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.

 

Proofs Of God(s)/ Reasons To Believe In One

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


It condones slavery throughout the Bible and then sets out guidelines about how to treat owned human servants.

And I don't disagree with it because someone said it, I disagree because it's demonstrably wrong.

Forcing a woman to marry her rapist? That's a punishment for the woman and an unnecessary one at that.

Stoning a woman to death with her rapist because she didn't scream out loudly enough? That's just plain ridiculous.

There's also the condoning of genocide, the demonstrable falsehood of the creation myth, the demonstrable falsehood of the Noah narrative, and many other flaws in the Bible.




posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


have you retracted your statement that the bible erroneously states pi to be 3.0?

Secondly, the bible speaks of "bond servants" in the Greek, that translates to servants/slaves" in the English which is unfortunate. But alas, English is a very lazy language compared to Greek. Bond servants were necessary in a period of time when there was no banks or credit cards to purchase things one had no money for. As far as buying and selling of slaves, Paul specifically condemns this practice in his epistles.



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


No I haven't because the post you made doesn't change the mathematical outcome. Work out the calculations using not measurements but proportions. Pi can be calculated through proportions, not through specific numbers.

Now "bond servants" were the thing that they had in...Sparta...people that were unpaid workers who were considered as livestock. That is slavery.

The Bible is no proof of a deity, it's supposed divine author gets far too many facts of science wrong and is also wrong on far too many objective moral issues.
I'm not saying it's all wrong, but it's got a lot of wrong stuff in there.



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Stop trying to put a science on God thats your problem. If God exists almost all of your scientific beliefs will be blown away therefore in order to believe you must not look for the answer in science but in your heart my friend. That is where the answer lies. I am sorry if I sound "wacky" and "insane" to you but that is the only way bottom line.



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Artorius
 



Originally posted by Artorius
Stop trying to put a science on God thats your problem.


Science is the one universally accepted way to achieve results. We're using proof of the efficacy of science to discuss this, aren't we?



If God exists almost all of your scientific beliefs will be blown away


Nope. Not true at all.

I'll still have all of my 'beliefs' about biology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics intact. Well, unless it is a very, very specific God that you're talking about. One that is specifically opposed to all scientific thought.

If so, how is it that computers work?
Or magnets?

I mean, if all of my scientific 'beliefs' go out the window, then there's no explanation for those things...or anything. How do planes stay in the sky without science?

And they are not 'beliefs', they are factually supported theories.



therefore in order to believe you must not look for the answer in science but in your heart my friend.


I would disagree, as the heart is a part of my circulatory system and not a repository of information.

If you meant 'heart' in the metaphorical sense of some sort of "inner truth" I'd also disagree. "Inner truth" has never provided humanity with consistently useful results. Science has.



That is where the answer lies. I am sorry if I sound "wacky" and "insane" to you but that is the only way bottom line.


I'm sorry, I disagree. Science is infinitely superior. It has given means to feed billions, survive disease, live longer, understand our universe, communicate in many ways over vast distances, record images digitally, and all sorts of other things.

Looking into my heart...hasn't done much.

Science is a great thing, it's the greatest way to determine truth.

So no, you're not 'insane' or 'wacky', you're just wrong. I'm sure you're a perfectly reasonable individual with regards to most other things. If you get sick you think that it's microorganisms that are damaging your body through invasive infection, not demons, spirits, or an imbalance of 'humors'. You treat it accordingly, and it gets better. Because of science.

You just have one wrong belief. Maybe even more than one. I'm sure I have a few, but I actively try to uncover where I'm wrong. I had a few incomplete ideas about certain aspects of phylogeny that I recently cleared up through some studies, so that's a few down, probably a lot more to go.

And how am I doing this? Through scientific methodology. It's the only way to truth with results.

And an FYI, I looked into my 'heart' for years and there wasn't anything there except the growing doubt in the supernatural and a growing skepticism.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


No I haven't because the post you made doesn't change the mathematical outcome. Work out the calculations using not measurements but proportions. Pi can be calculated through proportions, not through specific numbers.


Try the numbers I stated, see what ya get.


Now "bond servants" were the thing that they had in...Sparta...people that were unpaid workers who were considered as livestock. That is slavery.


First of all, yes there was such a thing, that's history. Secondly, Paul condemned the slavery of buying and selling men or women.

