Good "god" arguments!

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Gurck
I've never said that or anything close to it. My closest friend is a devout catholic and very intelligent, and Einstein believed in a god... While I am an atheist, I wouldn't make a blanket statement like that; you're either misremembering, attributing someone else's post(s) to me, or are delusional... and if you honestly think the posts I've made in this thread are "baseless attacks", I'd bet on the latter. Debating and flaming are two very different things. Can you imagine a world where everyone agreed on everything? I certainly can't. We deal with differences by discussing and debating them... which was what happened in this thread until you dropped by to vent your wrath at people who don't like iPods. It's baffling.

No what happend in this thread is that the OP asked for a few very specific things, and people ignored him and posted what they wanted to. Then I decided to join in and add a note on the watch argument, since I have discussed it a few times. I admit I became a bit annoyed when you wandered off logically in reply, but trust me, there's no correlation between you hating ipods and me posting here.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: torpid
No what happend in this thread is that the OP asked for a few very specific things, and people ignored him and posted what they wanted to.

Welcome to ATOT. Care to explain why you don't do the same in other threads in which this happens? ie. 50-75% of them... Or to others who went 'off-topic' in this thread? I have a feeling the answer is small and white... no, not that :laugh: What I'm talking about is also endorsed by U2.

Then I decided to join in and add a note on the watch argument, since I have discussed it a few times. I admit I became a bit annoyed when you wandered off logically in reply, but trust me, there's no correlation between you hating ipods and me posting here.

No, you argued illogically and resorted to attacks when I refuted it.

I'm putting my money on delusional.

 

[Attrox]

Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Faith is more like having the willingness to accept something that you would not have accepted based on merely your own thought processes. So, if you say "faith is believing in what isn't", you are basically saying that anything you can't comprehend does not exist.

Nope, again you've ignored all that has been said. Atheism is theory based on evidence, nothing more or less.

Then there's no way for a true atheist to become a christian. You are limiting yourself by only accepting cold hard scientific evidence. Explaining to you the possibility of God is like trying to tell a blind person about color. Except i dont believe that all these critics are "true atheists"

Tehn tell me, explain to me, why do you think god exists, even without an proof at all. Enlighten me!

Actually, I dont believe yet. I'm 22, an engineering student, and I'm pretty busy. I think anyone at my age or even at say 30, who "has it all worked out" or "believes" without any doubts or questions - is just naive. However, you are also naive if you are quick to disbelieve. I have not closed my mind, and I hope that in the future i'll be able to look at all the angles, and with some help from God (if he exists), become a christian. I know many people who are much older and smarter than me who have travelled down a long spiritual and intellectual journey and ended up believers in God.

I like your way of thinking :beer:

 

[0]

Originally posted by: Aimster
My theory...

Athiest = stupid
Agnostics = smart
Religious people = lost

All I have to say is if a man claimed he was a prophet/son of god today he would be sent to a mental hospital. If a man claimed it thousands of years ago people would listen.

My theory = my theory .. 99.9% disagree... so don't comment on it.

I thought you were a Zoroastrian...

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: torpid
No what happend in this thread is that the OP asked for a few very specific things, and people ignored him and posted what they wanted to.

Welcome to ATOT. Care to explain why you don't do the same in other threads in which this happens? ie. 50-75% of them... Or to others who went 'off-topic' in this thread? I have a feeling the answer is small and white... no, not that :laugh: What I'm talking about is also endorsed by U2.

I'm putting my money on delusional.

Why don't I do it in other threads? Because I click on threads that interest me, not threads that correspond to some random set of characteristics. I've not found the 50-75% figure, perhaps that's because we click on different threads and only occasionally collide, seemingly over religion and mp3 players? If I really were stalking you, wouldn't we get into arguments more often?

Obviously our brains work differently. I found it illogical to call something an analogy and then go on to argue against the analogy when it wasn't an analogy in the first place, but a counter example. But you maybe found it illogical to bring up a counter example to note why the watch analogy isn't so bad in that regard.

