Plagiarism In The Bible

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Tangerine

It says he does not exist or changed his USER NAME. That's kinda like canceling your ATS or Facebook account. I can see you are having a hard time absorbing information.

Uh..that's what I said. So much for your source. LMAO

a reply to: Tangerine

No, you said he change his name. Thats different. Anyways, it doesnt affect the quality of the data, and the author's citations are still there. Stop avoiding the issue.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Tangerine

No, you said he change his name. Thats different. Anyways, it doesnt affect the quality of the data, and the author's citations are still there. Stop avoiding the issue.

I would never say, "(H)e change his name." That is grammatically incorrect. I said the WEBSITE said he either does not exist or changed his name. Anyone who wants to do so can go to the website, click on the author's name and see for themselves what it says. The pertinent point is that your source isn't much of a source after all.

a reply to: Arrestme

Personaly, I would expect nothing less of the 1 true messiah/prophet, than his story being literally written in the stars, therefore predating him, leaving much room for "copy-cats" or attempts at fullfilling these prophetic requirements, up until one person actually lives through all of them to completion.


In short: I propose the possibility of all of these "candidates" stories to be "plagiarized", not from 1 original story that happened already, but from 1 that is read from translation & symbology of the stars, written by a creator & trying to make itself manifest.

Very nice

This would make a very thought provoking thread, in and of itself. A lot of things come to mind, Jungian Archetypes, pareidolia, indoctrination, chemical stimulation.....

a reply to: Tangerine

There are pages of organized data backed up by reliable citations. You just know that you and your theosophical buddies are wrong, so you're trolling.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Tangerine

There are pages of organized data backed up by reliable citations. You just know that you and your theosophical buddies are wrong, so you're trolling.

I looked at those pages. They're laughable. I invite everyone else to look and laugh with me.

originally posted by: Tangerine

Assumptions are just that: assumptions. You have made many. You have assumed that something must be eternal. We don't know that. You assumed that there is a prime mover. We don't know that. You assumed that energy would have reached a state of equilibrium. We don't know that.

Um...Do you think something can come from nothing? Logically, you must assume that something is eternal *or* that something can come from nothing (which is, BTW, something much different from a vacuum.) Unless you're just ignoring logic or claiming it doesn't apply...which I suppose you could do.

Assumed the energy would have reached a state of equilibrium? I'm using eternity technically here: it doesn't mean "a really long time." It means an infinite amount of time. And because it takes a finite time for the energy in the universe to reach an equilibrium (I think scientists have a number on how much longer we have before heat death, actually) so if the universe is an eternity old, then, logically, it should have had a heat death already...

If you look back at what I said, you'll notice I made two claims, which, if I recall correctly, where that everything that comes into being must have a cause, and that the universe came into being. If you can show me a good example of something coming into being without a cause, please do so! And I think there are good reasons to think that the universe came into being, even if science hasn't quite nailed down how that worked (as per Krazysh0t.)

As for testable evidence being able to prove that God exists as fact, testable evidence is the only thing that proves that anything is fact. Fact is the purview of science and testable evidence is that which science requires to prove fact. Lacking testable evidence, God's existence is not fact. It is belief. If believers stopped claiming that it's fact, they wouldn't be challenged to produce testable evidence.

Um, I don't think I claimed that it was an undoubtable fact that God exists. I distinctly remember saying that I think there was decent evidence for His existence. Remember, science cannot prove the existence of beauty, human rights, love, morality, ethics, or that you live in a real world.

Do you worship Homer? Neither do I. Are people persecuted and threatened with eternal torture if they don't believe he exists? Have wars been waged over a belief in Homer?

I'm confused. Are you arguing that we should change the guidelines of historical research to arbitrarily disbelieve in the existence of controversial facts?

It's immaterial what some scholars may believe. Again, the word believe. That which they can prove is important. None of them have come up with an iota of contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus actually lived. Most scholars are funded by educational institutions where deviating from the norm makes one unpopular. Being unpopular often reduces funding and prevents advancement. There are also social pressures to be part of the norm. Surely, you know this.

