Christianity Discussion

Archangel_565

God forbid someone doesn't tell you they're Christian!

I have a discussion for this thread. There was a man byt hte name of Abelard that attented Oxford University in the Middle Ages.

He posed these few questions among others:

1) Should human faith be based upon reason, or no?
2) Is God one, or no?
3) Is God substance, or no?
4) Is sin pleasing to God, or no?
5) Is God the author of evil, or no?
6) Is God all-powerful, or no?
7) Can God be resisted, or no?
8) Has God free will, or no?
9) Was Adam saved, or no?
10) Are the felsh and blood of Christ in very truth andd essence present in the sacraments of the altar, or no?
11) Do we sometimes sin unwillingly, or no?
12) Is it worse to sin openly than secretly, or no?

These are only a handful of the 158 questions posed. Abelard also wrote arguments for and against all of them.

1) My personal faith is based on both reason and just "faith" itself.
2) God has been divided by some cultures into three separate entities ( Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit) that together make up the entirety of the Lord.
3) Defining the Lord as being a substance is too limiting.
4) Of course not. Our sins are disappointments to the Lord.
5) Good question...In the beginning there was darkness. This darkness could have been the evil and the Lord creating light was the creation of good.
6) Most definately.
7) The Lord blessed us with free-will. So, if you didn't want to believe in the Lord you could decide not to.
8) YES.
9) Adam and Eve were banished from the land of paradise.
10) Pretty much the only denomination that still believes in transubstantiation is Roman Catholicism. The transubstantiation is no longer believed to be entirely physical it is more of a spiritual change in the unlevened bread and wine.
11) Yes, you can sin unwillingly by being ingnorant of the rules that you are breaking.
12) No, sin is sin.

Eon

9) Adam and Eve were banished from the land of paradise.

That doesn't answer if they were saved or not, we all know the story of Adam and Eve, no matter if wea re religious or not.

Archangel_565

Ok then, Adam and Eve would have had to repent for their sins just like the rest of us.

HomoUniversalis

----
Ps.9:11
"The Lord, which dwelleth in Zion."

Ps.76:2
"His dwelling place is in Zion."

Joel 3:17, 21
"So shall ye know that I am the LORD your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain .... For the LORD dwelleth in Zion."

Ps.123:1
"Unto you I lift up mine eyes, O thou that dwellest in the heavens."

Ec.5:2
"Let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth."
----

One can find a total of 329 contradictions in the Bible here (Clicky! (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html)).

Apart from the fact that obviously Christianity has no real solution whether God lives in the promised land or in the Heavens, and has no idea how many disciples Jesus had (also at previously mentioned site), I do not take this religion seriously. Looking at the absurdities of the Islam, a link can be found from the main site, which leads to a similar version for the Quran, One would almost desert all hope for mankind.

Mr U

neoizcool

There were twelve disciples. 99% of Christians can agree on this. And God is OMNIPRESENT, so his dwelling place is everywhere. He can be everywhere at once, so there's no real contradiction here.
Also, what do you mean, DPD, AO is me?

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

HomoUniversalis

---
Mt.28:16
"Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him."

Mk.16:14
"Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen."

Lk.24:33, 36
And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together.... And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
---

Can you please supply a bible-quote that shows that the Lord/JHVH/God is omnipresent? I have supplied opposing quotes, and if you want me to take you seriously, please supply evidence yourself. Also, I don't care how much Christians agree on the number of disciples. Fact is, the bible is full of contradictions, and thus, any religion based upon this flawed version (note that this argument is not directed at judaism. Their bible is, for as far as I know, not flawed, and if it is, to a much lesser degree) is, indeed, flawed.

Mr U

neoizcool

HU, I know you're just playing dumb. You know God is omnipresent, and why Christians would believe that. Now, he is not omnipresent in the way we think of omnipresence, because he does not have a physical form. He is omnipresent in the sense of knowing all and seeing all, omniscient and omnipotent. He can do all.
Sigh. Yes, the Bible appears to contradict itself, but that's only because it's so old. It's pretty much a miracle that it's survived for over 1500 years and it's pretty much intact, with all sixty-six books just the way they are. And yes, I know that there are several verses that differ from version to version, but their message and their constance are always here.
I know there is scientific evidence against the Bible. I know to people with such scientific minds as yours it is a mystery why I believe it. But then again you would probably attribute it to man's need for a higher authority, or whatever.
The truth is, I don't care. I don't care if there's evidence against it. I don't care if all the science in the world is against it, which it isn't, I don't care if the whole world is against me, I don't care if people are wondering why I'm believing this supposed bull crap.
It is all a matter of faith and love for God. That is all that matters. And the truth is, I'd rather believe this and be wrong, and end up winding up into nothingness if evolution turns out to be true, than believe what you believe, which from what I take from your various and sundry posts, is that you don't believe in anything particular except science and solid proof and all that.
I've said before in other forums, I am by no means an expert or even a small tiny semi-scholar on Bible or creation. I should know more, so I'd be able to defend it better, but I don't. I believe it is a sin that i don't study the Bible as often. I know I should know more, but I don't, so I'm sorry, and I know that does not represent the Christian argument that well. Fortunately, I have other Christian friends here who can help me.
That being said, I understand completely why you don't believe the Christian faith. You just don't.......have the understanding that I do. You don't have the spirituality. You are physically and mentally unable to comprehend this. And yeah, I know you think you have it all figured out, but the truth is that you are way off. I don't mean to sound condescending or anything, I'm just explaining my position. Simply put, I am rock solid in my beliefs. No amount of "evidence" is going to move me. My faith is in Jesus Christ, that he is the savior of all men, and that through him you will go to heaven and not hell; I believe he is the only way to get to heaven. I believe there IS NO OTHER WAY. Apparently you are too, rock solid in your beliefs I mean, and I can only commend you for your rock solidness, not your actual beliefs.
I believe you are wrong. Period. Nothing you can say will change me. I'm sorry I can't offer any good arguments. Perhaps my friends can help me.
I've said enough. You're wrong. I'm right in Jesus. Sorry.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

Eon

You're wrong. I'm right in Jesus. Sorry.
I will say it again, comments like these are the reason we will continue to argue our point. If you added and "I believe" to the beginning of both those sentences then maybe we would take your arguments more seriously. I know you said it at the beginning of the paragraph, but thats a pretty definate and final last sentence wouldn't you say?
Comments like:
You are physically and mentally unable to comprehend this. And yeah, I know you think you have it all figured out, but the truth is that you are way off.
and
I know you're just playing dumb
Just show how unwilling you are to comprehend the fact that others do have different beliefs. I know you believe you are right and hell 100 million other people on this planet would probably agree with you, and I'm not here to tell you are wrong, I'm just here to ask you to accept the fact that a lot of people here wouldn't agree with you and nothing you do or say will change that, same as nothing we do or say will change your beliefs.

neoizcool

More like 1.5 billion people agreeing with me. In any case, this just shows how much you don't comprehend me or the Christian faith. I know other people have different beliefs, and I find it saddening how many people are going to hell. I don't rejoice over the fact. I pray for them daily, that as many people as possible will come to Jesus.
Sigh. When I said the truth is you are way off, I was talking to HU for one, and also to people who have the whole "believing in God" thing pinned down to man's basic need for some higher power.
Well, there's something else. Why did evolution produce this? Where is the need for a higher power in the evolutionary chain? Why is man different in that respect? Why are no other animals as sentient as man?
I believe that God put that there so that we would come to him, but unfortunately people like you and HU just write it off.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

Swampy

Can I make a recommendation here please? This is another one of those roundabout discussions which is going round and round but leading no where. No one is going to convert here, so why not move on to another point, rather than trying to turn this into an evangelical crusade?

Why not discuss the flood and whether its historical evidence, the 10 commandments, the exodus, king David, the journeys of Paul, anything. Its a broad subject, why beat the hell out of one subject when the discussion is going no where?

Just a thought...

ichi_ban1

I would first like to say that I am a Christian, and the cause that Chrisitans stand for is not being furthered any by saying "You're wrong, I'm right" and "You're playing dumb". Barf on that stuff, doesn't get anybody anywhere. If anyone has a probelm with that, PM me and we'll discuss. Otherwise, keep the crap to yourself.