The real answer is that there are no "good" god arguments, only famous and interesting ones, such as the watch example, which is more famous than most, and still somewhat interesting since we haven't fully figured out how to go from primordial soup to simple celled organism.

 

[flawlssdistortn]

The Suma Theologica spanned over 20 volumes and was an exhaustive but ambitious attempt at a logical explanation of God. And do you know why Thomas Aquinas stopped writting it? Because it just wasn't worth it!!! He already believed in God through his spiritual experiences. The simple "truth" is that there will never be a complete scientific and logical explanation of the existence of God. Sure, there are many arguments and thought processes that gain some amount of ground in proof. And as christians, it's kind of our job to humor those critics (and ourselves) through intellectual efforts. But a person will never be able to "know" or "experience" God without his help. That is why you have to make the personal effort to reach out. You're never gonna believe if you have a closed mind.

So to you "atheists" out there i say this - just take a chance and try... Step out of your perspective for a moment (cause thats the only way), try the "christian" perspective, and see if it all makes sense. Then if you don't like it, then you can say you don't believe.

And believers in God should do the opposite.

How can we try and convince ourselves if we remain in our own intellectual boxes? How can you tell a blind man about color? How can you tell a deaf person about music?

 

[thirdlegstump]

God damnit!

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
All evidence is not scientific.

??? Are you arguing against the scientific method?

And if there is no argument pro god without any faith, then there is no god. Because faith is believeing in what isn't.

Well that is a wee bit arrogant that a little spec of human being could "prove" there is a All Powerful God. It is an all to common one though. I know it sounds self serving but if God made it plainly obvious for people of little/no faith there wouldn't be a point to God. Not to mention would he want you?

If you want numbers go find studies of cancer patients with people praying for them vs. patients with no prayer. Even a liberal rag like 60 mintues (or was it 20/20?) reported that the results were unsettling that the patients w/o any prayer for did measurably worse. It has been years since it was on. They need to play it again.

ouch, in no way do they need to play it again.

those studies are still decieving people. how sad.. the journal that published it has long sinced pulled it. its been found to be completely faulty in its methods, it fails to account for too many factors, it wasn't much of a study at all, let alone scientific. not to mention one of its supposed phd's was not. he was a fraudster who was later jailed for criminal activities. he has conducted countless other fraudulent studies on psychic surgery, non contact touch therapy, prayers effects on limb regrowth of amphibians under prayer, and other nonsense. the other two cannot be found for comment now its all pretty shady. i'm sure religious will continue quoting the study forever though. like with psuedoscience supporting creationism, a few lies to save souls? why not? lol they were willing to burn you at the stake to save your soul just a lil while back, lil pseudo science is nothin to em.


The following facts related to the Columbia University prayer study confirm that those physicians who doubted the study's astounding results had extremely good reasons to be skeptical. It will be interesting to see if ABC's Dr. Johnson, a medical doctor who also serves as an evangelical minister at the fundamentalist Community Covenant Church in West Peabody, Massachusetts, will report or ignore the following shocking information.

The study's three authors were Kwang Cha, Rogerio Lobo, and Daniel Wirth. Dr. Cha, has left Columbia University and refuses to return phone calls or letters about the report. Dr. Rogerio Lobo, identified by the New York Times and ABC News as the report's lead author, now claims to have not been involved with the study until after its completion and to have provided only, "editorial assistance". Dr. Lobo also refuses to return phone calls or letters about the study. If the report's lead author did not conduct the international prayer study, who did'

The remaining author is a mysterious individual known as Daniel Wirth. Mr. Wirth has no medical degree but does have a long history of publishing studies on mysterious supernatural or paranormal phenomena. Many of these studies originated from an entity called, "Healing Sciences Research International" an organization that Mr. Wirth supposedly headed. This entity's only known address was apparently a Post Office Box in Orinda California. Wirth holds an MS degree is in the dubious field of "parapsychology" and also has a law degree.