No one cares that the Hebrews were lead away captive. They're just Jews right? God has a principle of reaping and sowing. What you sow you will eventually reap. Satan perverted the doctrine by calling it "karma".


The Bible is no proof of a deity, it's supposed divine author gets far too many facts of science wrong and is also wrong on far too many objective moral issues.


NAME some, my contention is the Bible is without error. Only with the KJV though, The modern versions have many omissions and errors, they all came from the perverted Westcott and Hort text.
I'm not saying it's all wrong, but it's got a lot of wrong stuff in there.

When you get deep and study the divine fingerprints of the Holy Spirit, with it's Heptadic Structures, integrated design, and prophetic theme is so precise it could ONLY have originated from a source outside the dimension of time.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Try the numbers I stated, see what ya get.


Um...no. I'm not here to prove your points. You show me step by step your own proof.




First of all, yes there was such a thing, that's history. Secondly, Paul condemned the slavery of buying and selling men or women.


Can you please show me where?



No one cares that the Hebrews were lead away captive. They're just Jews right?


Now I'm being implicitly called antisemitic? Listen, all slavery is wrong. The Jews were lead away as captives following a barbaric military conquest and it was wrong.



God has a principle of reaping and sowing. What you sow you will eventually reap. Satan perverted the doctrine by calling it "karma".


That has nothing to do with what is at hand and the concept of karma predates that passage in the Bible, Hinduism being older than Judaism.



NAME some, my contention is the Bible is without error.


Alright.

How did Judas die? There are two versions of it in the Bible.

What order were things created in according to the Bible? Two different orders.

What are the 10 commandments? Multiple versions of those.

Who was present at the crucifixion and from what distance? Multiple accounts there.

Was Abraham justified by faith or by his works (Romans 4:2 vs James 2:21)

I can go through a list of a few hundred direct contradictions in the Bible. Things where the Bible (KJV) directly contradicts itself.


And even if the Bible is without error, your best bet is a circular argument. The Bible is true. Why? Because God said so! How do you know God exists? Says so in the Bible!




Only with the KJV though, The modern versions have many omissions and errors, they all came from the perverted Westcott and Hort text.
I'm not saying it's all wrong, but it's got a lot of wrong stuff in there.


Why is the infallible version of the text not in either of the languages of its original authorship? Wouldn't the infallible version be Hebrew and Greek?



When you get deep and study the divine fingerprints of the Holy Spirit, with it's Heptadic Structures, integrated design, and prophetic theme is so precise it could ONLY have originated from a source outside the dimension of time.


Ok..so it's true because its source is true therefore its source exists. Still a circle.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


Um...no. I'm not here to prove your points. You show me step by step your own proof.


pi = 3??


Can you please show me where?


Sure.

1 Timothy 1:9-10 "We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine."

The Greek for "slave", is more rendered "bond-servant", meaning the person joined into that agreement on their own accord. Most of the time to pay off a debt, and it was only for an extended time. And under Jewish jubilee laws all servant's debts were cleared every 7 years. It was a reality of their culture back then, there were no banks offering loans and Visa wasn't around yet.



Now I'm being implicitly called antisemitic? Listen, all slavery is wrong. The Jews were lead away as captives following a barbaric military conquest and it was wrong.


I have NEVER heard a single person who rants about OT slavery ever admit or use the example that the Jews were led captive numerous times. Not once. Mostly they offer as example all the poor tribes God commanded judgment on, but never the Egyptians or Babylonians or Romans for some reason.



That has nothing to do with what is at hand and the concept of karma predates that passage in the Bible, Hinduism being older than Judaism.


Satan never heard God utter that a time or two??? Secondly, Judaism didn't begin in the 9th century with the Messorites. God began dealing with men around 6,000 years ago. He first gave hint to this doctrine to Cain.



How did Judas die? There are two versions of it in the Bible.


No there are not. Judas hung himself on a tree overlooking the trash dump in Israel's day, Gehenna. If you view this area, it has trees lining the steep slopes of this gorge. Judas hung himself, and was either cut down after dying or the limb broke and he fell to the gorge floor where his body burst open. Same even, narrative taken from the beginning of his suicide, and the other account describes when his body either fell or was cut down from the tree.

Jews considered dead bodies either human or animal to be unclean, that's why I lean towards the cut-down part. Most likely Judas was competent enough to choose a study branch for his rope.