Anyway, lets discuss who Jesus was and claimed to be. It used to be that historians did not even acknowledge Jesus' existed, but within the past few years they have acknowledged his existance as a teacher, which I thought was interesting. When my parents went to school, history books did not even mention Jesus, now they have sections/lessons about him. Any thoughts about this?

neoizcool

Yeah, Jesus was a teacher, and as history moves along, only more evidence will be found to prove things in the Bible. Of course, we will never find any evidence for his deity, that's where the faith part comes in.
IB1, when I said that HU was playing dumb, I meant that he was acting like he didn't know what I was talking about.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

On a side note, this time last year in Sydneytown, Australia, we had rain for 42 days and 42 nights, and no one needed an ark...

neoizcool

The kind of rain you had there is nothing compared to the torrential constant rains that had to happen for the flood. And besides, it was worldwide that this happened, torrential rains worldwide. I doubt you had torrential rains 24/7 in Sydneytown. However, if you'd like to stand in one place while torrential rains for forty-days and forty nights pound down on you, I'd love to see you try. Besides, monsoons happen periodically throughout the world. Sydnyetown is no special example.
Yes, I know I used torrential a lot.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

NMN

Monsoons only happen in a FEW places in the world. It barely rains in other places in the world, mainly the Sahara desert. But this doesn't matter to you, because you'll just say God can make it rain anywhere, so I don't even know why I'm bothering.

neoizcool

Evolutionists themselves say that millions, or in my view, thousands, of years ago, climates were different. Truth be told, neither of us know how conditions were back then. Climates were different, so we can't point out climates today and say the applied back then. Besides, many non-Christians see that their is evidence for a massive flood of epic proportians several thousand years ago.
And yes, God can make it rain.
And on your supposed contradictions, HU, I checked out a bunch of those and those "contradictions" are nothing more than taking the quotes out of context and not researching verses behind them.
After all, one could quote this:
"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no god."
For contradiction purposes, somoene could say, "There is no God."
See?
Not that all your quotes did this thing, or even a ton of them, but I just used it as an example.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

HomoUniversalis

Does that site point out the contradiction "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no god." as a contradiction to the existance of God? If that is true, please supply a link.

If this is your idea of creative comparison, please supply an example where stuff was ripped entirely out of it's context.

However, you yourself stated that not everything was ripped out of it's context, so that begs the question: Is the bible the truth? How do you explain the contradictions that are not ripped out of context?

Several thousand years ago? That's impossible. The deluge could not have occured than, historically, as their are cultures that stretch back for 10.000 years. For one, the sphynx in Egypt is older than 10.000. If a deluge had indeed occured, it would be covered in sand, as you of course, know.

Mr U

neoizcool

The Sphinx was built after the flood. What dating system was used to calculate its age?
By the way, did you go through all 329 contradictions?
Okay, on your contradiction list.

1. These can be attributed simply to different versions. That they survived for so long with only one change in number, that's amazing. And I don't understand the ten thing. It says twelve. "But Thomas, one of the twelve..." Some contradiction.

2. The justified by works thing is also of no consequence. They are taken from completely different points in the Bible, so the quotes don't take into account the context surrounding them or different things that happened between the quotes. As for the whole faith by works thing, that's not set in stone, and many people within christianity say that you need some works to get salvation. And the whole faith without works is dead thing, it doesn't imply that you don't get salvation without works. It just means your faith isn't fruitful.

3. The two sons of Abraham. First of all, for one of the contradictions: "For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son is his old age .... And Abraham called him Isaac." Where is the contradiction here? Isaac was his only son according to the one son passages. The fact that there are already two mistakes doesn't help your case any. As for the other contradictions, when it says Isaac was his only son, it meant he was the son promised to him by God.

4. Abiathar and Ahimelech: Here it's just talking about genealogy, and small mistakes within genealogy are inevitable. Besides, many people had the same name; they weren't necessarily the same person.

5. Abijah and Abijam. Probably two different people. If not, just another geneology mistake. Obviously the people who wrote this were really groping for contradictions.

6. Again, another mistake by the skeptics here. There is no contradiction in how long the ark was there. Saul was king forty years, yes, but it was not put there at the very beginning. Twenty years the ark was there. It's crystal clear.

7. Could have been two Absaloms. As I said, there were many kinds and people with the same names back then. Also, the first quote comes four chapters after the second. His three sons could have died.

8. This one just takes a little common sense. The first passage is the one you follow, since it came before the second. Man was created after. The seven day account. Period. When it says that God formed the beasts and brought them to Adam, how do you know that he formed them after Adam was made? It may just be a recap on what God had already done. Or it could be speaking metaphorically.

9. Yet another genealogy. Or it could be that Carmi was the mother, Zerah was the father, or vice versa. These skeptics do know that you need two parents, right?

10. Two different books. Mistakes are inevitable. And don't come back with, "Then how do you know the whole Bible isn't false?" If someone dismissed an entire work because of a couple flaws here and there, how many works of science would have to be dismissed, or even evolution.

11. Another case of the same thing.

12. "But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." It says keep alive. In other words, kill them if not. Yeah, this condones adultery. :rolleyes:
"And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms...." Read the part right after this: "because the land has "committed great whoredom." I see no contradiction here. Hosea had no other choice.
"Then said the Lord unto me, God yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress." It says love them. It doesn't say adultery is okay. This shows the kind of love that opponents to Christianity are always quoting, "Christianity advocates love and acceptance." Then it goes on and condems her, and says, "thou shalt not play the harlot, and thou shalt not be for another man."

13. Buried in the city of David and bringing him into the sepulchres of the kinds of Israel are two different things.

14. I think one year off in 1500 years is pretty good.

15. Again, two different books, and obviously not two different people. Sure, this one is a good contradiction, but once again, a few contradictions do not disprove the whole Bible.

16. It says the men of Bethel and Ai. Not the city.
Two different possiblities.
Nehemiah was written before Joshua. If so, then Ai still existing would be quite easy. There's nothing that says the books of the Bible are in chronological order.
Nehemiah was written after Joshua. When it says, "unto this day" it means just unto the day it was written. It doesn't mean literally unto this day. In which case it would be easy to explain why and if Ai was rebuilt.

17. This passage is confusing, so claiming a contradiction without really understanding it isn't realistic.

18. First of all, the Bible never says that drinking wine is a sin. It says being drunk is a sin. It is only a sin to drink wine when it causes someone to stumble. I assume you know what I mean by stumbling. If not, tell me and I'll explain it. And back then, wine was used as more of a medicine. Also, in the Psalms, those are quotes by fallen men, not God, so one shouldn't take them as infaillible.

19. God is not willing that any should perish. But people choose to. God doesn't send people to hell. People send themselves by refusing Him. And that quote where it says God shall send them strong delusion, there's a reason that he does. Yet another verse taken out of context.

20. He's speaking metaphorically. To take things like this literally is madness.

That's all for now. I gotta go.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

HomoUniversalis

You admit there are errors in the Bible, yet the 'Holy Scripture' itself claims to be perfect and infallible. Claiming that the Bible is imperfect, as you have, is an abomination to God. I hope you know that traitors of God go to the very ninth level of Hell. Don't worry, though. I heard Judas, Brutus and Cassius are really nice people when they have the time to get out of Satan's ever-gnawing mouth. Rather amusing, as I, in my atheist state will only go to the sixth level :).

I wonder whether you go to a church. I'm sure you know that the creation of images or other idols of 'creatures' of heaven are an abomination, and not a light one at that. In fact, 1.5 billion people who follow the catholic religion disobey the Bible on a daily basis. The very crucifix-symbol is an abomination to God, much like the golden ram the israelites made when Mozes was asking for his 10 commandments.

Besides, as you yourself stated, I am incapable of, both physically and mentally, understanding the Bible. I am below all sin and all religion. God's got nothing on me :).

Mr U

neoizcool

I don't know what you mean by God's got nothing on you, since, in my view, mind you, you've rejected Jesus and are not going to a very nice place when you die. In my opinion you are incapable of understanding Christianity because you refuse to. In other words, only be accepting Jesus can you come to understand why I believe what I believe. Oops, I forgot. IN MY OPINION.
I don't know where that "levels of hell" comes from, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that. Hell is simply hell, and it is an eternally agony filled place, where you are completely alone, in total darkness.
Can you show me exactly where the Bible says, in so many words, it's infaillible? It says it's the word of God. It's useful for teaching and rebuking. Give me a verse, please.
The Bible says it is unlawful to worshiop images of God you have created. Where does it say all images and/or statues are unlawful and an abomination? Again, show me a verse or several please.
The crucifix is not an abomination. Unless you worship it. It is in a sense an image of God, since it is Jesus, but unless you worship it I don't believe there's any thing wrong with it.
Besides, if a few mistakes prove the entire Bible wrong, how about a few mistakes in evolution? Or Hinduism? Or Buddhism? You yourself admitted that evolution is not perfect, so.....
And I'd still like to hear people's response to evolution's explanation for man's complete uniqueness.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

HomoUniversalis

I did not admit evolution was imperfect. Not a single thing claimed by evolution, like the bible, has been proven wrong. The levels of hell have been, I believe, accepted by the general christian society. Purgatory, limbo, than the second layer and than all the way to the ninth level where satan chews on the three traitors (Judas/Brutus/Cassius). These levels were supposedly formed when Lucifer crashed down into the 'Earth', and hell looks like this \/. Ergo, the lowest levels have the fewest people. This was all described by Dante. Do a search on it, it's pretty interesting stuff, actually.

