could have come out of it if it had been.

QuoteThe Bible is more of a history book.
If I'm correct, many of the events "recorded" in the Bible don't have extra-biblical evidence supporting them, or even have evidence against them. Take the Jesus story, for instance.

QuoteI will ask a few more questions and then I will stop and let you respond. First: The Bible explains periods of time and catastrophic events, i.e. the flood, that have been confirmed by scientific studies.
No.

QuoteHow is it that a book so old can correctly label the big world events but can't explain creation?
The answer: it doesn't do either.

QuoteThe cultures and the people of the Bible are confirmed throughout historic and scientific studies.
If I'm right, only some cultures and peoples have.

QuoteJesus Himself is not questioned in His existence.
Yes, he is.

QuoteThe thing about Christians is we either believe all of the Bible or we believe none of it.
It's bad logic to assume that you either have to believe all of something or believe none of it, although I agree that in this instance it's a bit foolish to only believe some parts of the Bible and not others, as there's no way of knowing what parts are true and which aren't if you do that. In any case, you're wrong though, as some Christians do only believe in some parts of the Bible and not others. Take Achronos, for instance, who's an Orthodox Christian and doubts the validity of many parts of the Bible (he considers a lot of it to be allegorical).

QuoteHistory and your own science backs up many portions of the Bible.
No.

QuoteCreation just happens to be one that is not 100% decided by science because it can never be proven.
It's been proven many times over that a literal interpretation of Genesis is false. Period.

QuoteHow is it that certain parts of the Bible, that were inspired by the same God, can be proven right but the parts that can't are automatically considered fallacy?
The only parts of the Bible that can be proven correct are some of the historical accounts. And what do you mean by "considered fallacy"? Do you know what a logical fallacy is?

EDIT: Wow, thanks for the encouragement, hackenslash  :) I wrote my post before I saw that.

Recusant

"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


hackenslash

QuoteEDIT: Wow, thanks for the encouragement, hackenslash  :) I wrote my post before I saw that.

Only for my own edification, and I am about to show the vallue of that, in the form of something that you pointed out, and which I will elaborate on...

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"It matters in the sense that God could have been purposefully misleading us or not.

This raises another interesting point, which I missed:

The babble shows god as good and honest, and Satan as bad and dishonest. Only thing is, when you look at the story of Adam and Eve (who didn't exist, as the evidence shows, and upon whose actions the entire myth of Judeism and Christianity are predicated, in the form or original sin), there is a bit of a problem.

Magic man says, and I quote:

Quote from: "Genesis"2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Whle the serpent (generally taken to be Satan) says:

Quote from: "Genesis"3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Now clearly, according to the tome, Neither Adam nor Eve (who didn't exist) died on that day. On the other hand, the serpent told them, quite correctly, according to this guff, that they would not die but would receive the knowledge of good and evil.

This presents two problems, which I am sure are fairly obvious to anybody with more than two functioning neurons:

1. God is supposed to be good, and Satan bad, yet god lied to them, while Satan told the truth.
2. How were Adam and Eve (who did not exist, which anybody remotely conversant with evolution, which is a demonsrable fact, knows) supposed to know the difference between good and evil before partaking ot he fruit of the tree? How could they have been aware that their defiance of god in this matter was wrong?

As Hitchens puts it so beautifully, we are created sick and commanded to be well. This is not only deeply immoral, but absolutely absurd.
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.

Sophus

Quote from: "Recusant"Hello and welcome to HAF, Bornagain.

 :)
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

LegendarySandwich

Quote from: "hackenslash"
QuoteEDIT: Wow, thanks for the encouragement, hackenslash  :) I wrote my post before I saw that.

Only for my own edification, and I am about to show the vallue of that, in the form of something that you pointed out, and which I will elaborate on...

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"It matters in the sense that God could have been purposefully misleading us or not.

This raises another interesting point, which I missed:

The babble shows god as good and honest, and Satan as bad and dishonest. Only thing is, when you look at the story of Adam and Eve (who didn't exist, as the evidence shows, and upon whose actions the entire myth of Judeism and Christianity are predicated, in the form or original sin), there is a bit of a problem.