In October 2002, Mr. Wirth, along with his former research associate Joseph Horvath also known as Joseph Hessler, was indicted by a federal grand jury. Both men were charged with bilking the troubled cable television provider Adelphia Communications Corporation out of $2.1 million by infiltrating the company, then having it pay for unauthorized consulting work. Police investigators discovered that Wirth is also known as John Wayne Truelove. FBI investigators revealed that Wirth first used the name of Truelove, a New York child who died at age 5 in 1959, to obtain a passport in the mid-1980's. Wirth and his accomplice were charged with 13 counts of mail fraud, 12 counts of interstate transportation of stolen money, making false statements on loan applications and five other counts of fraud. The federal grand jury concluded that the relationship between Wirth and Horvath extended back more than 20 years and involved more than $3.4 million in income and property obtained by using the names of children who died more than 40 years ago.

Incredibly, at the time of the indictment, Horvath was already in jail charged with arson for burning down his Pennsylvania house to collect insurance money. The FBI investigation revealed that Horvath had previously gone to prison after being convicted in a 1990 embezzlement and false identity case in California. Interestingly, the investigation also revealed that he had also once been arrested for posing as a doctor in California. It appears that the "doctor" who performed biopsies on human research subjects in Wirth's paranormal healing studies may have actually been Mr. Horvath impersonating a doctor. Horvath was a co-author on another of Wirth's bizarre studies in which salamander limbs were amputated and found to grow back more quickly when "healers" waived their hands over the wounds.

Both Wirth and Horvath initially plead innocent to the felony charges and over the next 18 months their trial was delayed six times. However, on May 18, 2004, just as the criminal trial of the United States v. Wirth & Horvath was finally about to begin, both men pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Apparently a plea bargain had been made and many of the charges had been dropped. Wirth and Horvath will be sentenced in September and they each face a maximum of five years in federal prison.

In summary, one of the authors of the Columbia University prayer study has left the University and refuses to comment, another now claims to have not actually participated in the study and also refuses to comment, and another is on his way to federal prison for fraud. Fraud is the operative word here. Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of this entire sordid saga can be summed up in one question: How did a bizarre study claiming supernatural results end up in a peer-reviewed medical journal' We may never know because the editors of the Journal of Reproductive Medicine also refuse to answer calls or respond to letters about this study. Worse yet, the entire study remains posted on their internet site and the public has been given no reason to doubt its validity. It must be emphasized that, in the entire history of modern science, no claim of any type of supernatural phenomena has ever been replicated under controlled conditions. The importanc e of this fact can not be over emphasized. One would think that medical journal editors would be keenly aware of this fact and therefore be highly skeptical of supernatural claims. In any case, the damage has been done. The fact that a "miracle cure" study was deemed to be suitable for publication in a scientific journal automatically enhanced the study's credibility. Not surprisingly, the news media quickly disseminated the miraculous results.

In reality, the Columbia University prayer study was based on a bewildering study design and included many sources of error. I have already summarized many of the study's potential flaws in two critiques published in the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine. But worse than flaws, in light of all of the shocking information presented above, one must consider the sad possibility that the Columbia prayer study may never have been conducted at all. It remains to be seen if the news media will find the above information to be newsworthy. http://www.valleyskeptic.com/Prayer_Study_Flawed_and_Fraud.html

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: torpid
Why don't I do it in other threads? Because I click on threads that interest me, not threads that correspond to some random set of characteristics. I've not found the 50-75% figure, perhaps that's because we click on different threads and only occasionally collide, seemingly over religion and mp3 players? If I really were stalking you, wouldn't we get into arguments more often?

Obviously our brains work differently. I found it illogical to call something an analogy and then go on to argue against the analogy when it wasn't an analogy in the first place, but a counter example. But you maybe found it illogical to bring up a counter example to note why the watch analogy isn't so bad in that regard.