Statues are not unlawful, neither are images. Only statues and images from Heaven are an abomination. This follows directly from the passage used in the ten commandments. Anyway, are you telling me people in churches, where Christ is literally displayed in live-size dying of crucifixion, are not worshipping the statue?

Mr U

neoizcool

No Christian I know, unless they're catholic, believes in levels of hell. Catholics do, but the truth is that nowhere in the Bible does it mention purgatory or limbo. Hell looks live a V? Where does this come from? Lowest levels fewest people? What the heck? You're wrong when you say that the levels of hell have been accepted by the general Christian population. The vast majority believe in just one hell.
I am not saying all Catholics don't worship the crucifix; there are certainly some who do, and they are sinning when they do so. We have a picture of a cross, no Christ, at the front of our church, and I don't, when I sing worship songs, think of it as worshipping the cross. That's just ridiculous, imo(in my opinion).
Dante? Since when is Dante an authority on the Bible? Nobody I know believes Dante. The Bible is an authority on the Bible, and that's that.
And I'd still like to hear evolution's explanation for man's uniqueness.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

DPD

The problem with this is that you're speaking of only Christians that you know or have met. I'm sure members of this site have met Christians and Catholics alike who either have heard of or hold the levels of hell as truth. Also, there being multiple levels of hell does not mean there is more than one hell. I'm not saying that either view is better or worse, it's just different, does exist, and is being recognized here.

Additionally, when you said that 1.5 billion people shared your same viewpoint, you fail to take into account all of the "people like TiNM" or the people who say they're Christians but lead separate lives, or the people who say their children are Christian and don't know that their children either practice another religion, don't believe in God, or have lost faith in Christianity. Also, if you're saying they feel the same way as you, what about different denominations, people who interpret the Bible openly, people who go to all-inclusive Christian churches, homosexual Christians, etc. These are all people who are underneath the umbrella of Chrisianity, but I seriously doubt that all of them share your exact viewpoint or feel the same way on everything you say.

neoizcool

I've met a heck of a lot of Christians, and gone to a heck of a lot of churches. Moreso than you DPD, unless you've lived in five different countries in your life, and attended more than thirty churches, all over the world, and lived in three different states.
And for the record, I believe, I BELIEVE IS THE KEY WORD HERE, homosexual Christian is an oxymoron.
And I'd still like to hear evolution's explanation for man's uniqueness.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

DPD

It's great that you'd like to hear evolution's explanation for that, but I'm neither an evolutionist nor a creationist so you're barking up the wrong tree. Additionally, I remember saying I wasn't getting involved in this useless discussion, and I'm still not. Rather I was pointing out where you were misusing a statistic, because the fact remains that all of the people I mentioned are counted as Christians in your statistic whether or not you believe them to be Christians.

neoizcool

.And for the record, I believe, I BELIEVE IS THE KEY WORD HERE, homosexual Christian is an oxymoron.
And I'd still like to hear evolution's explanation for man's uniqueness.

You mean why are there homosexuals in the world? Surely with your collective knowledge of the cultures you have experienced, you would know that homosexuality is a preference, just like being addicted to Disney movies. Or do you believe that it is only in the past few centuries become popular? What does it have to do with evolution anyway? Oh that's right, somehow it halts procreation. Damn, guess when we are all beings of pure energy in another million years or so, we won't need any perversities either.

Actually, when looked at it that way, evolution is kind of a depressing thought lol.

DPD

Ultimately neither you nor I can say who is and who isn't a Christian. Only God can. That's what the my opinion was for.
And the evolution thing was not directed at you particularly; just anyone who wanted to answer it.

Ultimately is not what I was addressing. You were using a number to support you that isn't completely accurate due to different interpretations by different people, and I was illustrating that there it is largely probably that not as many people as you quoted in your statistic share your same view of things. I was not claiming to be an expert on the Christian belief system or the general Christian populace, as you've already admittedly done as well. Turning this into a holier-than-thou debate or a self-righteousness ceremony will do nothing but get this thread closed as well. Not saying that's what's happening here, but it being perceived as that could happen and might be imminent on this course. With that, I cordially bow out for this evening to go commit sin and enjoy myself while doing it without repenting.

ichi_ban1

See if this makes sense:
the old testament is (with the exception of the ten commandments) just a history of the nation of Israel, because Israel was God's chosen people. The things that the Israelites did like sacrificing cows and such are customs that were required by the mosaic laws of the time. The mosaic laws were dispelled by Jesus' coming. This is why Christians don't have to sacrifice for their way into heaven like they did back in the old testament times. Those that believed what Christ was telling them then cast out the mosaic laws for themselves because according to Christ, all you need is to believe in Jesus and make him lord of your life to make it into heaven.
The new testament, on the other hand is the part that Christians live by. Romans, Acts, 1 + 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and the other books of the new testament (except for Matthew, Mark, Luke, JOhn, and Revelation) are letters written by different apostles to the churches of Rome, Corinth, Galatia, etc. telling them Christ's teachings on how they should live. Revelation is a prophetic book telling what will happen at the end of the world, and Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are four different accounts of Jesus' life. That means their perspective will be different, considering they wrote those books long after Christ had ascended back into heaven. So, there too the bible doesn't contradict itself in what Jesus did, it's four different accounts, written by people. The new testament is what Christians live by, not the old where they had slaves and things. So in essence, the bible does not contridict itself in that manner. The old testament is the history of God's people and when Christ came and died on the cross for sins, the mosaic law was cast out (again, except for the ten commandments) and no one had to sacrifice lambs or things like that to make it into heaven. Christians follow what's in the new testament to guide their lives, not the old. Think of the old testament like a history book.

neoizcool

True, though there are things in the old testament, besides the ten commandments, that most Christians follow, such as the belief that homosexuality is a sin.
And UT, no, I didn't mean homosexuals, though that is a good point. I meant that why is man, excluding homosexuality, so different from all the other animals? Why does evolution need this?

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

NMN

Man is not different from other animals. Using your logic, I could ask: why are 3-toed sloths so much different than whales? They're both animals, but yet they are different. Amazing. Truly.

neoizcool

I mean man's spirit. No other animal is sentient. Why is man sentient? How does a spirit evolve? And why did the need for a higher power evolve? I don't think sloths need a higher power.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

NMN

How would you ever posibly know? Your questions are on the verge of the famous tree conundrum. Another discussion that goes round and round like the Earth.

neoizcool

Ever possibly know what? What famous tree conundrum? And I believe my question is a valid one, because I believe the logical answer is that there is no need for a higher power in man's "evolution", and in fact, this is more likely, as history shows, to hinder than to help.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

Eon

If the tree falls over in the woods and there is no one and nothing around to hear it fall, does it make any noise...don't tell me you have never heard that.

NMN

You know, I could find amazing similarities between apes and humans. And I do believe, since they are aware they are alive, by the definition of sentient, that they are capable of "believing in a higher being". The fact that you would try to compare a religion like Christianity to animals is quite laughable. As you may well know, Christianity was man-made, and therefore completely propostrous to apply to animals.

But I don't much care for your opinion anymore, so I'm stepping out and away. Thank you kindly.

neoizcool

Hmm. Doesn't seem to me you addressed the problem of evolution and higher power at all, NMN. But that's fine if you don't want to. Any other takers? And I didn't compare animals to Christianity; you did that. Christianity was not man-made. It was made by Jesus, who was God, so I believe that's a matter of opinion there on whether or not who made Christianity.
So, back to the original question: Why is there a higher power with man alone? Not apes, NMN; there is no evidence for that. Apes don't reach the heel of our intelligence. If apes were evolving into a higher form of intelligence as well, we should have seen at least the tiniest hint of a change in the last thousand years, but we haven't.
And, yeah, Eon, I know what you're talking about. The tree falling over in the forest thing. I remember now. I just didn't recognize it. And I don't see how that helps NMN's argument. As far as I can see, I'm winning here.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

Eon

"Winning"....thats what you call it when you are having a "discussion" on a topic as controversial as this?
Right....well....carry on "winning"
In adition to that, we wont see apes evolve over a thousand years...probably we wont much at all, humans and apes diverged in their evolutionary paths a long time ago, they continued on as they always had and humans evolved into what we are today, however apes are still amoung the most intelligent animals on this planet.

ichi_ban1

"Winning"? I hardly think answering questions with more questions that most of the time don't even make sense is considered "winning" but oh well.....