Magic man says, and I quote:

Quote from: "Genesis"2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Whle the serpent (generally taken to be Satan) says:

Quote from: "Genesis"3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Now clearly, according to the tome, Neither Adam nor Eve (who didn't exist) died on that day. On the other hand, the serpent told them, quite correctly, according to this guff, that they would not die but would receive the knowledge of good and evil.

This presents two problems, which I am sure are fairly obvious to anybody with more than two functioning neurons:

1. God is supposed to be good, and Satan bad, yet god lied to them, while Satan told the truth.
2. How were Adam and Eve (who did not exist, which anybody remotely conversant with evolution, which is a demonsrable fact, knows) supposed to know the difference between good and evil before partaking ot he fruit of the tree? How could they have been aware that their defiance of god in this matter was wrong?

As Hitchens puts it so beautifully, we are created sick and commanded to be well. This is not only deeply immoral, but absolutely absurd.
When I said that, I was thinking more along the lines of misleading the Christians into believing in creationism, but you bring up a far better point. It just further proves that the traditional Abrahamic god cannot exist, as he is clearly not omnibenevolent or even good.

McQ

Quote from: "Recusant"Hello and welcome to HAF, Bornagain.

 :P

Ditto, and best of luck to you bornagain.
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

Bornagain

Wow! Lot's of responses! As I am still new to this site it may take me a while to answer all of them. Next time, if you don't mind, could you reply in less numerous amounts of questions? That will allow me to gather adequate support for my beliefs. Most of you posted that the Abrahamic God has been PROVED wrong. How and by whom? Some of you have said that the very existence of Jesus is in question. I can understand if you want to question His deity but his very existence? And lastly you say the Bible is full of contradictions. I have yet to find one. Let's answer these questions first and then we can discuss the others!

LegendarySandwich

Quote from: "Bornagain"Wow! Lot's of responses! As I am still new to this site it may take me a while to answer all of them. Next time, if you don't mind, could you reply in less numerous amounts of questions? That will allow me to gather adequate support for my beliefs.
Ah, I thought you were a hit-and-run poster. Good thing you're not. Welcome to the site! Sorry if we overloaded you with responses.

QuoteMost of you posted that the Abrahamic God has been PROVED wrong. How and by whom?
I'll let others tell you about the contradictions between the traditional Abrahamic god's supposed omni traits, and instead post this old, famous quote attributed to Epicurus:

Quote from: "Epicurus"“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Also, it'd be useful if you could check out this thread before you respond.
QuoteSome of you have said that the very existence of Jesus is in question. I can understand if you want to question His deity but his very existence?
Yes. I'll let others respond in more detail.
QuoteAnd lastly you say the Bible is full of contradictions. I have yet to find one.
This and this page are good to skim over if you're looking for contradictions. In fact, the whole site in general is good for that.

QuoteLet's answer these questions first and then we can discuss the others!
Sure.

hackenslash

Quote from: "Bornagain"Next time, if you don't mind, could you reply in less numerous amounts of questions?

Perhaps if you stuck to one assertion at a time, the questions arising therefrom would be less numerous.

QuoteThat will allow me to gather adequate support for my beliefs.

You mean you don't already have all the support for your beliefs that you require? Some would suggest that you're going about this all wrong then. Most of us here tend to think that you should have sufficient support for your beliefs before you hold them.

QuoteMost of you posted that the Abrahamic God has been PROVED wrong. How and by whom?

By me, and by the simple expedient of pointing out that he is, as described in the holy books of Judeism, Christianity and Islam, logically impossible, by virtue of having been given paradoxical and mutually exclusive attributes, such as omnipotence (paradoxical), omniscience (mutually exclusive with omnipotence), etc.

QuoteSome of you have said that the very existence of Jesus is in question. I can understand if you want to question His deity but his very existence?

Not quite. I said that the existence of Jeebus is not accepted by everyone, in response to your assertion that:

QuoteJesus Himself is not questioned in His existence.