The real answer is that there are no "good" god arguments, only famous and interesting ones, such as the watch example, which is more famous than most, and still somewhat interesting since we haven't fully figured out how to go from primordial soup to simple celled organism.

Could it be, perhaps, that you have no real argument, but simply plenty of anger to vent? It would certainly explain why you spewed such vitriol at me for going off-topic when the OP didn't seem to feel I strayed too far off his topic in response to others who'd done so, while ignoring said others... not to mention why you made an analogy/point (really, either word fits like a glove, to say you're splitting hairs is an understatement) and chide me relentlessly for calling it one rather than the other?

The iPod isn't the worst DAP out there, and since I'm guessing your folks paid for it, price wasn't a concern for you - and price is one of the biggest reasons I don't feel it's a good value. There there, feeling better?

As I feel it's unfair to argue with someone not equipped and/or not in a healthy state of mind to do so, I'll end it here. Have a good night.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
try the "christian" perspective, and see if it all makes sense. Then if you don't like it, then you can say you don't believe.

First and foremost, things make perfect sense to me as my beliefs stand. I'm open to new experiences, but your tone suggests that anyone not christian must confused and sad, when in reality no blanket statement of that magnitude could be true... though it probably applies to a higher percentage of christians than it does atheists

At any rate I feel I have, at least to the best of my ability, but I simply can't. I was raised casual catholic, attended sunday school, have been to church, all with as open a mind as I could muster... I was younger then, and as we know, it's easier to suspend belief as children than as adults. I have been to church a few times as an adult; once with a friend (didn't have much choice), and at a few weddings & funerals. Quite simply, even as a child, the idea seemed absolutely absurd to me... like Santa for the grown-ups. The only way religion makes sense to me is when looked at from an analytic, sociological, atheist viewpoint. When people say they "just feel it" (or variations on that theme), it seems painfully obvious they're commenting on nothing more than their genetic inclination to believe, something we've gone over.

 

[Attrox]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: torpid
Why don't I do it in other threads? Because I click on threads that interest me, not threads that correspond to some random set of characteristics. I've not found the 50-75% figure, perhaps that's because we click on different threads and only occasionally collide, seemingly over religion and mp3 players? If I really were stalking you, wouldn't we get into arguments more often?

Obviously our brains work differently. I found it illogical to call something an analogy and then go on to argue against the analogy when it wasn't an analogy in the first place, but a counter example. But you maybe found it illogical to bring up a counter example to note why the watch analogy isn't so bad in that regard.

The real answer is that there are no "good" god arguments, only famous and interesting ones, such as the watch example, which is more famous than most, and still somewhat interesting since we haven't fully figured out how to go from primordial soup to simple celled organism.

Could it be, perhaps, that you have no real argument, but simply plenty of anger to vent? It would certainly explain why you spewed such vitriol at me for going off-topic when the OP didn't seem to feel I strayed too far off his topic in response to others who'd done so, while ignoring said others... not to mention why you made an analogy/point (really, either word fits like a glove, to say you're splitting hairs is an understatement) and chide me relentlessly for calling it one rather than the other?

The iPod isn't the worst DAP out there, and since I'm guessing your folks paid for it, price wasn't a concern for you - and price is one of the biggest reasons I don't feel it's a good value. There there, feeling better?

As I feel it's unfair to argue with someone not equipped and/or not in a healthy state of mind to do so, I'll end it here. Have a good night.

iPod is sexy and therefore God exists! End of Argument

 

[flawlssdistortn]

Originally posted by: Gurck

First and foremost, things make perfect sense to me as my beliefs stand. I'm open to new experiences, but your tone suggests that anyone not christian must confused and sad, when in reality no blanket statement of that magnitude could be true... though it probably applies to a higher percentage of christians than it does atheists

I didn't mean to imply this at all, my point was just that people aren't going to understand someone else's perspective while remaining completely in their own perspective. And yeah, I don't know how you would suspend disbelief. But that is what the clergy is supposed to be there for. I will admit though, that most of them haven't a clue as to how other people's minds work.