What order were things created in according to the Bible? Two different orders.


No there are not. The order is given in chapter 1. Chapter 2 deals with the 6ths day in full detail. newspapers do the same today, offer a "grabber" statement on page one, then give the article details on another page.


What are the 10 commandments? Multiple versions of those.


This is a LONG one to answer, but briefly the Gnostics at Alexandria Egypt perverted the Septuagint, and were the first to expunge many portions of the text that didn't agree with their Gnostic doctrine. They birthed the textus Sinaticus and textus Vaticanus manuscripts. These manuscripts are the basis for the Catholic Bible and ALL modern translations.

Brief History of the Different Manuscripts


Who was present at the crucifixion and from what distance? Multiple accounts there.


Specifically tell me what you mean. An interesting side note. Isaiah 53 is a prophecy about the cross, and within the Hebrew text is encoded the names of everyone present at the cross, (minus Judas).

Missler ~ Isaiah 53 Codes


Was Abraham justified by faith or by his works (Romans 4:2 vs James 2:21)


It's both actually. his faith justified him, but it was when he acted on that faith that he had. James basically says you can show someone you have faith when you put it into action.


I can go through a list of a few hundred direct contradictions in the Bible. Things where the Bible (KJV) directly contradicts itself.


I've heard almost all of them before, I even have a book on alleged contradictions. In every case, skeptics violate one of the Laws of Hermaneutics of interpretation. And feel free to list more if you wish, but all have a viable answer and I'd suggest looking at any number of apologetic web pages that address any of your questions.


And even if the Bible is without error, your best bet is a circular argument. The Bible is true. Why? Because God said so! How do you know God exists? Says so in the Bible!


Oh no... I don't use that argument, you're speculating. The Bible has been proved historically accurate, it contains absurd amounts of verifiable prophecies written hundreds and thousands of years before events. And the icing on the cake is the Heptadic Structures of the Hebrew and Greek texts.




Why is the infallible version of the text not in either of the languages of its original authorship? Wouldn't the infallible version be Hebrew and Greek?


Yes, that is exactly correct. And with the Textus Receptus text of the KJV. I have a Concordance and all Blue Letter Bibles give the references to the Hebrew and Greek for every word.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


Um...no. I'm not here to prove your points. You show me step by step your own proof.


pi = 3??


This website does something odd and fails to get rid of the unnecessary data. We can derive Pi from two measurements provided:

The diameter and the outer circumference.

The diameter is 10 cubits
The circumference is 30 cubits

Same unit of measurement.

pi=3.0

....what's so hard to grasp there? The link you provided for some reason takes the 30 cubits as a measure of the internal circumference rather than the external.

What part of

a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about
implies inner circumference?



Sure.

1 Timothy 1:9-10 "We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine."


...I'm sorry, but you're going to have to be consistent to your own premise. Use the KJV, it uses the term 'manstealers'


I'm now going to provide you a link that contains all references to slavery in the Bible.
Here it is.

There are parts where there is an anti-slavery message and parts with a pro-slavery message.



The Greek for "slave", is more rendered "bond-servant", meaning the person joined into that agreement on their own accord.


Except for institutional slavery in Sparta. And the slavery in Athens. And all other slavery in the Greek world that wasn't due to a situation in which someone entered into it of their own accord.

And then there's the issue that a lot of the references to slavery would be written in Hebrew, being in the Old Testament.

And can you please cite every instance in which the term 'slave' meaning 'bond-servant' was used and an academic etymology of the word and historical data that proves your description of what a 'bond-servant' means to be accurate?



Most of the time to pay off a debt, and it was only for an extended time.


Oh, indentured servitude. And it's still a subhuman condition that counts as slavery.



And under Jewish jubilee laws all servant's debts were cleared every 7 years. It was a reality of their culture back then, there were no banks offering loans and Visa wasn't around yet.


...wait, I thought we were talking about the Greeks. You need to be more consistent.

You know, the reality was wrong. They did a lot of things wrong back then. Hence why their Holy Book is equally wrong on certain issues.

And this only refers to Jewish slaves. What about outsiders who were slaves?



I have NEVER heard a single person who rants about OT slavery ever admit or use the example that the Jews were led captive numerous times.


...because it's not topical. The issue is that the book condones slavery and sets out strict guidelines about how to treat your slave.