I also pointed out that the evidence for Jeebus' existence is sufficient to think that he at least existed, although not as described in the babble. Indeed, I think that the evidence for his existence is more robust than we have any right to expect for a peasant in an occupied land. There are serious and major historical figures for whom we don't have evidence so compelling, such as Alexander the Great, Socrates, etc.

QuoteAnd lastly you say the Bible is full of contradictions. I have yet to find one.

Did you not find the one I pointed out to you? Have a read over my post again, and perhaps you will spot it. It's pretty clear, and is even introduced as a contradiction. I can provide many more, if you wish. The babble is absolutely riddled with them. Indeed, I can think of one source that cites a short list of 456 of them (I see that LS posted a link while I was typing).

QuoteLet's answer these questions first and then we can discuss the others!

How about you address some of the objections put to you first, and then we can discuss any questions you might have.
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.

LegendarySandwich

Quote from: "hackenslash"By me, and by the simple expedient of pointing out that he is, as described in the holy books of Judeism, Christianity and Islam, logically impossible, by virtue of having been given paradoxical and mutually exclusive attributes, such as omnipotence (paradoxical), omniscience (mutually exclusive with omnipotence), etc.
It'd be helpful if you could explain the problems with his attributes in more detail, or link to a page where it's explained.

hackenslash

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"
Quote from: "hackenslash"By me, and by the simple expedient of pointing out that he is, as described in the holy books of Judeism, Christianity and Islam, logically impossible, by virtue of having been given paradoxical and mutually exclusive attributes, such as omnipotence (paradoxical), omniscience (mutually exclusive with omnipotence), etc.
It'd be helpful if you could explain the problems with his attributes in more detail, or link to a page where it's explained.

I can do that. Let's begin with omnipotence, and a simple question:

Can this omnipotent entity build a stack of bricks so heavy that he can't lift it?

If he can, then he can't lift it, and he isn't omnipotent. If he can't, then he isn't omnipotent. In short, omnipotence is paradoxical and therefore logically impossible.

To address some of the common objections:

1. God can only do what is logically possible.

This is a bit of a poor objection, not least because it places a restriction on god's power. Further, I can build a stack of bricks so heavy that I can't lift it, so there is no logical objection to this action. Further, this also means that this is a power that I possess that this entity does not, so again omnipotence is refuted.

2. He can choose not to be able to lift it, then choose to be able to lift it.

This is the weakest bit of apologetic ever, and can be refuted with a simple sentence: The ability to choose to be able to do something is functionally equivalent to being able to do it, so the ability to lift it was always in the entity's possession.

Moving on to omniscience:

Can this entity do something that he didn't know he'd do?

If he can, then he isn't omniscient. If he can't, then he isn't omnipotent.

Again, this is a power that I possess, because I most certainly can do something that I didn't know I'd do, and I'm not omnipotent.

Omniscience also presents problems in other terms as well, as described in the bibble. For example, we are supposed to have free will. If any entity is omniscient, then the universe is deterministic, and NO will is possible, let alone free will. This becomes a very long-winded topic in its own right, which I am happy to take up in depth if necessary.

The most common objection is that this commits the modal fallacy, in that god's omniscience is not causal. What this objection always manages to evade is that omniscience is 'perfect and infallible knowledge' which, while not being causal, does constitute determinism, which refutes free will, and indeed it refutes the entire concept of will.

Another common objection is that what god actually knows is the possibilities, so that when we are faced with choice A versus choice B, he is aware of both possibilities. This is not omniscience, however. Omniscience means that he actually knows what choice we will make. Since free will is the ability to choose between one or more logically available alternatives, and since he infallibly knows which choice we will make, we do not have unrestricted ability to choose, because we cannot choose that which contrdicts his knowledge of our choice. We are restricted to what he actually knows, so the choice is an illusion, and no free will exists.

I think that will do for now.

Nice deconstruction BTW. Omnibenevolence, omnipotence and the existence of suffering also constitute a contradiction, often described as the problem of evil.

When all the stated attrbutes of this deity are taken together, it constitutes defining the entity out of existence, because all these attributes are either self-refuting or are refuted by one or more of the other stated attributes. Even comic book writers, when devising their superheros, don't make such schoolboy errors.
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.