Even though this thread is the um...lets seee......oh yeah the Christianity discussion, I shall comment. Humans are intelligent human beings, that what sets us apart needing a higher being. Apes are fairly intelligent but not to the potential that a human has. (Even thought I would say some apes are smarter than some humans.). Dogs and apes don't have a need to find a god because they are not aware such a thing may exist.

Now can we get back on topic pleeeeease? Save the evolution stuff for the evolution thread

neoizcool

Why are humans aware? Evolution doesn't have a valid explanation for this. This is Christianity Discussion, and evolution relates to it because we talked about man's need a higher power. This is my thread; I opened it for anything related at all to Christianity. This falls under that.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

ichi_ban1

We're aware because we are intelligent beings

neoizcool

No other species besides humans have the ability to think, "I exist." and "I wonder where I came from. Why am I here?" Evolution doesn't have a valid explanation for this.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

HomoUniversalis

On what fact do you base that hypothesis? It has not been proven that animals do not think "I exist." and "I wonder where I cam from. Why am I here?". Also, many humanists believe that desires come in layers. The need to philosophize comes in a very late stage, according to Maslov. Also worth noting is the fact that scientists have pinpointed the part of the brain that makes us think we are self-aware.

Mr U

neoizcool

What I'm saying is that, in my opinion, evolution does not provide a valid explanation. We are self-aware. Our societies show this. Yet other species do not. And even if we think we're self-aware, that alone differs us from animals. I never said it has been proven, such as evolution and creation have never been "proven." What I'm saying is that very very strong evidence supports "the hypthesis" of us being self-aware and no other species having this capability.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

MacLeod

Hmm. Frankly, I don't see why something as simple as being self-aware puts us out of evolution. Why do bees work so well together? How did the bat find echo location? Why do certain animals change sex to continue propagating the species and how do they know when to? Evolution can explain these, if I'm not already wrong. Why not a simple self-awareness?
More: consciousness is relative. Why are there prodigies, and have you wondered how much higher in conscious awareness they are? Do they make us less than human, or are they more than human? A dog alone is actually very intelligent: a visit to my friend's home already proved it to me. The presence of my fellow humans however made it look dumb. How do they view us, then? They do have the intelligence to make that view, NIC. Now then, does simply being self-aware put us above the reach of evolution's ability to explain living beings?
A little more on-topic, since evolution's link to Christianity here is more a technicality. One thing I seriously dunno is: I respect Christianity, and understand it's existance in the grand scheme of things, but why do you Christians like to push for them above all else? I'm sure there are tonnes of Psalms talking about goodwill to strangers; why the whole 'outsider will never be an equal' thing? Why not treat your faith; important to you as it is, as just a cog in the grand scheme of things?

freeyourmind

NIC, let me ask you a question from the point of view of an observant Jew, something that's really been bugging me - you Christians too believe that God is all-knowing and all-capable, right? But Christianity upholds, at least to my limited knowledge, that after trying a version with the Jews, God gave up and tried again with different people with a different version. Much of what is said in the old testament is not followed by Christians, because a new one has been created to largely replace it. How did this came to be? Did God change his mind? Is this fitting with his "character", for lack of a better word?

neoizcool

In answer to your question, FYM, God didn't change anything. For one, God is a triune God. He is the holy Trinity(no relation to Neo's lover whatsoever). God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The vast majority of Christians believe this. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. They are all separate but are all the same. One and the same. Three different parts, one God. Understand, there are not three Gods, at least in the majority Christian view, that I know of, at least. So, they are all omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Also, they are all eternal in the sense that they never had a beginning. Human souls, in the majority Christian view, are eternal in the sense of never-ending, heaven OR hell, but we all had a beginning. God never did. So, you see, from my point of view, Jesus never had a beginning. He's God made flesh. God the spirit is God the father. Therefore, he was there in Genesis, and God always had a plan when and exactly he was coming down. I don't know where, but there are several verses in the Bible that support Jesus already existing, but not coming down, in the Old Testament. Also, if I'm not mistaken, it's Isaiah, isn't it, where the entire book, or at least a vast majority, is just prophecying Christ coming?
Besides, the Jews, in Abraham's time, regardless of whether or not Jesus existed, didn't have him, so God had to make laws suitable to them. Why God didn't send Jesus will be a mystery until we come face to face with God, but I sincerely believe that sometimes we should stop trying to fathom the mind of God and just accept his decisions.
I think I covered all my bases with claming statements were my opinions. Hope I didn't offend anyone.
Now to address Macleod.
I'm not talking about self-awareness, directly. But besides, Macleod, evolution doesn't have a valid explanation, in my opinion, for how self-awareness came to be, since it deals with the spirit, and we, as humans, often make irrational decisions that stifle the propagation of our series, whereas the majority, if not all, can be explained scientifically: because it helped them to adapt and better their lives. In my opinion, though, that is just the brain, and not the spirit. I don't think animals possess a soul, or a spirit, or whatever you want to call it. In any case, also, our need for a higher power also cannot be explained by evolution, in my opinion.
I don't think either you or I know whether dogs can look at us and say, "Hmm. How smart are they?" I personally believe they can't, but what you believe is your business. True, dogs are some of the smartest creatures, but intelligence doesn't define a spirit or a soul or self-awareness. Something else that separates us is sin. We are capable of "sinning" but animals aren't. Also, if you go by the Bible, animals are never addressed as possessing souls, as far as I know.
As for loving strangers, I do, but it's just my job as a Christian to tell them that the only way to heaven is Jesus. In my opinion, of course.
And FYM, God hasn't given up on Jews. You can be a Jew and be a Christian, in my opinion. Jew by birth, converted to Christianity. But it is my belief that Jesus is the only way to heaven. You may believe what you want, of course.
Well, that is all.
Sorry if I offended anyone. I tried to be as "in my opiniony" as possible.

freeyourmind

I wrote up a really long reply to you NIC, but there was a blackout just before I finished the last sentence, so I'll answer you as soon as I get over how much that sucks.
I do want to say though that we're not as uptight as we might seem to you. You don't have to put "in my opinion" every second sentence for us to treat you seriously. That wasn't really the problem. The problem was that people felt that you disrepected them. It's not about how you treat your opinion, it's about how you treat others opinion.

Cheers.

MacLeod

FYM, as always, hit the spot. I think everyone knows your posts are your opinions, NIC. As long as its kept your opinion like I think this post did nicely, there shouldn't be any trouble from us. We're not out to make life hard.
Anyway, the whole thing about souls is still a subject of debate. Scientific people view it as much a product of our brains as the religious with a soul. I for one believe that alot of our so-called spirit and soul is due to the interaction between our natural instincts and our unnatural civilisation. Our natural drive to fend for ourselves and our logical drive to work as a team. Religion, like many other things like education and law, helps keep the two sides balanced and working together.
Anyway, my point wasn't about the whole 'soul' thing, since because I don't believe all that much about the soul the argument's reached a stalemate. What I'm interested in exploring are the essential differences in the different degrees of consciousness. A dog is smarter than a mouse which is smarter than an earthworm, but without other animals to consider, how would you classify an ultimate consciousness? How would you know humans as possessing a God-given spark of life if, when we boil down to the specifics, we're just on the highest tier of consciousness? I'm not sure how to really say this: if we compare today's more smarter and healthier people to the people past, can we say they were less human than we were, because we're currently on a higher scale of intelligence? What determines a person's soul? Is a retarded man an animal? And the favourite anti-faith question: what happens faithwise if we encounter aliens far superior to us?
Ultimately, I guess what I'm saying is that to me being human is just being lucky enough in possessing those few more qualities than the average animal.

neoizcool

On the my opinion thing, I've found that when I've posted something that has obviously been my opinion, and not said my opinion, people have yelled at me. Not necessarily either of you, but anyways...
We are not more advanced than people back then, Macleod, because we are not any smarter. True, we have more knowledge, but we learned it. The people back then possessed the capacity to become us and learn our knowledge now, and that's why they did, why they were able to become us.

MacLeod

Ah, but that is not easy to say. I'm not saying somebody who lived in the Baby boomer period or something: we're talking the times where cities were not prevalent and when lives were much simpler. They had the capacity, perhaps without the right education, but were they given the right circumstances I doubt they would perform like us. The gap today alone is ridiculous: I know I did my darned best back when I was little, but almost every kid I see these days is myopic and knows/has learned at least twice the things I learned in that age, while making it all look easy. There is also a tendency for today's people to have higher IQs and weaker health/physique. It's really hard to tell if our genetic code hasn't been adapting itself to the newer lifestyles.
Anyway, there's another point that still hasn't been answered: with the way humanity has changed over the years, potential or not, what determines an average human intelligence or sentience? Maybe we're smarter and had the chance to be smarter in modern times: the folk of the past were fitter and stronger. Can we judge a human by that? What's the use of potentials and possibilities if each different time ends up creating new and unforeseen peoples? Two people of two different times will be different, yes, but then what remains the same enough to call them human? Like I said: is a mentally unsound man an animal?