You are assuming that Jesus died. There is zero evidence of that. Will you next argue that wars erased the evidence that Frodo once existed and, therefore, we should worship him? You are tangled up in a circular belief.

Actually, what you believe *is* important. You cannot prove scientifically, for instance, that you exist in a real universe populated by real people, you simply assume it to be the case. If contemporary documentation surfaced that referenced Jesus lived, that would not prove that He existed. If they found the inscription that was used on His cross, that would not prove He existed. It would simply prove that somebody wrote something about a guy named Jesus at the time He was supposed to have lived (we have stuff dating from just a few generations away, very good evidence by our standards of that sort of thing.)

Now, there's pretty good evidence that Jesus lived: you know, an abundance of early manuscripts testifying that He was alive, a reference by Josephus (there's two, IIRC, one of which was probably later inserted, and the other of which scholars believe to be genuine) definite records of an early cult that held onto a belief so strongly that they would die rather than give it up, etc. etc. etc. The idea that this is "zero" evidence is sort of like arguing that there was "zero" evidence that, say en.wikipedia.org... or indeed, most of the battles of the Punic Wars existed simply because there is no contemporaneous documentation of his existence.

By the way, a question: if you believe that scholars are toeing the party line, so to speak, and not making money be being controversial, then why 1) do you believe science to be so awesome (it is run by scholars) and 2) think that so many people are writing books like this?

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Do you think something can come from nothing?

Way off topic, but:

1. Why not?

2. Since time is a property of the cosmos, there is no reason to assume its existence prior to the Big Bang.

a reply to: Astyanax

1. Welp, it's never been observed to occur, (at least, not by me or anyone I know!) and it would violate whichever nifty scientific law that says that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So I don't *think* that something can come from nothing without breaking currently accepted scientific laws. (*Gasp!*) I suppose there's a number of speculative ways that matter could be created ex nihilo but that'd involve invoking either a Deity of some sort, or throwing out physics. Now, I suppose it's possible that the laws of physics might be different in a pre-Bug Bang situation, but that seems like a slippery slope. Either way, it seems like you have to essentially use the "magic" card to explain creation from nothing, whether you invoke God or not.

2. I can roll with that. But that doesn't mean that something doesn't precede the Big Bang in some way, as per Krazysh0t's arguments.

Perhaps I should start a new thread someplace...

Thoughts?

And Jesus usually being associated with the sky doesn't say enough.

a reply to: Jenisiz

Do you not understand basic tactics? Do good things to get trust, betray everything for gain. Not putting forth any higher argument, just stating that logic is bs.

I'd just like to put forth the idea that if God is omnipotent, He is infinite energy. Thereby He could create any amount of things from His own infinite energy. So this could be construed from something out of nothing since there was nothing but God and he preceded to make all the things where there was nothing.

I also did my research and the majority of the stuff put forth at the start of this thread was false interpretations of mythical figures before Christ, especially stuff about Horus and Dionysus. Do research on your research to verify it before bringing it up because I just searched for 10 minutes and got information saying how it's contradictory. I'm not gonna post it because it's really easy to find (take your own 10 minutes so you can see how easy it is) and then come back with real information please.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

I suppose there's a number of speculative ways that matter could be created ex nihilo but that'd involve invoking either a Deity of some sort, or throwing out physics.

Hawking radiation is one way in which matter can be brought into existence without breaking physics.

But that doesn't mean that something doesn't precede the Big Bang in some way, as per Krazysh0t's arguments.

The question, though, is in what way?

I think you'd better start that thread. Before you do, though, you might want to read through Arbitrageur's excellent thread Ask any question you want about Physics to see whether the topic has already been dealt with there.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
a reply to: Krazysh0t

See, the thing (in my mind) with articles like this is that they come back to the idea (as far as I can see) that something got the whole thing starting (Prime Mover) or that the universe is, itself, the Prime Mover (Somehow. I should add that there are some who argue that the various theories about self-creating universes &ct. don't work. I didn't bring up these ideas because they're over my head by a long shot!)

Well that is making assumptions on how things work outside our universe. We currently have no way of knowing how things work outside the universe and if the processes that got our universe moving were helped by an external force or not.

There's a point (at least for me) when the line between [*something* that science can't describe that started the whole thing,] and, well, [God] begins to blur.