 

[flawlssdistortn]

Oh, and I don't think you can just dismiss people's religious experiences as mere "genetic inclinations to believe." Like i was saying before, it's easy to dismiss it because you haven't experienced it yourself. Of course a blind man will dismiss the concept of color. This doesnt necessarily mean that it happened, and that you should believe everyone's claims, but still... You are being too quick to doubt. Lol, you gotta stop acting like an atheist for a minute

 

[Attrox]

The argument that man evolves: we used to think earth is flat and it turns out to be wrong so all the unexplainable/miracle things that happened today can/will be explained by science in the future is weak. It's based on an assumption. Isn't this is similar to taking a leap of faith too?

Using the same kind of assumption one can also argue that in the future we might reach a certain high lvl of enlightenment/understanding of science that it's possible to prove God is exist.

If it's me, I rather take the Agnostics (sp?) stance. This way you are not closing the chance to actually "experience" God yourself.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: torpid
Why don't I do it in other threads? Because I click on threads that interest me, not threads that correspond to some random set of characteristics. I've not found the 50-75% figure, perhaps that's because we click on different threads and only occasionally collide, seemingly over religion and mp3 players? If I really were stalking you, wouldn't we get into arguments more often?

Obviously our brains work differently. I found it illogical to call something an analogy and then go on to argue against the analogy when it wasn't an analogy in the first place, but a counter example. But you maybe found it illogical to bring up a counter example to note why the watch analogy isn't so bad in that regard.

The real answer is that there are no "good" god arguments, only famous and interesting ones, such as the watch example, which is more famous than most, and still somewhat interesting since we haven't fully figured out how to go from primordial soup to simple celled organism.

Could it be, perhaps, that you have no real argument, but simply plenty of anger to vent? It would certainly explain why you spewed such vitriol at me for going off-topic when the OP didn't seem to feel I strayed too far off his topic in response to others who'd done so, while ignoring said others... not to mention why you made an analogy/point (really, either word fits like a glove, to say you're splitting hairs is an understatement) and chide me relentlessly for calling it one rather than the other?

The iPod isn't the worst DAP out there, and since I'm guessing your folks paid for it, price wasn't a concern for you - and price is one of the biggest reasons I don't feel it's a good value. There there, feeling better?

As I feel it's unfair to argue with someone not equipped and/or not in a healthy state of mind to do so, I'll end it here. Have a good night.

No real argument other than the fact that the watch analogy is more solid than you stated, and you probably still think your statement about propogating has some merit. It is probably more solid in terms of evolution too, since I doubt you really understand how tenuous the origins of life from primordial soup theories are.

Of course, you definitely don't understand that lack of evidence does not constitute evidence. The very idea runs counter to some of your own statements. There is no evidence that life outside of this solar system exists. In fact there is overwhelming lack of evidence. Does that mean that you should disbelieve in life outside of the solar system?

No, either word does not fit like a glove. If you can't tell the difference between an analogy and a counter example enough to know that it's not really splitting hairs at all, then there is little hope for you. Let me elaborate with a basic demonstration as a last ditch effort:

Someone: X is true.
You: No, X is false, because X is Y, and all Y are A.
Me: What about this example of Y which is not A?
You: That's a bad analogy.

Also, that's about the 5th time you've assumed that I own an iPod despite me stating otherwise at least at least as many times to you directly. Are you sure I made up the thread about me being an alleged christian despite no evidence other than disagreeing with you? Of course, it's at least the 20th time you have brought up the ipod's price despite the fact that it is now and has been for over a year the same price as most of its competitors.

 

[AmbitV]

If we have no proof of something, why should the default position necessarily be that of agnosticism?

I get the feeling that a lot of people who say they are agnostic about the existence of god do so only out of pressure from creationists and the fear that they may be wrong. They don't apply the same reasoning they use for other subjects. For instance, if we can't prove that Bigfoot or the Yeti doesn't exist, do we then go around and say we're agnostic about those creatures? Some might, but most people would just say they just don't believe Bigfoot or Yeti exist - i.e. they're hoaxes. There's just no evidence to support their existence.