HomoUniversalis

The choice on what to define as human varies per person. Some do not wish to call Hitler human, and feel behaviour defines humanity, apparantly. To me, human refers to our biological composure.
Some people feel that a person with black skin is not human. Some base this on the fact that their genetical makeup is different enough that they consider them another race. Whether or not we agree with this, and whether these people base fascist ideals on that is irrelevant. Distinction is in the eye of the beholder.

We are animal, mentally unsound or mentally sound. Personally, I have seen a lot of people from this age who have mental capabilities similar or even less than homo habilis, or whatever came before us. Though we are a quite intelligent species, this does not mean that we are all intelligent. Ha, quite the opposite in fact.

Personally, I try not to judge. I try to be as less controversial on making destinctions as possible. Sure, I believe in making the point that racism has nothing to do with fascism, despite what most disctionaries say, but I do not believe (black-skinned) people are much different from caucasians. Frankly, I do not believe these changes are sufficient to determine anything.

I had some discussions a long time ago (or so it feels) with Midas about this. Sure, the makeup of hormones may be somewhat different, but I doubt it is of relevant influence on behaviour, and thus the cause to make an actual destinction between a caucasion and 'black man' in terms of race.

I'm not sure about our changing DNA. Perhaps people are becoming more intelligent, or society is just changing. Whatever it is, I'm certain that the problems we find in the future will be similar to those we find in the past, as it has always been through out history. I do not believe this is such a special time, though I would not have wanted to miss it for the world! :D

Mr U

neoizcool

Yes we are animal, but only if you you look at the biological aspects of ourselves. There is nothing special in our bodies that differentiates us from animals. The only thing that does is our spirit, or soul, which unfortunately cannot be measured scientifically.

HomoUniversalis

Nor can it be measured or proven by logic or any other way of acquiring knowledge. There is not a single shred of proof for the soul, and the more and more behavioralistic research psychologists do, the more we come to the final conclusion that the mind of animals has the exact same properties as that of man, yet in a lesser degree. They too have a sense of self-awareness, and like us, this is untrue. We are not actually aware. We simple feel this way to be able to surpass basic survival instincts.

I shall try to explain this in a more evolutionist way. There are, according to me, two patterns of behaviour in man and animal. There is instinctual behaviour, which is the most basic behaviour there is. If there is food, eat. If there is opponent and you can't run, fight.

Now, this is very basic stuff and you could feed a computer this. When life became more advanced, however, environments became more and more complex and difficult to react to. Some species developed an enhanced way of thinking, able to learn from their environment and detect possible 'traps', and choose a non-instinctual behavioural pattern. Now, this second 'advanced pattern' did not just come into existence. Dinosaurs, for example, were just intelligent enough. Frankly, this has always been the case. Animals have always just been smart enough to do the basic behaviour, and stick to that.

Man got too smart, and our advanced patterns (which I should add are always combinations of previous instinctual patterns, or accidentally found behaviour (I know this is controversial, as I'm saying that all human behaviour is driven, eventually, by instincts. This has large sociological consequences, and consequences I intend to work out in a couple of years when I get my doctorate ;))) became wider and wider. In fact now, using one's instincts might be consider rude, illegal sometimes even.

Though there is no conclusion to draw here, I would like to state that science does not need a soul, just like it does not need God, to make a probably approximation of truth. Isn't that all we can expect?

Mr U

neoizcool

Science does not need a God, correct, unless you're a creationist scientist, which is not an oxymoron, contrary to popular opinion. But creation and evolution are not the point here.
And the statement that there is not a single shred of proof for the soul is not actually true. And if it was, you should have written in your opinion. In any case, that is not what I believe. There is proof for a soul, in everyday life. True, not concrete proof, but when measuring intangible aspects such as this we can't expect any.
Okay, before I go any further, lest I offend someone, the following, until otherwise mentioned, is all my opinion.
There is a fundamental difference between animals and man, despite all this supposed research. We've discussed this in other threads before, but I no more trust an evolutionist reaching a scientific conclusion than I would trust a two year old with matches. Behavioral psychological research by Christian scientists has been conducted that proves there is a soul. I know many psychology professors at my Christian university who firmly believe there is a soul.
Of course the psychologists you're talking about are coming to this conclusion. They're not Christian.
You can no more say there is no soul than you can say there is, but I believe there is far more evidence in favor of a soul, than in favor of no soul. When you look at the world as it is right now there is a clear cut difference betwen man and animal. And no matter how much time goes by, a thousand or a hundred thousand years, man will always be sentient and animals will always not be sentient. We have a soul, and you can' go back in time and say that we developed one, because then you're dealing with the past, which can't be measured in any case.
Thank you for reading, end of my opinion section.

Below Who?

THERE IS NO GOD. IT'S OFFICIAL!

How can any Xian still believe in the existence of God after what happened to Sri Lanka, Thailand, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc...or...wait a second...Was that an act of God to cull the world population? Give it up.

HomoUniversalis

What people believe and what has been proven is different. I don't care whether a Quantum Scientist believes in creationism. Quantum science still has nothing to do with proving creationism.

Behavorism sees the mind as a blackbox, yes, and so it could be seen as leaving the sould in the dark, but research on the other fields of psychology has clearly proven the existence of the soul to not exist. There are still people who believe in a collective link through mankind, but the soul is not proven through psychology, and simply saying it is won't work. Please give me the title of a book that does so, haven't read humour in a long time.

Rather interesting in Christian history is the fact that Christmas was put on the celebration of 'light', when pagans celebrated mid-winter. Celebration of light was explained by the church as celebrating lucifer, also known as Satan. The tsunami may well be a sign of the coming apocolypse or of a second deluge to wash the sin of man away. Guess he didn't like what we did to the place. Welcome to the boards, Below you.

(Xian? Interesting use. I asked another member once whether he had ever been to Xian, as I had a very interesting discussion about age with him, and he told me had visited more places than I had (which he had). Have you been to Xian?)

Mr U

neoizcool

Hmm. Below Who, are you who I think you are? And besides, I think the words in my opinion belonged there.
MY OPINION SECTION
Anyways, psychology research has shown that there is something intangible that we cannot grasp. I've been watcht UMC features, and many highly respected scholars in it affirm that there is something which could be referred to as a soul. Simply because it cannot be measured does not prove it does not exist.
And Below Who, disasters do not prove God does not exists. People have been wondering that for years. In my opinion, these things happen because we live in a fallen world. Adam sinned, and that affected all of nature, so because he sinned, it isn't God's fault.
Besides, God's infinite wisdom cannot be grasped be us. We are physically unable to comprehend why he does things, so we can't hope to understand why he didn't stop the tsunami. Besides, millions of people die everyday. It's not because God isn't loving.
END OF MY OPINION SECTION.

HomoUniversalis

I'm still waiting for you to show me scientific evidence of the soul. I said there was no such evidence, and you did. Frankly, I don't give a damn about what any scientist thinks when I'm looking for scientific evidence. I suggest you do the same.

And your assumptions regarding Below who! are correct. He will be dealt with appropriately, if need be.

Mr U

neoizcool

So it is OBLH, come back from the dead to haunt us. I look forward to seeing this legend in action.
I agree with you, HU. Or would you prefer to start calling you MU? In any case, I agree. There is no scientific evidence to prove that a soul does exist. But, then again, there is no scientific evidence to prove that a soul doesn't exist.
And welcome back, OBLH.

Below Who?

The tsunami may well be a sign of the coming apocolypse or of a second deluge to wash the sin of man away. Guess he didn't like what we did to the place. Welcome to the boards, Below you.

(Xian? Interesting use. I asked another member once whether he had ever been to Xian, as I had a very interesting discussion about age with him, and he told me had visited more places than I had (which he had). Have you been to Xian?)

First of the bat, I'd like to say "Keep your Shangri-la-las on, HU...Do you ask 'people' who 'use' the 'abbreviation' (abbrv.) 'XMAS' if they have been to 'XMAS' and whether there are any nice hotels there? Good, I thought you didn't not isn't asked not that.

Secondly, as I'm running to first base, if the tsunami is a sign of a coming XIAN - OOps! There I go again! - apapapocolypso, then why did god focus his wrath on predominantly Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim nations? The answer is that god didndo nuthin, cos dere ain't no god, and jeebus ain't nuthin but a baby in a crib that ain't worth two carrots to my palatial palace. Boing.

HomoUniversalis

Of course I would agree with you atheist stance. I was merely portraying the implications of believing in an all-powerful deity. Oh, and there are bound to be some Christians there too. They're everywhere, or so they claim.