They were led captive due to war. It was the historical circumstance of the time. The military leaders were wrong, and nobody disputes that, though the accuracy of Biblical accounts can easily be thrown into question.



Not once. Mostly they offer as example all the poor tribes God commanded judgment on, but never the Egyptians or Babylonians or Romans for some reason.


...well, the Egyptians (the story of the Jews re the Egyptians doesn't check out btw), Babylonians, and Romans never claimed to be omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscience, and omnibenevolent deities. Sure, the Egyptians deified their pharaoh, but that wasn't a position at all similar to the Judaic deity.

The Romans? Barbaric practices, though they gave us a lot of major advances in technology, science, trade etc. The practices died out and very few people are telling us to follow the Roman pagan religion as was practiced in the first few centuries CE.
The Babylonians? Also a lot of barbaric practices, but they contributed greatly to mathematics and astronomy, as well as to legal codes. The practices died out and few people are telling us to follow the pagan Mesopotamian religions circa the first few centuries CE.
...Same deal for the Egyptians.

The difference is that the barbaric practices of those groups died out, while the Christian and Judaic religions hold the same beliefs.



Satan never heard God utter that a time or two???


...um...can you prove that some sort of event happened in which it was overheard?



Secondly, Judaism didn't begin in the 9th century with the Messorites. God began dealing with men around 6,000 years ago. He first gave hint to this doctrine to Cain.


I've seen man-made structures that are older than humanity?! Ok, now you have the burden of proof to provide that the Earth is 6000 years old and that humanity didn't exist prior to that and that "Cain" existed as a historical figure...and early post-Edenic genealogy....well, it seems to be full of a lot of necessary actions that would cause a lot of birth defects.

As for the Earth being 6000 years old, have you ever heard of the Skorba temples in Malta?


Deposits at its base contained material from the first known human occupation of the island, the Għar Dalam phase, including charcoal, which carbon analysis dated to 4850 BC.


I've been to the site repeatedly. It's a very nice example.

I actually live in Malta and there's plenty of evidence that there was inhabitation of the island more than 6000 years ago.



No there are not. Judas hung himself on a tree overlooking the trash dump in Israel's day, Gehenna. If you view this area, it has trees lining the steep slopes of this gorge. Judas hung himself, and was either cut down after dying or the limb broke and he fell to the gorge floor where his body burst open. Same even, narrative taken from the beginning of his suicide, and the other account describes when his body either fell or was cut down from the tree.


...except that's not how it's phrased. Can you show me in Matthew where it's described the he decided to hang himself in a specific location? He merely hangs himself.

Now, in Acts 1:18-19:


With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.


...where did it say he fell from a cliff while hanging himself?



Jews considered dead bodies either human or animal to be unclean, that's why I lean towards the cut-down part. Most likely Judas was competent enough to choose a study branch for his rope.


Your story doesn't add up. Judas buys a field, falls headlong, and dies of his body bursting open. No great height or suicide is mentioned in account two, you're merely reconciling two stories that contradict each other by connecting the dots in an irrational manner.



No there are not. The order is given in chapter 1. Chapter 2 deals with the 6ths day in full detail. newspapers do the same today, offer a "grabber" statement on page one, then give the article details on another page.


...no, it doesn't. Chapter 1 has one order of the creation of animals (and if you really want to get into how wrong the Bible is about science, we can talk about simple zoology), chapter 2 has a different order.

Genesis 1:25-27
(Humans here are created last and both genders are created at the same time)


And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


Genesis 2:18-19
(Where all animals are created as company for humans after the first man is made, with a woman to follow later)


And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.




This is a LONG one to answer, but briefly the Gnostics at Alexandria Egypt perverted the Septuagint, and were the first to expunge many portions of the text that didn't agree with their Gnostic doctrine. They birthed the textus Sinaticus and textus Vaticanus manuscripts. These manuscripts are the basis for the Catholic Bible and ALL modern translations.


I'm sorry, then how come all versions of the Hebrew scriptures were affected instead of the ones that just the Christians use?




Specifically tell me what you mean.


Well, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John seem to disagree as to where the women stood during the crucifixion. The first three say that the women were standing far from the cross, while John says that the two Marys stood very near to it.

It's a simple contradiction.



It's both actually. his faith justified him, but it was when he acted on that faith that he had. James basically says you can show someone you have faith when you put it into action.


