By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
DélioPT on 08 September 2011

To me taking God out of the equation makes little sense.
I see it as making a house of cards. Where are you going to build your house if not in a stable flat surface and at the same time, able to withstand the same house? If it`s not stable the house will fall; if it`s not strong the house will crumble.
Now, looking at the process of the creation there are some things you are going to see.
If you try building it without a "vision" (intelligence) of the whole it will end up crumbling down because it will lose it`s balance or coherence. It`s like juggling balls: do you juggle them in a pattern or randomly?
During this process of building it ends up getting bigger and bigger, so, it`s support also needs to be continuously bigger and stronger, right? Needs to be above it.
If this was said about the universe, how could we begin and still exist without life - it being the support of all? Life is since creation, not after. LIfe is our surface. And we, things in the universe, cannot create it by ourselves, can we?
We can create some sort of life but it`s just temporary and the life we are part of never stopped being.

Maybe i could have explained it better but in the end what matters is the underlying message.



Around the Network
sapphi_snake on 08 September 2011
padib said:
sapphi_snake said:
padib said:
Just to start, some archaeological evidence for places and people in the bible:
http://www.facingthechallenge.org/arch2.php

LOL, this is suppose to prove what. I can give you evidence that the American Civil War happened, but that doesn't mean that Scarlet O'Hara and Rhett Butler actually existed.


Maybe its best you follow my convo with final fan as I'm explaining most of these things. Again, it's not something to be taken alone, it's support to more complete pieces that makes it glue together. I mean to start, at the very least the places described are historical. That already defeats Runa's Big Fish comparison. There are few hyperboles in the bible relative to the historical accounts of the bible, so this does give a certain firmness to the case. Again it's not proof but would invalidate at least certain counterpoints. I mean at least the Odyssey mentions real places. It's like the count of Monte Cristo. I mean the book is fiction, but at least it has a historical setting to start. That already provides a measure of credibility to the piece as compared to, say, Avataar.

Even taken together, your arguments still fail. As i said, you're committing several errors. look back at what I posted regarding believable lies. Also, the Bible is full of mythological elements, and I think it has several 'hyperboles' also.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

sapphi_snake on 08 September 2011
padib said:

Points 1-3: The fact that the manuscripts haven't changed much since the 1st century (I corrected here) is that it proves their closeness to the events described and historically known from external sources. The closer the date written, the more reliable the described events. Next, you have the authenticity argument. One could claim they changed over time. However if we have the earliest versions, that claim goes to water. Again, it's only supporting evidence. I know you understand what I mean. For point 2 see my reply to Sapphi. Again, none of these in and of themselves prove anything. They are only substance to a greater claim so as to provide robustness against other counter arguments (I've provided a few examples here and in my post to sapphi).

Point 4: I'm really glad you get this one.

Point 5: I'd rather leave this out of the debate, but if it helps clarify take a look at my post on doubt and the importance given to facts. Sadly alot of it is bound to human bias and there's not that can be done about it. That's why it's important to get external sources alot of the times so as to provide explanations that are clear of doubt. To be frank I'm ready to retract this point if needed. I just wanted to mention that what is an important argument for one person may not have value to another and that's due to many things. For instance, point 4 above you get, but another person might not. The reasonable nature of a person is very subjective sadly. What one person considers reasonable may not be what I consider reasonable. I consider reasonable that you understood point 4 above and are waiting for facts. Another person may not have found that reasonable. What can cause that I don't know denial or bias, but sadly we encounter it. Anyway I feel I'm in shaky water here so I'll drop point 5 for the sake of progression. 

Regarding points 1-3, the earlies surviving copies of the gospels are from the 4th century, so no one really knows how the original gospels looked like, and if they changed over time. So this argument falls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Runa216 on 08 September 2011

Padib, NONE OF THAT MATTERS. The bible is just a book, a poorly written one with inconsistencies and a slew of impossibilities, it doesn't matter how far back it goes...not to mention there's the Torah, the Qua'ran, and various other holy texts that date back just as far if not farther.

The farther back you get in history, the less accurate the texts tend to be. Hell, people misinterpret and misrepresent events happening 300-500 years ago, there are wars and conflicts and interactions that happened VERY differently than the history books tell you. logically thinking, do you honestly believe a book written over a thousand years ago about events that happened over 2000 years ago are likely to be perfectly accurate? if you do, that's just naive.

If god was real, why would he present himself to an ignorant civilization in clear, obvious ways (coming to see him, making a son that could perform miracles), but refuses to do so today? there are more religious people now than there were in the times of the bible (both in raw numbers and ratios), so what's the deal? if God came to me, and it was clearly not just some parlor trick, I would certainly believe in him, as it stands, there is no reliable evidence to support his existence, especially not in the way many people see him.



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Runa216 on 08 September 2011
padib said:
Runa216 said:
Padib, NONE OF THAT MATTERS. The bible is just a book, a poorly written one with inconsistencies and a slew of impossibilities, it doesn't matter how far back it goes...not to mention there's the Torah, the Qua'ran, and various other holy texts that date back just as far if not farther. 