And no, I would not ask someone whether he had gone to XMAS if he used that abbreviation. Xian, however, is a not so often used abbreviation, and, indeed a pretty large city. As you yourself are a well-traveled man, or so I heard, I wondered whether you had indeed been to Xian. It might just make your posts remotely interesting :).

And don't forget, I still love you!

Mr U

Below Who?

And don't forget, I still love you!

Love is a many splendid thing, Goethe...Those sentiments, coming from you, mean the world...

"That is the true season of love, when we believe that we alone can love, that no one could ever have loved so before us, and that no one will love in the same way after us."

As for Xian...sadly, I have yet to visit...I never say never, but I just said it twice, so maybe I won't ever go there...

HomoUniversalis

I feel pale, than, in comparison, for I shame in sight of love and confess that I dare make no such claim. For how could I say to all the ages of the world that the love I felt and the love I feel is beyond anything ever felt on this earth. Though my eyes should be blinded by love, I find only arrogance down the path Goethe describes.

Dear OBLh, what do you propose I do?

An interested reader.

Helios

The more I ponder God's omnisciency the more creation sounds like a sack of crap. He knows everything past,present,and future so why create anything at all? An entity that knows all cant possibly be entertained by us lowly humans. The only way creation makes any sense is if God were not all-knowing, because then he might actually have a reason for creation of the universe.

God created man in his image, and then damns them for being less that what he created them to be. God knew that Adam that would take the fruit from the tree when he created him (being the omniscient all-knowing entity that he is). Now after he sets up a conspiracy, like a police officer intentionally planting cocaine in a person's car to frame him, God can now be blameless for any atrocities he inflicts on man.

AlmightyOne

What a coincidence, I mean within the past two weeks my history 10 class has been looking into the beginning of Christianity.
I've learned quite a few things within those two weeks and what I'm about to tell you I hope you learn from as well.

Jesus started traveling through Galilee and Judea from about A.D. 30 to about A.D. 33, preaching and winning desciples (Followers) along the way.
Now as we all know the Jews thought Jesus was there messiah or deliverer chosen by God.
This made him very trust worthy of many Jews but this made the Romans very upset as they knew this Jesus could ruin their lives.

Then the year A.D. 33 Jesus was arrested by the Romans and was crusified for being a political rebel.
Truthfuly the death Jesus recieved was nothing special but any death a man would recieve back in those days by the romans. So those of you who thought the death Jesus had was special (me too.) are wrong.

Because of all that had happened Jesus soon raised from the death on the cross (Easter Sunday.) and this proved to many people that Jesus really was a messiah and sent from the Lord almighty.
Later a believer of the messiah Jesus a covert named Paul went to many places spreading the religion christianity. Soon Christianity would spread to places such as the Mediterranean along with Judaism around the years A.D. 200 to A.D. 300.
From that day forth those religions would flourish around the world and grow to many other religious beliefs that are today the year 2005 and so forth.

NMN

That's not even accurate information. Bah.
So provide us with more accurate information, please :)

AlmightyOne

Yes please do Shirley what information do you have to disprove or even show that my info is even a little wrong?

NMN

Fine. I'll be happy to disprove AO's Religion textbook.

First off, the Bible says Jesus was around 33-34 when he was crucified, in AD 33-34. Not likely, as the AD calendar is off by 4 years. AD 0 is supposedly the year of Jesus' birth, but in reality he wasn't born until about AD 4. Therefore, if he was 33-34 when crucified, he couldn't have been crucified in AD 33-34.

Modern history uses the new terms BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era).

Jews did not believe Jesus was there messiah. Jews are still waiting for their "messiah". Ask FYM about that. Most Jews were extremely skeptical about Jesus' preaching. The Pharacies are proof of that. But the Bible makes it ambiguous as to who were real prosecutors of Christ.

Jesus was crucified with two other people. While crucifixion seems naaaaasty, it was commonplace during his time period, so AO was right there. It is precisely for the reason that he was crucified with only two other people that his name was not scribed in Roman records, for they only took a head count like that when they hung out hundreds of guys at a time.

But, alas, the history ends there with AO's post. All the rest is speculaton. Only the DISCIPLES said Jesus rose from the dead, and that's highly uncredible. The "Lord Almighty" is not kosher anymore in history books, because of the seperation of church and state, that is, of course, you are studying objective history.

The disciples didn't write any of the letters. The first letters were written some 80 years after Jesus' death, and the authors were students of the disciples. The first version of the bible didn't come around until 300ish AD when the Roman Emperor Constantine delegated Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire.

AO, are you going to a private or public school?

ThereIsNoMatrix

Question: Might as well stir some discussion on the boards... How can an omnipotent, omniscient being co-exist with free will? It's taught in Christianity, at least, that God is all-powerful and all-knowing, yet we have free will. This is a paradox. If God knows everything, including the future, and is never wrong, then how can we have free will? I have a choice of making myself a sandwich at home for lunch or going out to McDonald's. If God KNOWS that I'm going to go to McDonald's, and he is NEVER wrong, then I CANNOT choose to make myself a sandwich. While he's not holding a gun to my head, making me choose to go to McDonald's, I cannot make any other choice simply by the mere fact that he foresaw what I would do and is always right.

I stumped the deacon at our big ghey religion retreat with this one. Good times.

HomoUniversalis

Actually, you did not, TINM. According to your 'example', you see, you are presuming God knows that you will be going to McDonalds. This implies that he has no knowledge of you going to each lunch home. God knows all, so he knows you will go to McDonalds and he knows that you will make your lunch home.

'Knowing everything' is paradoxial, as you would know opposite facts. If the bible stated God knew only the truth, than indeed, what you say would be correct. In fact, if God does indeed exist, it is most likely he knows only the truth, only good. This does not change that his existance is most unlikely.

ThereIsNoMatrix

FUCK. HU, check your PM's please.

Not quite sure I understand what you're getting at there. According to Christianity, at least, God knows everything. How, exactly, would knowing everything be paradoxal? You would simply know the 'truth,' along with that which is 'false,' or the negation of the truth. So God (I'm assuming there is a God) would know that we need to eat, would know that there are several ways of accomplishing this (for ease, either making a sandwich or going to McDonald's), and would know which one of these methods I am going to perform today. Sure, he has no knowledge of me making a sandwich on this particular day, but that doesn't mean he's not aware of the alternative methods I had at my disposal to satisfy my hunger.

At any rate, I'm right. Omniscient God + Free Will = DNE (Does Not Exist).

HomoUniversalis

If indeed God is omniscient, yes. However, I was arguiging that omniscience is impossible. If I were omniscient, I would not know the truth. I would know everything. I would know that you are male, but I would also know you are female. I would know everything, which is impossible, as I would know opposing facts. God's omniscience means that he is actually as vulnerable as us. Since he knows everything, he has no idea what is truth, and what is not, and also, what is good and what is evil. In fact, because he knows everything he can not even make the distinction between real and unreal, and can't even know whether he himself is real, because he knows that he exists, and that he does not exist.

Rather, I believe, that if Christianity is 'right' and God does exist, he merely knows the truth. He knows what facts are and what facts are not going to happen. In this scenario, you are correct, TINM, and we do not have a free will. In the case of God being omniscience, our existence in being doubted, let alone our free will, lol.

Ah, don't worry about the post, I have plenty of other complete ones left :D.

Mr U

Arsetron

Rather, I believe, that if Christianity is 'right' and God does exist, he merely knows the truth.

then that means god is bhudda.. right goethe?

HomoUniversalis

I was reasoning from a Christian point of view, meaning that I was referring to the Christian God, not Buddha. Although the Buddhistic religion is an interesting field, and worthy of discussion, it is not the topic of this thread, which has been conveniently named, Christianiy Discussion.

What I was aiming at, was rather that the omniscient Christian God is impossible, and more importantly, unlikely. More likely, is a God that knows the truth, whom which some would call, a male God ;). In that perspective, which is not entirely the Christian God, but the 'modern adaptation of the Christian God', TINM's dilemma is true, and there is no free will. However, his scenario does not handle from the perspective of an omniscient view, as that excludes perspective, as God would know perspective does not exist, and coupled with his omnipotence, it would in fact not exist.

That was the flaw I tried to point out :).

Mr U

Below Who?

Dear OBLh, what do you propose I do?

First you should ponder this...'It is a wise student that questions his master.'

After completing the first task you should buy some new shoes, enroll in a belly-dancing troupe and go forth and seek fame and fortune around the world.

As for Xianity, everything is so simple...Xianity is belief system based on contradictions, therefore whatever god says, he means the opposite and if he says the opposite then he actually means the opposite to that too. Simple, simple, simple...

HomoUniversalis

Indeed, an interesting answer, since Christ himself was so (and remains so) undoubted amongst his followers and students. If what you say is indeed true, that a wise student should question his master, many Christians, in fact almost all Christians are not wise.

