It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does the Central Limit Theorem prove a Creator/Deity?

page: 16
8
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


The problem is, you can't use the bible to prove a god as it is a work of man, written by man. So let's ignore that for now, it's moot because it's not the only supposed divine source of knowledge and as they can't all be true, they then must all be false.

I've already covered the moral argument earlier with John, and I believe others chimed in as well. There is no inherent human ability to discern right from wrong. What is right for one society does not hold equally true for another society and those virtues and morals can, do and have changed over the course of human history.

The watch maker argument has been refuted many times over, look it up, I'm not going to repeat something that most intelligent creationists/IDist don't even use as an argument anymore.

The perfect argument has already been covered as well. Yes, perfect for life on our planet, but this is OUR planet. Life on other planets would be more suited to those planets whereas we would perish. The perfect earth argument just doesn't hold up at all.

While man has a concept of the biblical god, this has never held true throughout history. There have been thousands of gods and not all of them took human form, nor were all of them characteristic of human qualities, there was even a time when the planets were worshiped as gods. Now, understandably SOME primitive cultures today do have a concept of god like entities or worship animalistic gods or elemental gods, none however have a concept of the biblical god upon initial discovery of the tribe.


(2) In every case, this monotheistic belief predated other forms of worship or beliefs and heathenistic practices. This is true the world over on every continent.


This was worth quoting! This is just plain false and demonstratively so through archeological evidence. The rest of the passage after this point is just rubbish as it follows an obvious out right lie!




posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
.......The rest of the passage after this point is just rubbish as it follows an obvious out right lie!




LIE? Thats hyperbole right?

OT



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Everything after that quoted passage is based upon the false premise that monotheism came first, this is demonstratively not true, unless we want to argue that current archeological and ancient recorded history is wrong.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by OldThinker
 


The problem is, you can't use the bible to prove a god as it is a work of man, written by man. So let's ignore that for now, it's moot because it's not the only supposed divine source of knowledge and as they can't all be true, they then must all be false.....



Why is the Bible unreliable in your eyes?


The Bible is the only Book I know of that can give details of ancient civilisations where archeologists can look into and actually find the evidence, we may not find the Tower of Babel or the Garden of Eden but we know they are based in Iraq. Then you have the prophecy of the Stars link with the constellations.

QUOTE:
There are 12 major constellations. Their modern names, which tell us nothing of their original meanings, are in parenthesis. Each major constellation has three other constellations associated with it which modify or complete its meaning. They are called decans. Because of space, I will list only the major signs.

The Incarnate Son (Virgo) Isaiah 7:14
The Redeemer (Libra) 1 Cor. 6:20
The Sufferer (Scorpio) 1 Cor. 15:55-56
The Conqueror (Sagittarius) Rev. 6:2
The Sacrifice (Capricornus) Romans 3:25
The Living Water (Aquarius) John 7:38
The Liberator (Pisces) Gen. 48:19; Mark 1:17
The Crowned Lamb (Aries) Rev. 5:6
The Judge (Taurus) John 5:22
The King (Gemini) Romans 1:3
The Protector (Cancer) Isaiah 4:5-6
The Victor (Leo) Rev. 5:5

In different books these are all linked over the whole span of the putting together of the Bible plus over 300 Old Testament prophecies of the Bible about Jesus.
source thetimelord post on ats... here: www.abovetopsecret.com...


thoughts?

OT



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by OldThinker
 


The problem is, you can't use the bible to prove a god as it is a work of man, written by man. So let's ignore that for now, it's moot because it's not the only supposed divine source of knowledge and as they can't all be true, they then must all be false.

......


Part two, why do you think it is not a good source?

Remember, Back to the Future and the Delorean ???? Here's a non-religious scenario for you, to prove/infere the Bible is reliable, and should be considered...


Imagine if you were Micheal J Fox and someone asked you to go to five (only 5) different time zones/geographical areas and meet one person in each time zone/area and ask them, "please write a book about God, I'll be back in 5 years to collect it."

Five years later you went and picked up the five books. Logically speaking what are the chances those five books would agree? What are the chances those five books would build upon one another? What are the chances you could make any semblance out of them...to live by or the like? Snowballs in your know where, right?

Different people! Different cultures! Difference Time frames! Different Premises! Different World view! etc...