A bit of a wormy answer I guess.



I've heard almost all of them before, I even have a book on alleged contradictions. In every case, skeptics violate one of the Laws of Hermaneutics of interpretation.


What are these 'laws' and why do skeptics have to follow them?



And feel free to list more if you wish, but all have a viable answer and I'd suggest looking at any number of apologetic web pages that address any of your questions.


...I've seen apologetics, it's mostly wrong from what I can gather.

I mean, you just said the Earth is 6000 years old! It's over 4 billion years old. 4,000,000,000! Off by 7 places!



Oh no... I don't use that argument, you're speculating.


I never said you would, I'm saying it wouldn't stand on its own. You may use it as a piece of complimentary evidence if it is true, but it never stands alone.



The Bible has been proved historically accurate,


...in what sense?

The first book is just outright wrong. You've already demonstrably proven that the Bible is historically inaccurate if you claim the Earth is 6000 years old. I'm living in a country that had stone structures before that.



it contains absurd amounts of verifiable prophecies written hundreds and thousands of years before events.


...ok, what's the standard we're going to use for prophecy?

Because I might have to break out the 'Arthur C. Clarke is the greatest prophet who ever lived!' argument I've been dying to use.



And the icing on the cake is the Heptadic Structures of the Hebrew and Greek texts.


There's that word again. It seems like apologetics jargon, care to define 'Heptadic Structures'?



Yes, that is exactly correct. And with the Textus Receptus text of the KJV. I have a Concordance and all Blue Letter Bibles give the references to the Hebrew and Greek for every word.


...but it's been shown that the KJV gets quite a bit of it wrong...and it's demonstrably false to say an English translation of archaic Greek and Hebrew is going to gather original meaning properly.

And the 'Textus Receptus' text doesn't jive with the oldest manuscripts we have of the Old Testament or the New Testament, does it?



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


This isn't 1611 anymore, "manstealers" doesn't have the same connotation today. The Latin, then the Greek behind both "slave traders" and "manstealers" is the same.....

Someone who takes men captive and sells them into slavery, and not in a bond-servant contractural way.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Let me respond to the other points when I get home. Too much to do with my Droid phone.



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Alright, where's the historical evidence that all first-century slavery was 'bond-servitude'?
And where's that etymological evidence about the word in Greek that seems to be more readily translated to the word 'slave'?



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Alright, where's the historical evidence that all first-century slavery was 'bond-servitude'?
And where's that etymological evidence about the word in Greek that seems to be more readily translated to the word 'slave'?



Sorry, it was my birthday yesterday and i never managed to get to your questions. I will though. Here is a verse from the OT describing the common nature of "servitude/slavery" in Biblical times. It was fundamentally different that the mental image we get from early American slavery which anyone can agree was a disgusting violation of morals and human rights.

"If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.

If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God." Lev 25.35-43


It's problematic understanding the biblical-era slavery because all we have for a frame of reference today is the pre-civil war typology of slavery. Paul condemned stealing a free man and selling that person into slavery. I think the problem is with OUR frame of reference, not with the Bible which realized the practice was commonplace and gave specific regulatory laws making sure the servants/slaves were treated humanely. They could buy and sell, own property, and pay for their own freedom with money they earned.

Many people chose to be "bond-servants" because life was better at a rich man's house than it was out in the world on their own. This type of servitude was voluntary, and many servants chose to do this for life. They were offered protection and a better quality of life in that regards. And thirdly, slaves were taken as spoils of war in those times.

More to come..



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Almost forgot:

"Doulos" is the Greek term.

Definitions:

" 1. a slave, bondman, man of servile condition
1. a slave
2. metaph., one who gives himself up to another's will those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men
3. devoted to another to the disregard of one's own interests
2. a servant, attendant

Translated words:

KJV (127) - bond, 6; bondman, 1; servant, 120;

NAS (141) - bond-servant, 11; bond-servants, 12; bondslave, 3; bondslaves, 8; both men and women, 8; servants, 1; slave, 58; slave's, 1; slaves, 39;



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Havent you ever heard of Quinque viae ? Here are Five time tested proofs of the existence of God.
Question is, is can you logically counter argue them.
start here, en.wikipedia.org... have fun




posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Typical, I'll be addressing your points later, it's late so I'm just going to quickly break down this post.

reply to post by oliveoil
 


Of course I'm familiar with them, and I'm familiar with how easily debunked they are.