That may be the conclusion the person you referred to wanted us, the reader, to make. Still, however, I doubt directly opposing 'Xianity' will make much of a difference. True, they oppose the creation of an 'Übermensch', as they more approximate the 'last man', however I do not feel change will come as quickly through kicking as it would through negotiation and recruitment within Xian ranks. Ergo, I believe, if indeed converting the world population and teaching them, and instructing them in Nietzsche's teachings, and encouraging them to doubt Nietzsche's teachings and question Nietzsche's teachings, we would much better walk the path of ease, and quiet.

Do you have more of a clue, dear Ou Be Lo hoo?

Mr U

DonDaddy

"Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal." - Tolstoy

ThereIsNoMatrix

Perhaps it's because I'm not in an intelligent mood right now, but I'm still not getting this, HU. Why would he know that I'm both male and female? I have a dick, so I must not be a chick. Does this mean that I'm also a hermaphrodite? And a sheep, lizard, and ferret all at the same time? The logic behind that is not clicking.

HomoUniversalis

Imagine you knew everything. You would know that person A is male. However, as you know everything, you also know that person A is female. Although only one can be true, you know everything as true and everything as false. So, you would not truly know whether Person A is male or female, because you know all the arguments/proof to support either fact.

The same goes for every fact. If god is indeed all-knowing, his knowledge applies to everything, and the opposite facts of everything. Indeed, omniscience is blinding, as you are no longer able to make any distinction. Truth, false, life, death, you know everything about it, but you also know that everything you know is factuallty opposed by the opposites.

One part of you knows that death is the end to life, while another part of you knows that life is the end of death. Omniscience is a paradox.

Tolstoy was a foolish Christian. The argument of 'doubting one's master' applies as much to him as it applies to every blinded religious person. I would feel attacked to if I blindly believed in the people I call masters.

Mr U

DonDaddy

I am not a god person, but what the hell....

God, if a being is worthy of that title, is above paradox. God can make square circles. God can make matter out of nothing. God made the rules, god can unmake the rules.

In a foolish attempt to make something very simple very comlicated you are losing sight of the basic principals. As I said, if a being is worthy of the title god then that being will not only know everything but have the ability to understand that knowledge. Not much of a supreme being if god couldnt.

Now, as for your big kick of 'doubting ones master' that you enjoy ranting about, well...duh. Regardless of what beliefes anybody holds they need to question them, and more impoartantly, the REASON for having them.

Helios

The same goes for every fact. If god is indeed all-knowing, his knowledge applies to everything, and the opposite facts of everything. Indeed, omniscience is blinding, as you are no longer able to make any distinction. Truth, false, life, death, you know everything about it, but you also know that everything you know is factuallty opposed by the opposites.

There are no "facts" for an all powerful being, for he is above them. Life,death opposites? hardly, for him they are one and the same. He above them to a point to where if he makes a distinction he would immediately not exist.

God is the most perfect, most powerful being imaginable. However it is possible to concieve of two types of God. The first God, we imagine does not exist. The second God we imagine actually does exist and can perform miracles and all that hoopla. Obviously the second God (who exists) is more powerful and more perfect than the first God (who does not exist).

Therefore, the second God is the one who fits the definition. The first God (who does not exist) is the weaker and less perfect than the second God, therefore does not fit the definition of God. Hence God must exist. In other words, if we define God as "that being nothing nothing greater than which can be concieved", then God must exist because if he didnt its possible to concieve of a much greater God who does exist.

The proof of God by logic alone.

HomoUniversalis

God is the most perfect, most powerful being imaginable. However it is possible to concieve of two types of God. The first God, we imagine does not exist. The second God we imagine actually does exist and can perform miracles and all that hoopla. Obviously the second God (who exists) is more powerful and more perfect than the first God (who does not exist).

Therefore, the second God is the one who fits the definition. The first God (who does not exist) is the weaker and less perfect than the second God, therefore does not fit the definition of God. Hence God must exist. In other words, if we define God as "that being nothing nothing greater than which can be concieved", then God must exist because if he didnt its possible to concieve of a much greater God who does exist.

The proof of God by logic alone.

What? What you are saying here has nothing to do with logic. It is nonsense poored into a sentence attempting to look like a logical deducation. It fails, horribly, however. The mere fact that the word 'God' exists, does not mean that what it refers to exists.

If I create the word 'blxphish', which is an entity who constantly gives me blowjobs, and I make two of them, one existing and the other not, the mere fact that because it is constantly giving blowjobs won't mean that it exists.

The mere existence of a word or idea does not mean that it's realistic counterpart exists. That much has been known since Plato.

On the matter of Cogito ergo sum being bullshit, it is in fact far more logical than what you put up there. In fact, it is logic, and it is completely correct. Cogito ergo sum, I think, thus I am, means that because there is some process happening allowing me to think, there must be something in existence to create that process, and that is me.

How else do we define 'I', than that which allows us to 'do' things?

Now, as a whole picture, God has not been proven. Ever. Not by Logic, not by science, not by any way acceptable to anyone but a few people wearing thick planks in front of their heads.

Oh, and it's Goethe, not Goeth.

Mr U

Helios

It is logic actually, of the ontological type to be precise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument Oh and I never said the 'word' God had to do with anything. My computer for example quite clearly exists, but if it didnt have a name would it be any less of a reality? no.

1) God is the greatest possible being and thus posesses all perfections.
2) Existence is a perfection.
3) God exists.

On the matter of Cogito ergo sum being bullshit, it is in fact far more logical than what you put up there. In fact, it is logic, and it is completely correct. Cogito ergo sum, I think, thus I am, means that because there is some process happening allowing me to think, there must be something in existence to create that process, and that is me.

How else do we define 'I', than that which allows us to 'do' things?

Suppose you exist in a matrix but there is no pod person trasnmitting/recieving brain signals. You are nothing but bits of code, you think of yourself as the same but you couldnt be anymore clueless of your actual situation. Is this real? no the only thing that does exist is code that runs your program. You are about as "real" as the thought of God. Therfore Cogito Ergo Sum does not prove your existence.

DonDaddy

1) God is the greatest possible being and thus posesses all perfections.

This is an assumption at best. It is easy to attempt proving something based on characteristics that are simply given to an object with no basis. Not to mention this would also mean that god possess perfect evil. This tends to be contrary to what god fearing people like to think.

2) Existence is a perfection.

Qualify this. What makes existence a perfection?

3) God exists.

This is Non Sequitur. Of the thousand or so arguements I have heard for the existance of god this is near the bottom of being effective.

You are about as "real" as the thought of God.

Ignorance is bliss. God can no more be touched or talked to or felt than that program. This is actually a better agruement against some absentee landlord than for.

HomoUniversalis

I am quite aware of the ontological argument, but just because the word 'logic' is in it, does not mean it has anything to do with logic. I am a reductionist, and my psychology teacher, a psychiatrist, and an antologists disagrees with me. We have had a debate on this, but we end up believing in seperate things.

And that's exactly that. If you believe God exists, there is indeed proof that he exists, but without this faith, God does not exist. Neitzsche said that because no one really believed in him any more, he died.

Suppose you exist in a matrix but there is no pod person trasnmitting/recieving brain signals. You are nothing but bits of code, you think of yourself as the same but you couldnt be anymore clueless of your actual situation. Is this real? no the only thing that does exist is code that runs your program. You are about as "real" as the thought of God. Therfore Cogito Ergo Sum does not prove your existence.

Does exist is the code that runs your program? Exactly! If you do know so much about 5th dimensions and the string theory, you should know that energy and stuff is just information. We are code, applied to strings. Nothing more, nothing less. Your argument does not disprove Cogito Ergo Sum, as you do not disprove the existence of the code that supports my line of thinking, nor do you disprove the existence of anything else that might support my line of thinking. Cogito Ergo Sum remains valid, and remains a valid tool to prove the existence of something that is executing my thought, which also happens in your 'matrix' case.

I knew I picked the wrong math set, TheDon. All I got at Highschool was 'premisse major' and mineur. I'm catching up on basic logic, though :).

Mr U

Helios

I am quite aware of the ontological argument, but just because the word 'logic' is in it, does not mean it has anything to do with logic.

As you know logic is reasoning, and as you should also know there is more than just a few forms of reasoning. In essence logic is nothing more than glorified opinions, the ontological "logic" is nothing more than the opinion of an archbishop from Canterbury. And nearly a millenium later it still remains the most sophisticated "proof" of God.