This is the god of the gaps idea.

Option A is that something we can't scientifically describe because we don't have the data somehow got the universe as we know it to running.
Option B is that something we can't scientifically describe because we don't have the data somehow got the universe as we know it to running.

Yes, that is the only option we have. But if you notice, that option leaves an infinite amount of possibilities as to how our universe started. This includes things that we haven't even dreamed of in the entirety of human civilization (and I'd bet the correct answer is in that subset as well).

I said from the get-go I don't think this idea is a slam-dunk idea for God's existence, but I think you can see how the idea of God doesn't seem unreasonable, given the scientific situation (as I understand it.) *Far* be it from me to appeal to ignorance (??? = God, I don't think so...) but I think you can see how the idea of a Prime Mover seems consistent from what we *do* know, agreed? Whether or not the Prime Mover is God, the universe itself (as per the expanding-contracting universe ideas), or some other inexplicable natural or unnatural force...well, perhaps science won't be able to answer those questions.

Any thoughts?

I'm not saying that there isn't a god that kick started the universe (or even caused the Big Bang). All I'm saying is that we don't know. Saying anything else (including god doesn't exist) is an assumption that we don't have the evidence to corroborate.

a reply to: Astyanax

I'm pretty sure that Hawking radiation isn't matter creation out of nothing; rather, if I am grasping it correctly, it's essentially the leaking of black holes. Quantum mechanics theorizes that a cow can pop into existence completely at random, yet it would be produced by quantum fluctuations of space-time itself. That's not nothing

Thanks for the excellent suggestion!

originally posted by: Heruactic
You forgot to mention Chuck Norris.

Once Mr Norris and Superman made a wager where the loser had to wear his underwear on the outside.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Well that is making assumptions on how things work outside our universe. We currently have no way of knowing how things work outside the universe and if the processes that got our universe moving were helped by an external force or not.

I realize I'm not the *most* qualified person to deal with this issue, but I don't think this is true; scientists have done a lot of work on the formation of the universe, to the point of exploring the idea that our universe might have split off of a larger one or might be one of many universes. They couldn't do this if they just threw up their hands and said "we have no idea how stuff works!" I understand that it's theoretical, for certain, but it *has* been looked into, and it's my understanding that scientists are making the assumptions that at least some of the laws of physics still hold true.

This is the god of the gaps idea.

Or, for the stylish, the physics of the gaps

Yes, that is the only option we have. But if you notice, that option leaves an infinite amount of possibilities as to how our universe started.

I'm sure that's *technically* true, but the fact that we've already done (admittedly speculative) research into possibilities of, say, the multiverse tells me that the probabilities probably are *not* infinite.

This includes things that we haven't even dreamed of in the entirety of human civilization (and I'd bet the correct answer is in that subset as well).

Cool!

I'm not saying that there isn't a god that kick started the universe (or even caused the Big Bang). All I'm saying is that we don't know. Saying anything else (including god doesn't exist) is an assumption that we don't have the evidence to corroborate.

The belief that inductive reasoning (upon which science is based) works is an assumption that we don't have the evidence to corroborate. There's certainly evidence *for* God's existence, the question is: how compelling is it? I wouldn't argue that we can prove that God created the universe, but I do think your appeal to vaguely supernatural forces is consistent with what we would expect if there *was* a God that created the universe. I certainly do not believe this is the totality of the evidence for God.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

You are too predictable. Thank you for your participation.

Too predictable?
You mean, like ... if I see BELIEVERpriest in a comment, I know you're going to push the Bible and Jesus?
Yeah.
Back atcha (right back at you)......I'm sorry - I think you are deluded and in a cult-mentality mode. But that's okay. It takes all kinds....

Check this out

a reply to: StalkerSolent

No, it is actually the creation of matter ex nihilo. Throughout the cosmos, virtual particle pairs are constantly popping into existence and then mutually annihilating. When this occurs near a black hole event horizon, one member of the pair may be captured by the hole while the other goes free — a real particle. This is the origin of Hawking radiation.

There is a quote from Hawking himself, saying exactly the same thing, on the page I linked in my earlier post.