Using force of opinion again shows me your lack of commitment to the topic you raised. I'm actually bringing out points, and you revert us back to convoluted comparisons which lack any studied insight whatsoever.

The bible is just a book, a poorly written one with inconsistencies and a slew of impossibilities, it doesn't matter how far back it goes...not to mention there's the Torah, the Qua'ran, and various other holy texts that date back just as far if not farther. 

Convoluted statement. I mentioned points with much more depth (authenticity, veracity), yet you insist on disregarding them. Again I am convinced you have no commitement to the topic whatsoever. If it's the miracles that are an issue for you ("slew of impossibilities"), again these are things that should be verifiable by science (parting of the seas, the global flood, and other verifiable miracles such as a 40-year sojourn in the desert).

The farther back you get in history, the less accurate the texts tend to be. Hell, people misinterpret and misrepresent events happening 300-500 years ago, there are wars and conflicts and interactions that happened VERY differently than the history books tell you.

Not really. The farther the texts are from the events they describe, the less accurate the texts tend to be. Dating is a fairly respected practice in the study of history and archaeology at the moment. They also provide margins of error I hope you are aware. For the italics, that's why I provided the authenticity and veracity arguments. If you want to battle, battle on the points. If we are to battle on opinions we will go nowhere.

logically thinking, do you honestly believe a book written over a thousand years ago about events that happened over 2000 years ago are likely to be perfectly accurate? if you do, that's just naive. 

Care to provide an example of which biblical text you're referring to. To lump all the biblical texts into one vague statement is a gross misrepresentation of reality and a true testament to your lack of knowledge in the matter.

If god was real, why would he present himself to an ignorant civilization in clear, obvious ways (coming to see him, making a son that could perform miracles), but refuses to do so today?

If you want to discuss spiritually, it might be best to give credibility to the texts from another level first. I suggest following the trail of history and archaeology, along with theology. We'll come back to this once the texts are given their due relevance.

there are more religious people now than there were in the times of the bible (both in raw numbers and ratios), so what's the deal? if God came to me, and it was clearly not just some parlor trick, I would certainly believe in him, as it stands, there is no reliable evidence to support his existence, especially not in the way many people see him.

The deal is that people are getting more informed, poorer nations are reproducing very quickly (which tend to be more subject to faith in the higher up), and otherwise there is more communication and availability of the teachings of said faith due to groundbreaking technology. For italics, Christ claimed that had even someone returned from hell to warn people against it they would not believe. What would God possibility tell you for you to believe? Your a priori is so strong I mean it's hard for me to phathom the scenario. But if it happens I really hope you do see him and I would be dumbfounded.

"there is no reliable evidence to support his existence, especially not in the way many people see him."

Well, again for this part I believe it is possible to provide evidence to support his existence, yet you constantly reject it. @Final Fan, this is mostly why I believe the point 5 was meaningful. No matter what you say, what facts you bring to the table, if for that individual it doesn't matter, then is it proven? Does proof require consensus?

It's perfectly logical to dismiss faulty logic and inconclusive 'evidence'.  You keep insisting I'm being some cruel person by waving off your arguments, but I chose not to waste my time arguing with faulty logic.  I don't mean to be TOOOO abrasive here, but have you ever heard the quote "Don't argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"?  Well that's how I feel.  I COULD go into intimate detail explaining why each and every one of your arguments are flawed, I COULD present alternate explanations and debate with you, internet forum style, but I got burnt out on that BS ages ago.  I used to be a fairly active poster on a debate forum (which had one purpose: for people to debate), and even the most intelligent people on there were incapable of arguing a point without letting their biases cloud their judgement.  

I'm no god myself, I'm not perfect, but I Can differentiate between "my opinion" and "Logic", something so few people can do.  You say you're openminded, but I'm not seeing evidence of that.  All I'm seeing is someone who wants to argue a point for arguing a point.  

You say I'm closeminded becuase I 'know' you can't prove god, but I still insist (and am being honest) that I WANT to hear some evidence that God may exist.  Instead I'm getting a lot of philisophical maybes, which is in no way conclusive (or even supportive) evidence.  yeah, god COULD be real, but where's the evidence?  



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Around the Network
Marks on 08 September 2011

Wow this thread is still going fairly strong eh?

Well just like atheists can't prove there is no God...I can't prove there is one. All I can say is for me an intelligent creator sounds more reasonable than some particles (that magically appeared) creating a big bang that started everything, and us evolving from single-celled organisms.

For the record I'm not Christian, but I do believe in the existence of a God/creator/higher power. Its the rest of the bible I question.



Final-Fan on 08 September 2011
padib said:
sapphi_snake said:
padib said:

Points 1-3: The fact that the manuscripts haven't changed much since the 1st century (I corrected here) is that it proves their closeness to the events described and historically known from external sources. The closer the date written, the more reliable the described events. Next, you have the authenticity argument. One could claim they changed over time. However if we have the earliest versions, that claim goes to water. Again, it's only supporting evidence. I know you understand what I mean. For point 2 see my reply to Sapphi. Again, none of these in and of themselves prove anything. They are only substance to a greater claim so as to provide robustness against other counter arguments (I've provided a few examples here and in my post to sapphi).