Logically speaking you would have five unconnected books with five different perspectives, right?

Well, the Bible (torah, prophets, gospels, epistles, revelation) are not 5 books by five authors, but 66 books by 40 authors...who did not know one another, did not live in the same town, did not live in the same time line...authors were of every occupation and financial status........yet......the Bible is a one-themed, continuing story.

Doesn't prove it God's Word yet though...just something that might warrant another look.

Point 2 ---- Here's an undisputable fact (I believe at least after examining) Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be God, his followers claimed He claimed to be God...and...non Christian journalist (such as Josephus) claimed He claimed he was God. Doesn't appear here to be different agendas going on. He said it, His followers said He said it, third parties said He said it and even his enemies said He said it (Sanhedrin, Pharisees, etc)

SO...with all that said...we have only two LOGICAL outcomes. No religious double-talk here) Either you BELIEVE or you REJECT. Really no other options right? If you believe, then to you HE IS LORD. If you REJECT there are really only two options for you.

1) JC knew he wasn't telling the truth, therefore he would be A LIAR

2) JC didn't know he wasn't telling the truth, therefore he would be A LUNATIC.

That's the only three logical outcomes...LIAR, LUNATIC.........or.......LORD. There is no room for him being a good guy and all, no room for him being a prophet as every other religion on the face of the earth calls him.

Because prophets don't lie and they are not usually in psych wards.

Point 3 ---- Most direct followers were killed for believing in JC. If they had stole his body and the Romans excused, at least one of them would have squilled just before their execution right? I would have...

but NO-All these ordinary folks were willing to die for what they saw…



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I'm not sure where your getting your history lessons, but the analogy is poor. The bible wasn't written in five years, there are more books to the bible that so called religious leaders decided weren't "fit" for our version of the bible. To top that all off there is no evidence of a god just because a book says he exists. Nor were all the different books of the bible written by different cultures with different religious beliefs. There are people today who actually believe they are jesus or even claim to be god. We call them lunatics. Is one lunatic more right than another lunatic?

I mean, now your just getting ridiculous.

[EDIT TO ADD]

Before jesus the biblical people were the jewish people. Jesus was not the messiah because he did not fulfill the all the prophecies, his failure to do so are why the jewish are still jewish and not christians.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Why is the Bible unreliable in your eyes?


Because it is. And I don't just mean the "science in the bible" that we argued about the other week. As a historic record, it disagrees with actual history and even with it's own accounts.


the Bible is a one-themed, continuing story.

No it's not. At times it's not even a narrative. The depiction of God changed astoundingly from New to Old, and at times refers to it's self as "we".


Christian journalist (such as Josephus) claimed He claimed he was God

The one and only mention of Jesus (and not some christ as there were many) is argued by scholars as an interpolation. There is very very little in the way of reports of jesus especially compared to the other people who also claimed to be god.


Doesn't appear here to be different agendas going on. He said it, His followers said He said it, third parties said He said it and even his enemies said He said it (Sanhedrin, Pharisees, etc)

And yet none of the authors who wrote the references to Jesus ever claimed to have met him, most were written well after the time. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not even written by the people whos' names are on the books.


but NO-All these ordinary folks were willing to die for what they saw…


September

Eleventh

Two thousand and one

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
......


but NO-All these ordinary folks were willing to die for what they saw…


September

Eleventh

Two thousand and one



no.....apples and oranges.....

terrorists kill and are willing to die while killing....


followers of TLJC were told to "deny" or we will kill you, they remained non-violent...like MLK...are you really ready to throw him in as a terrorits now? Nope....

I do not like "redirecting you" but you are adversarial, so I must, sorry friend...

OT



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I'm not sure where your getting your history lessons, but the analogy is poor. The bible wasn't written in five years.....



Oh well....????????

Please go back and re-read the post....

5 books, 5 years...would they agree? Of course not, they would not...

The scriptures are 66 books, 40 authors....which do agree.

OT

You should re-read it, ok?



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Well, I always thought it was interesting that the ancient people could keep tax records and letters home to mom and inventory records.