Does exist is the code that runs your program? Exactly! If you do know so much about 5th dimensions and the string theory, you should know that energy and stuff is just information. We are code, applied to strings. Nothing more, nothing less. Your argument does not disprove Cogito Ergo Sum, as you do not disprove the existence of the code that supports my line of thinking, nor do you disprove the existence of anything else that might support my line of thinking. Cogito Ergo Sum remains valid, and remains a valid tool to prove the existence of something that is executing my thought, which also happens in your 'matrix' case.

Cognito Ergo Sum makes a few too many assumptions and so are you. You claim that something (ex:a matrix) is executing "your" thought. You're definitely not in existence because you think, because that is assuming that the thoughts are yours. If something else is generating your thoughts then the thoughts are no longer yours. Therfore Cognito Ergo sum is disproven because if something else is generating "your" thoughts then you dont actually exist, which is the whole point behind "I think, therfore I am.

This is an assumption at best. It is easy to attempt proving something based on characteristics that are simply given to an object with no basis. Not to mention this would also mean that god possess perfect evil. This tends to be contrary to what god fearing people like to think.

That is assuming there are those who believe 'perfect evil' is part of their perfect god. In which case it would'nt be God it would be Satan. As some believe since all things originated from God then everything is a part of him, thus perfect evil(Satan) is apart of God.

Qualify this. What makes existence a perfection?

Think of it this way of having a dream of your idea of a perfect life, but is this perfect? No because it is not real. If it were to become reality then it would be perfection, thus this new existence is perfect.

Though all perfection is opinion, but as a bishop once said "God is all things, for all people".

This is Non Sequitur. Of the thousand or so arguements I have heard for the existance of god this is near the bottom of being effective.

You also took it out of context, and of course by itself its useless. (but thats stating the obvious)

HomoUniversalis

Cogito Ergo Sum is not flawed. What you are saying is that when a program executes a line of coding that makes me thing, I don't exist. But I do! I do exist in that very code.

What is my body but a correct allignment of cells/molecules/atoms/strings? It's all information. Very complex information, probably more complex than that string of code, but it's still information. Humans are just information.

Imagine that we create a mega-super-duper-huper-computer. Imagine we start inputting data about our universe (in binary :P). We do this with everything, with planets, with Earth, and with people. We implement every atom of the human body. What we get is a computer where I will actually exist. As they have implemented my body and all of my neural patterns, the world around me will act as it would normally, and I will act as I would normally. However, I am mere data.

Does that mean I do no longer exist? No! I exist in the coding. Cogito Ergo Sum is an argument that because something is thinking something exists. 'I' is merely a description of what is doing that thinking.

In the matrix simulation, one could say that if it produces my line of thought, it is I. Alternatively, one could say that the lines of coding (actually creating my thought) is I.

In the 'real world', how do we define 'I'? Is I my whole body, or is I my brains? Some say it may be the soul, but I don't believe in it, and you probably don't either.

I disagree with your view on logic. Logic is a way of proof, denying that is nonsense gathered by some ontological (yes, sadly these people exist) 'scientists'. Logic is the very base column of science, nothing else. Logic are very simple rules that can be applied to any line of thought, or any information to determine truth from false, on a base level or omniscient level.

In any case, Cogito Ergo Sum is completely correct. Descartes based false logic on this, but because I think, something is producing that thought, and that something is I.

Mr U

Snoopy

I believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

-Snoopy

DonDaddy

I believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

-Snoopy

Thanks for the contribution. That really moved the discussion forawrd.

HomoUniversalis

A commonly made mistake. I still remember the days, when I was a wee lad that I was served Sprite when asking for Spirits.

His next revelation suggest some revelation preceding this mindless chatter. Please edit and correct your post. :P

Mr U

Novus

A ways back TINM said something about God and free will.
Well, if God is omniscient, he knows you're going to do something, but that doesn't remove you from the freedom of choosing what to do. It's like M2: "You didn't come here to make the choice. You already made it." Everything I'm doing as I'm typing this I've already done. I'm coming along to understand why I did it. I made the choice a long time ago, I made it freely. In God's eyes I've already made it. I'm just here to understand why.

HomoUniversalis

The eyes of the Oracle are a metaphor for complete access to the matrix. I symbolised this shortly in my fanfic of the Matrix Reviewed, where the main character shortly saw what the Illuminati saw, which was, basically, what the Oracle saw.

Because everything in the matrix is controllable, chaos theory does not apply. It is a system of complete control, and thus the only thing preventing perfection in this world is human 'choice'. This does not symbolise God's omniscience, because the Matrix does not know what goes on outside of the matrix. The Oracle is thus limited, and can not know the full truth. She can only make estimated guesses on what is going to happen, but can not see beyond the end, indeed, because she just doesn't know what will happen when the matrix will malfunction. It's much like death, we don't know what will happen either. The Oracle we learn, however, is an enlightened being. She does not fear the unknown like the Architect. She does not fear change.
In any case, the choices Neo makes have already been made, because he is the result of a deterministic universe. The only things that influence him beyond the matrix have formed these choices in his mind. The choices have already been made, but not truly by him.
Yes, he is there to walk the path, to understand him, if he so wishes. When certain things have been set in motion, certain 'choices' have been made, certain factors made certain, more of the future becomes clear and certain. Where first was a pluriformity of possibilities, now there is near certainty about the path. The Oracle and the architect both know already what is going to happen before Neo enters the architects room. The architect beautifully shows all the possible reactions on the screen, which to the end of the conversation become more uniform. This does not actually mean that the options in the conversations become less towards the end. It symbolises the diversity in the beginning, and the certainty in the ending.
The freedom of choice is nonsense. You do not have choice. You are a result of instincts and learned behaviour. These two conspire to your behaviour.
The Merovingian, trafficker of information is probably the most truthful character in the game, because he is so pure. He is probably the most human character in the movie, or at least, he resembles yours truly more than any other character. You see, the Merovingian is not interested in change, or in the path of the one. He is interested in himself, at enjoying himself. He does not care whether or not the One or the viewer learns anything about the truth nature of the universe of the matrix. He is truthful when he speaks about causality, and takes great enjoyment in the fact that he disagrees with Neo on this point, because he knows he is right.

By the way, if God is omniscient, you can't make a free choice, because he already knew, before you existed what choice you were going to make, and thus it is impossible for you to make a different one.

Mr U

veradis

I see what you're saying, HU, but I don't think that the matrix is a controlled system. The Architect knowingly allowed the anomaly to exist and allowed for the possibility to escape from the matrix, to be unplugged. He had to do this in order to make it work; as humans the 'perfect' system to control us necessitates a bit of imperfection. A small loophole like this will allow chaos theory to apply, and the destruction of the matrix (overtaken by smith) was inevitable.

About the whole choice thing- it's been done to death, and I think I've posted this link about 897 times, but this is what I wrote about it back in April: Clicky! (http://www.matrixmania.com/showthread.php?t=12379)

HomoUniversalis

We made choices before our birth? Whatever makes you think that? Bible texts, please? Scientific evidence, please? The only thing I find less reliable than the Bible is a christian theory.

Wait.. You don't think the matrix is a controlled system, while the Oracle clearly states that there is a program for the wind, a program for the birds, a program for everything. Because she has (read-)access to everything, even the programming of the Merovingian, she sees and knows all that happens in the Matrix, as I have pointed out. This explains the Merovingian's lust for it, and Smith's maniacal laughter. Suddenly he knows everything that happens in the Matrix, and he can see all.

Why do the Agents want the exiles dead? Have you ever even considered this? The exiles are no longer under control of the system. Though the Oracle can still see what happens, the system does not control the Oracle. She is a, kind of, free agent in the system. The system wants to control everything, know everything, so that the anomoly can be steered in the direction of the will of the machines. After all, there are two doors, and the machines attempt to twist everything in such a way that he picks the door to his right. His love for trinity, however, something we learn the other anomolies never had (love), we find, has been seen and detected by the Oracle, and thus she knows the lines of events that will lead to the ultimate change.

While the system is desperately trying to correct everything, trying to make sure he picks the right door, the Oracle has seen that the love for trinity will alter his choice to the left, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop him.

Smith was a result of Neo's choices (choices not made by him, but by certain factors, a strong one being Trinity). Because Neo left the Matrix, Smith could multiply, and went out of control. After all, Smith is the negative of Neo, and the destruction of both is required to balance the famous equation.

Why did Neo go to the machine city? Because he knew their despiration. Smith went into the real world, and it would only be a matter of time before he went into the machineworld, and caused mayhem there. The Oracle knew this, and because she gave Neo her sight, basically her access, he knows all this, and he decides to go there, to confront the machines, to forge a peace, save zion, and than to destroy Smith.

By the way, concerning your essay, please. If I posted a link to some of my essays someone brought up a point about religion, choice, the answer to life, the matrix, or various of the other subjects, I wouldn't be posting much. If you aren't interested in discussing a topic, because you have already done so, don't reply.

Mr U