1: Unmoved mover.
A prime mover doesn't necessarily imply anything other than a thing that doesn't move and provides the first motion. It doesn't mean that this mover is supernatural or has any of the characteristics typical of a deity.

2: First cause.
Same as above. There is no necessary logical step to conclude that the first cause is supernatural or has any of the characteristics typical of a deity.

3: Contingency
Solved by modern physics, current thought is that Aquinas is wrong that it logically follows that at one point there must have been nothing, as something cannot become nothing. It's not even an issue, let alone a proof.

4: Degree
Is a silly metaphysical argument. It simply posits something akin to Platonic metaphysics without justification.

5: Teleology
The 'fine tuning' argument is akin to being a puddle formed in a pothole and thinking that the whole universe was created just so that the pothole could exist to create the puddle. Also there's the anthropic principle at work. Of course the universe is seemingly fine-tuned to support life, we wouldn't be having this argument if it couldn't support life.

Interestingly, there has been research that shows the universe could exist in a way that supports life without one of the fundamental forces of the universe (the weak force), so a superfluous force of the universe doesn't speak well to fine tuning.


...I can address these further if you want, but I've had a problem with them since I was first exposed to them in high school.

Edit to add:

Oh, and all of this is on top of the criticism found in the link you provided.
edit on 6/11/10 by madnessinmysoul because: Last line.



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Sorry, it was my birthday yesterday and i never managed to get to your questions.


Well, happy birthday then. And don't worry, I don't expect immediate responses.



I will though. Here is a verse from the OT describing the common nature of "servitude/slavery" in Biblical times.


Well...I would contradict you on one point. Can you corroborate the Bible with other sources?



It was fundamentally different that the mental image we get from early American slavery which anyone can agree was a disgusting violation of morals and human rights.


...all slavery is disgusting.



"If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.

If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God." Lev 25.35-43


Ok, but this doesn't say anything about non-Israelites being not subject to slavery, nor is it the only source of information about slavery in OT or NT times.



It's problematic understanding the biblical-era slavery because all we have for a frame of reference today is the pre-civil war typology of slavery.


Yes, because slavery back then was a class system rather than a race system.



Paul condemned stealing a free man and selling that person into slavery.


Yes, but there's no condemnation of the whole system of slavery. He didn't voice objection to the continued subjugation of those born into slavery, only to the concept of making a free person a slave.



I think the problem is with OUR frame of reference, not with the Bible which realized the practice was commonplace and gave specific regulatory laws making sure the servants/slaves were treated humanely. They could buy and sell, own property, and pay for their own freedom with money they earned.


...Historical source?



Many people chose to be "bond-servants" because life was better at a rich man's house than it was out in the world on their own. This type of servitude was voluntary, and many servants chose to do this for life. They were offered protection and a better quality of life in that regards. And thirdly, slaves were taken as spoils of war in those times.


...Again, source?



More to come..


I hope it includes a source. I'd hate to be a bit of a jerk by providing counter-sources without letting you provide sources for your claims first.

reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Sources again please....I'm sorry, but I'm a stickler for sources.



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Your to quick to reply. Let them sink in. use your logic, You'll get it.



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 


No, I just entirely debunked them right away. And I don't need them to sink in, I've been aware of them for a few years now.

And I'm sorry, but I really have to say that telling me to let them 'sink in' is actually illogical. Something which is truly logical would require no such waiting period, merely the proof in itself.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Ok i look at it this way:

Something greater than us had to have created us.. No matter how you slice it, we were created by something... We will never truly find out what is beyond this world until we are dead, so its better to have faith in something other than nothing...

I think the core of most religions is correct; hence the similarities in all religion. But, I highly doubt Religion is an explanation to our existence... They are basically just guidelines to being a good person (this is hidden in the perversions e.g. Submission through Fear, Legal Extortion).. Religion is a great thing for some people, but SCIENTIFICALLY nonfactual..


With that said, I don't think our "God" or "Creator" is benevolent or evil; i just think it's got better things to do, he did give us brains, to solve our own problems... He's (or she) got intricate trees and rainforests and all sorts of other cool # to deal with; and that's just on this planet...

I think that believing in religion is Naive but being a complete atheist is just ignorant



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join