There's no evidence to support the existence of god, and yet for some reason or another people who would otherwise in normal circumstances say that god is a hoax (i.e. the same people that would say Bigfoot and the Yeti are a hoax), instead say they're agnostic.

Someone once said:

Evolutionists have proof without certainty.
Creationists have certainty without proof.

 

[flawlssdistortn]

You don't go to hell if you don't believe in Bigfoot, and there aren't millions of people that already believe in it.

 

[LtPage1]

you cant explain religion with logic. its a matter of faith. faith isnt logical; by its very nature it cant be proven.

 

[Maximin]

Questions of God?

Don't want to read?

 

[Crappopotamus]

im agnostic... however, ive listened to a religious speaker before. there was a lot of bull, but one point he made was that everything needs to come from somewhere. everything has a beginning, and all this matter couldnt have produced itself... there had to have been a higher power that started it all. the argument went somewhere along those lines, and has me half convinced that there could be a higher power...

 

[AmbitV]

Originally posted by: Crappopotamus
im agnostic... however, ive listened to a religious speaker before. there was a lot of bull, but one point he made was that everything needs to come from somewhere. everything has a beginning, and all this matter couldnt have produced itself... there had to have been a higher power that started it all. the argument went somewhere along those lines, and has me half convinced that there could be a higher power...

And where did the higher power come from?

 

[0roo0roo]

aliens...

 

[petrek]

?The difficulty is not with the infallibility of the Bible, but with the assumed infallibility of the critics who do not understand it. The incompetence of the critic, not the incompetence of the Scriptures, makes the trouble.? John Champion, 1924

?The more thoroughly I have investigated the subject, the more clearly have I seen the flimsy character of objections made against the Bible. Every difficulty in the Bible is, and will yet be seen to be, capable of a fair and reasonable solution.? George W. DeHoff, 1962

?And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.? 2 Peter 3:15-16

The creation account in Genesis divided time into days and the days into evening and morning for three days before the sun was even created (1:1-19). "There was evening and there was morning," we are told, "one day... a second day... a third day," but as any astronomer knows, evening (night) and morning (daylight) result from the earth's rotation with respect to the sun. With no sun, there would have certainly been evening or night, but there could have been no morning.

Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day. At that point, the sun and the moon had already been created. Thus, it is understood why we generally associate morning with the rising of the sun, and evening with the setting of the sun.
However, people who live at the poles and in places where the sun does not penetrate still experience morning and evening, as they are times of the day, not necessarily associated with the sun and the moon (although generally that is their association).

On the fourth day when God created the "two great lights" (the sun and the moon), he created the stars too. This creation of the rest of the universe was treated by the Genesis writer(s) as if it were little more than an afterthought: "he made the stars also" (v:16). To the prescientific mind that wrote this, it probably made sense. To him (her), the earth was undoubtedly the center of the universe, but today we know better. The solar system of which earth is only a tiny part is itself an infinitesimal speck in the universe. Surely, then, the creation of the stars would not have occurred so quickly and suddenly if six days were needed to create the world. Scientists now know that the creation of stars is an evolutionary process that is still ongoing. Matter coalesces; stars ignite, shine, and eventually burn out or explode. From the existence of heavy elements in our solar system, astronomers generally agree that it formed from debris left over from a supernova that occurred billions of years ago. The prescientific Genesis writer knew none of this, however, and that is why he viewed the creation of the universe as an Elohistic afterthought. No modern, scientifically-educated writer would have made that mistake.