But gee... you know, they just didn't find Jesus that important, you know with his miracles and all.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Yes, and out of all those differing books that are considered cannon they were all from people who held the same belief in one god. What your NOT mentioning *possibly on purpose* is that there are MORE books than that which are not included because they don't agree and yet are held by there authors as divined by god just as much as the other books. Learn your history or stop lying to me.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Well you say that the followers of Jesus were willing to die in his name.

So are the terrorists and car bombers. The 'willing to die' part scares me. No one should be willing to die for a faith, willing to die for a belief without evidence.

The terrorists aren't different, they're just worse.

And it's not as if these christians were the only people in the world prepared to die for their faith. That kind of bold certainty does not indicate truth, just idiocy.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Well you say that the followers of Jesus were willing to die in his name.

So are the terrorists and car bombers. The 'willing to die' part scares me. No one should be willing to die for a faith, willing to die for a belief without evidence.

The terrorists aren't different, they're just worse......


Terrorists=willing to die WHILE killing
Christians=willing to die for TLJC

big difference!!!!!

Scares OT too....and it shows their committment to what they saw as true....


remember....

Though given humbly, Peter’s appeal had great weight. It came from one who was “a witness of Christ’s sufferings….” Peter had been with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry to the end. He had witnessed firsthand Jesus’ life as a suffering servant for his people, especially his crucifixion and death (Ac 1:21-22; Lk 24:46-48). He saw how Christ loved God’s sheep so much that he shed his blood on the cross for them. When he testified to Christ’s suffering, he did so with deep spiritual meaning. Furthermore, the word “witness” means “martyr” in Greek (martys). Peter was willing to give his life to testify about Christ, believing that he would also share in his glory.ex] link: northwesternubf.org...

OT

Are you guys still with me?

[edit on 24-9-2009 by OldThinker]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Man, are you a holocaust denier or what! That statement is like ignoring the one main reason that christianity and monotheism is at the top of the religious food chain today!



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
........Learn your history or stop lying to me.



"....lying....."

Friend, please rest assured....

OT will never accuse you of LYING to me...never.


As I disagree with you, I will ALWAYS be respectful...there's a record of a few thousands posts from me, to back it up?

I hope to recieve an apology


OT's honored to be discussing this with you....



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Well you say that the followers of Jesus were willing to die in his name.

So are the terrorists and car bombers. The 'willing to die' part scares me. No one should be willing to die for a faith, willing to die for a belief without evidence. ....



That's the kicker my young scholar....they didn't need FAITH....in fact that was irrelevent for them....

WHY?

Because they SAW firsthand....

Also have you seen/read/observed how the fisherman Peter died? It will shock you....look it up, ok?

OT



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Man, are you a holocaust denier or what! That statement is like ignoring the one main reason that christianity and monotheism is at the top of the religious food chain today!



nah, the "atop of the food chain" status would be because of AN EMPTY TOMB friend

OldThinker



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Man, are you a holocaust denier or what! .....



OKKKKKK.....??????

one more time sirnex?

OT fails to see the connection?

I am willing to, btw....please share.

OT



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I only see two possibilities here. You either don't know your history or you subscribe to the lies as sourced from your posts. It could be possible that you don't know your history and didn't realize what you sourced are lies.

But, if you subscribe to historical and archeological evidence, but still push your sources as facts, then you are yourself perpetuating a lie making you no worse than the lie itself.

I'm sorry you don't like hearing that, but it stands as is until further input is received on your part.

Did you realize that your sources regarding monotheism were just out right bold faced lies and do not agree with archeological evidence or the recorded history of the ancient peoples? There is no record of monotheism appearing first and then those bastard polytheists deciding to piss god off. It's BS in the purest sense of BS and I can get very testy when people push that garbage as if it's a fact. There is just too much evidence against that retarded idea.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 



Terrorists=willing to die WHILE killing


History Lesson


The Crusades were a series of religiously-sanctioned military campaigns waged by much of Latin Christian Europe, particularly the Franks of France and the Holy Roman Empire. The specific crusades to restore Christian control of the Holy Land were fought over a period of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291. Other campaigns in Spain and Eastern Europe continued into the 15th century. The Crusades were fought mainly against Muslims, although campaigns were also waged against pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the popes.[1] Crusaders took vows and were granted penance for past sins, often called an indulgence.


Not much different then your definition of a terrorist, or did you also not know about this?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join