Point 4: I'm really glad you get this one.

Point 5: I'd rather leave this out of the debate, but if it helps clarify take a look at my post on doubt and the importance given to facts. Sadly alot of it is bound to human bias and there's not that can be done about it. That's why it's important to get external sources alot of the times so as to provide explanations that are clear of doubt. To be frank I'm ready to retract this point if needed. I just wanted to mention that what is an important argument for one person may not have value to another and that's due to many things. For instance, point 4 above you get, but another person might not. The reasonable nature of a person is very subjective sadly. What one person considers reasonable may not be what I consider reasonable. I consider reasonable that you understood point 4 above and are waiting for facts. Another person may not have found that reasonable. What can cause that I don't know denial or bias, but sadly we encounter it. Anyway I feel I'm in shaky water here so I'll drop point 5 for the sake of progression. 

Regarding points 1-3, the earlies surviving copies of the gospels are from the 4th century, so no one really knows how the original gospels looked like, and if they changed over time. So this argument falls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating

No, you misread the article sapphi.

"Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs."

Don't just google, personalize! You're like "Google: Gospel dating". You get to the paragraph where they try to establish the date the gospels were written and you use that as the paragraph for the dates of the latest copies. That's kinda funny I expect better.

Anyway, here is a better link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#New_Testament_manuscripts

I believe the earliest one is from 125AD, potentially extending back to before 100AD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

And even then, wow you threw all three points down the tube only by supposedly discrediting the authenticity argument (point 1). A little in a hurry to disprove, I feel.

Just because one tiny little fragment from c. 100-150 AD (which is the 2nd century BTW) didn't change, doesn't mean that none of it changed.  To make the claim that it's all the same, you have to have a copy of MOST of the book from whatever time period.  That's why he said the 4th century.  70-120 years after the events took place is also plenty of time for distortion of events or for mythology to spring up. 

But those 3 points make more sense if they weren't meant as positive arguments for your position but rather preemptive counterarguments for criticism you felt was incoming.  However that does mean that your only remaining positive argument is point 4. 

4.  I wasn't agreeing with you, just agreeing that it's reasonable for there to be a delay while you check with your source. 

5.  OK, dropped. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Maynard_Tool on 08 September 2011

The existance of god mostly depends when and where you were borned.... If you were borned in ancient greece the idea of Zeuz, poseidon etc etc would have been the answers to your "god" if you were borned as an Aztec you'd believed that there are many gods surrounding us (the "rock" god, the "tree" god, the "rain" god....) and so on...... your believes in god are impossed by your culture, they are not divine; everything was created by humans for humans.....

Sorry, is hard to believe in god when there's just no proof of it, and logic indicates that is just an idea that has survived for many years in different ways.



03/10/09 HUGE day in my life:

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=63437&page=1

Maynard_Tool on 08 September 2011
Marks said:
Wow this thread is still going fairly strong eh?

Well just like atheists can't prove there is no God...I can't prove there is one. All I can say is for me an intelligent creator sounds more reasonable than some particles (that magically appeared) creating a big bang that started everything, and us evolving from single-celled organisms.

For the record I'm not Christian, but I do believe in the existence of a God/creator/higher power. Its the rest of the bible I question.


You do know that's a stupid argument right? to disprove a negative?

Is like if i were to tell you:

Me: Hey i saw a 3 headed dragon spewing fire through it's mouth and sperms through it's nose. Crazy, huh?

You: You are fuckin' retarded, prove it?

Me: Well... why don't you go and prove me there is not such a thing,'cause I know I saw it, and that's all I need. 

You: Dude... are you high?

 



03/10/09 HUGE day in my life:

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=63437&page=1

Marks on 09 September 2011
Maynard_Tool said:
Marks said:
Wow this thread is still going fairly strong eh?

Well just like atheists can't prove there is no God...I can't prove there is one. All I can say is for me an intelligent creator sounds more reasonable than some particles (that magically appeared) creating a big bang that started everything, and us evolving from single-celled organisms.

For the record I'm not Christian, but I do believe in the existence of a God/creator/higher power. Its the rest of the bible I question.


You do know that's a stupid argument right? to disprove a negative?

Is like if i were to tell you:

Me: Hey i saw a 3 headed dragon spewing fire through it's mouth and sperms through it's nose. Crazy, huh?

You: You are fuckin' retarded, prove it?

Me: Well... why don't you go and prove me there is not such a thing,'cause I know I saw it, and that's all I need. 

You: Dude... are you high?

 


Good one, you really got me there!!! :DDDDD Hyuk hyuk 3 headed dragons LOLOLOLOL woulda b33n cooler if you said 4 headed dragons though. 

Yeah I have no responese, God may or may not exist there's no way to prove or disprove it. The only way to find out is death. 

And the idea that God doesn't exist just because nobody has seen him is kinda lame. Nobody was around to see the big bang, or the beginnings of evolution either but atheists still take it as fact. 

And by the way I'm not a Christian, I just favour the idea of a higher being to the idea of a big bang.