What arrogance!!
The Bible must be interpreted by the Bible or there can be nothing but problems. The wisdom of this world is at enmity with the wisdom of God.
The earth, the planet on which we live is the center of the universe as far as scripture is concerned. This is the only place where God created life, this is where God walked as a man, and was crucified to save from eternal death all who chose to trust in Him, this is where the final battle (Armageddon) will take place, this is IT, this, EARTH, is the ONLY PLANET that matters. It is on this planet that the fate of every single member of mankind (the only living creatures apart from angels, that have souls) is decided.
The Genesis writer (God) got it right. The universe was created with one purpose in mind, so that God could have a personal relationship with all men that desire the same friendship.
Do the stars matter? He created them, so they?re there for a reason, but they certainly have little importance in the big picture (Eternal life in Heaven with God, or Eternity in the Lake of Fire apart from God).

By then, the earth had been created, light (somehow without the sun or stars) had been created

Such is hardly a problem for God, being as he is not subject to the laws of the universe that He created.
Walking on water, turning water into wine, feeding the multitude with only 5 loaves, being born of a virgin, all are physically impossible for man, but NOT for God.

The creation of the stars is the subject not only of scientific error in the Bible but also of textual contradiction. Clearly, the Genesis writer(s) said that God made the stars on the fourth day (1:16). By then, the earth had been created, light (somehow without the sun or stars) had been created, the gathering together of dry land had occurred, and vegetation had been created. One could surely say that by then the foundations of the world had been laid, yet Yahweh Elohim presumably told Job that the stars already existed when the foundations of the earth were laid:

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare if thou hast understanding. Who determined the measures thereof, if thou knowest? Or who stretched the line upon it? Whereupon were the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the cornerstone there-of, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (38:4-7).

Granted the "singing of the morning stars" is clearly a poetical expression, but that does not explain away the problem. How could it be said in any sense, poetical or otherwise, that "the morning stars sang together" at a time when stars didn't even exist? Obviously, then, the Genesis writer(s) and the author of Job had different perceptions of when stars were created.

Simply, the ?morning stars? refer to angels.

The Genesis writer(s) didn't understand the nature of darkness either. He said that God created light (somehow before the sun and stars were made) and then "divided the light from the darkness" (1:3-4). Light, however, is not something that can be separated from darkness. Light is an electromagnetic radiation from an energy source like the sun or stars, and darkness is merely the absence of light. Without light, there will automatically be darkness. No god is needed to separate or divide light from darkness. We know that today; the prescientific Genesis writer(s) didn't.

God?s ability is NOT determined by man?s knowledge.

The Genesis writer's genetic knowledge was no better than his understanding of astronomy. In chapter 30, he told of Jacob's scheme to increase his wealth while he was still in the employ of his father-in-law Laban. The two had reached an agreement whereby Jacob would be given all striped, spotted, and speckled lambs and kids subsequently born in Laban's flocks. Laban then removed all the striped, spotted, and speckled animals from his flocks and put them in his sons' care at a three-day distance from the flock Jacob attended. Not to be outsmarted, Jacob devised a plan:

Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the rods. He set the rods that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the rods, and so the flocks produced young that were striped, speckled, and spotted (30:37-39, NRSV).

As is often the case, one need only read the surrounding passages (in this case, the next chapter) to figure out the reason. Being the forgetful human that I am, I perused through 7 google pages before being reminded of that truth.

Genesis Chapter 31 verses 7-9

?And your father hath deceived me, and changed my wages ten times; but God suffered him not to hurt me. If he said thus, The speckled shall be thy wages; then all the cattle bare speckled: and if he said thus, The ringstraked shall be thy hire; then bare all the cattle ringstraked. Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me.?

So as we see, it had nothing to do with what Jacob did with the rods that caused the offspring to be his, it was God?s doing. The fact that the Bible mentions that he did it is further testament to the fact the Bible contains the truth regardless of whose beliefs it initially appears to favor.
Shepherds (Jacob being one of them) at that time used rods thinking it had some effect, and therefore the Bible records that Jacob did it. However, the Bible also records why the offspring being born were the ones Laban said Jacob could keep, because God made it so.


Dave

 

[RandomCoil]

Originally posted by: petrek
The earth, the planet on which we live is the center of the universe as far as scripture is concerned. This is the only place where God created life, this is where God walked as a man, and was crucified to save from eternal death all who chose to trust in Him, this is where the final battle (Armageddon) will take place, this is IT, this, EARTH, is the ONLY PLANET that matters. It is on this planet that the fate of every single member of mankind (the only living creatures apart from angels, that have souls) is decided.
The Genesis writer (God) got it right. The universe was created with one purpose in mind, so that God could have a personal relationship with all men that desire the same friendship.
Do the stars matter? He created them, so they?re there for a reason, but they certainly have little importance in the big picture (Eternal life in Heaven with God, or Eternity in the Lake of Fire apart from God).

This is why I *so* hope ET shows up some day to say "howdy" and hang out for a while. Talk about arrogance : "God is so great he decided to make the friggin' universe and then only play with one tiny chunk of it." Most boring God ever.

God?s ability is NOT determined by man?s knowledge.

Oh sure it is! God used to only be able to make the sun go around the earth (I'm sure the Catholic church has some documents on this) but then he figured out how make the earth go around the sun. Sure was confusing for a while, but the church figured it out.

Such is hardly a problem for God, being as he is not subject to the laws of the universe that He created.
Walking on water, turning water into wine, feeding the multitude with only 5 loaves, being born of a virgin, all are physically impossible for man, but NOT for God.

Eh, man can do that:
1) Walk on water: use floats
2) Turn water to wine: water grape vines, ferment grapes
3) Feed multitude w/5 loaves: make big loaves
4) Be born of a virgin: in vitro fertilization, implantation

God's got to come up with some new parlor tricks. I mean, he hasn't parted the Red Sea lately, but we parted the Americas a while back and parted Africa from Asia before that. We also made a plague of killer bees. A few more years of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and we'll even get that "Great Flood" thing going.

As for my beliefs, I'm not big on God. If I were, though, I'd spring for a God capable of creating the universe in a big bang -- one that knew that pi should be 3.14159..., that the gravitational constant should be just so, and that light should cruise at a certain speed. That God would be so friggin' powerful that he'd set up all these crazy constants and let some sort of natural process, like evolution say, take its course, knowing what the end result would be: a bunch of people arguing over his existence in OT forums. Now THAT is a parlor trick worthy of a God.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn

Originally posted by: AmbitV
If we have no proof of something, why should the default position necessarily be that of agnosticism?

I get the feeling that a lot of people who say they are agnostic about the existence of god do so only out of pressure from creationists and the fear that they may be wrong. They don't apply the same reasoning they use for other subjects. For instance, if we can't prove that Bigfoot or the Yeti doesn't exist, do we then go around and say we're agnostic about those creatures? Some might, but most people would just say they just don't believe Bigfoot or Yeti exist - i.e. they're hoaxes. There's just no evidence to support their existence.

There's no evidence to support the existence of god, and yet for some reason or another people who would otherwise in normal circumstances say that god is a hoax (i.e. the same people that would say Bigfoot and the Yeti are a hoax), instead say they're agnostic.

Someone once said:

Evolutionists have proof without certainty.
Creationists have certainty without proof.

You don't go to hell if you don't believe in Bigfoot, and there aren't millions of people that already believe in it.

In other words, fear and taking safety in numbers are good reasons?

Originally posted by: Crappopotamus
im agnostic... however, ive listened to a religious speaker before. there was a lot of bull, but one point he made was that everything needs to come from somewhere. everything has a beginning, and all this matter couldnt have produced itself... there had to have been a higher power that started it all. the argument went somewhere along those lines, and has me half convinced that there could be a higher power...

He played on your innate awe of the unknown, and you attributed it to a (possible) deity at his mere suggestion. People 500 years ago felt the same concerning things with now-mundane scientific explanations. Most of us share this interest in the unknown; it's a genetic trait which has helped us to push forward and learn. I've been watching season 1 of the X-Files on DVD lately and found it great entertainment, though I consider the subject matter of more than half of the episodes implausible.