intelligent

[Larry Laffer]

(...) but it would turn into anarchy eventually.

I like you already Adam

[AdamN]

everybody likes me...

[cyb3r.god3]

anarchy is inevitable like windows dieing and linux and mac will be left

[AdamN]

If Windows was to die, then people would have to be trained in either Linux or Mac, or be replaced with younger people who know and understand these Operating Systems. Also alot applications businesses use just aren't found or work on these Operating Systems and creating this software to run on these Operating Systems takes time and money which businesses don't have.
So think of the costs of training or replacing staff, lost profits and revenue, and\or a company's reputation...
If Windows did die, so would Symantec & McAfee...these 2 internet security companies only make software for Windows. They use to make it for Mac, but stopped doing this a few years ago.

[CPT Worm]

If Windows did die, so would Symantec & McAfee...these 2 internet security companies only make software for Windows. They use to make it for Mac, but stopped doing this a few years ago.

Hmmm?



Anyway, this isn't a discussion about operating systems. It's a discussion about religion, faith, and existence of God (or gods).

[emmzee]

Anyone have opinions on my last post re chance/design?

Also, you may be interested in the latest article on my blog ... quotes:
<i>If God exists (here I am referring to a monotheistic God) then God would necessarily be in a wholly different category from every created, materialistic thing we see and study around us. Thus, God couldn’t be studied in the same way as we study rocks, or trees, or calculus. ... [T]his isn’t to belittle at all the role of rational, philosophical, historical and scientific enquiry. Those methods are all important as far as they go. But instead I am suggesting that rigidly applying the same methodology used for studying mundane things would be in some sense deficient when considering divine things.</i>
http://www.whyfaith.com/2006/11/01/knowing-god/

[Gamer_V]

Anyone have opinions on my last post re chance/design?

Sure, if I try hard enough.

Something cannot come from nothing; that's a basic rule of the universe. We know the universe didn't always exist (from both philosophy and science) so where did it come from? Only from a source that is outside of time, space and matter ... that is eternal, but still caused a universe to exist.

Are you saying that you don't have a problem with god being without beginning and end, but the universe could not just be eternal?

You can't really prove what happened back there except by going back in time, because there are so many variables, so how do we know it didn't exist forever? And why does something have to be created out of something, and not just out of nothing, like chance (again, yeah)?

[emmzee]

Are you saying that you don't have a problem with god being without beginning and end, but the universe could not just be eternal?

Yup, that's what I'm saying. The reason is that we have evidence that the universe could not have always existed, while there is no reason why God could not have always existed. The evidence can be put into basically two categories: philosophical and scientific. IMHO it's reasonable to conclude that the universe had a beginning even <i>without</i> considering scientific evidence because the philosophical arguments are good enough, but most scientists don't believe the universe is eternal. The main reason new (obscure/ad hoc) theories are being introduced is because certain scientists don't like the implications of a "created" universe, not because the evidence for one is lacking.

While we can't "prove" what happened at the "beginning", we can draw conclusions based on all of the evidence we have. We can't "prove" what happened in history either, but we can still be pretty darn sure.

why does something have to be created out of something, and not just out of nothing, like chance (again, yeah)?

That's exactly what I'm suggesting, except not by chance. The universe <i>was</i> created out of nothing, and that's the problem for naturalistic arguments for how the universe came about. It requires a cause that is outside of the physical/material world. Chance implies something for chance to act upon. If there is no universe, no physical world, not even time as we preceive it, how would "chance" create a universe?

[Amro]

Are you saying that you don't have a problem with god being without beginning and end, but the universe could not just be eternal?

Yup, that's what I'm saying. The reason is that we have evidence that the universe could not have always existed, while there is no reason why God could not have always existed. The evidence can be put into basically two categories: philosophical and scientific. IMHO it's reasonable to conclude that the universe had a beginning even <i>without</i> considering scientific evidence because the philosophical arguments are good enough, but most scientists don't believe the universe is eternal. The main reason new (obscure/ad hoc) theories are being introduced is because certain scientists don't like the implications of a "created" universe, not because the evidence for one is lacking.

While we can't "prove" what happened at the "beginning", we can draw conclusions based on all of the evidence we have. We can't "prove" what happened in history either, but we can still be pretty darn sure.

why does something have to be created out of something, and not just out of nothing, like chance (again, yeah)?

That's exactly what I'm suggesting, except not by chance. The universe <i>was</i> created out of nothing, and that's the problem for naturalistic arguments for how the universe came about. It requires a cause that is outside of the physical/material world. Chance implies something for chance to act upon. If there is no universe, no physical world, not even time as we preceive it, how would "chance" create a universe?

Yep, the odds of it happening are impossible. Plus, it's also impossible to explain how the universe 'started' in the first place. It's also something that we just can't get our heads around, like visualizing 4 dimensions (even though they exist mathematically).

Think about it... bits and pieces coming together, forming a cell with RNA that knows exactly what to do? Your DNA tells your cells how to function. Protein Synthesis is such a complicated process that it seems as though ribosomes and enzymes have a mind of their own. It is simply impossible for such a complex system to come into existance randomly.

As for evolution, there is no biological proof of it. At which point during Mytosis does the DNA get changed to reflect that, oh suddenly I'm going to have more cranial capacity? While a creature living in cold weather evolving to have fur makes sense, a creature with no eyes suddenly having eyes (again, another complex system) with no guidance makes no sense whatsoever.

I study biology. Intensively. I believe in science, but that God created science, not that it came out of nowhere. I'd like to mention atoms here for a moment, nuclear physics is a field of its own but it's so complicated that, again, it can't be random chance.

I suggest you read up on the things I mentioned (Protein biosynthesis, Eyes, Nuclear Physics) to see for yourself, although the wikipedia articles don't show you all the details.

P.S. I still didn't get a reply to that email, emmzee =)

[emmzee]

Woah, good to see you posting Amro. I'd totally forgotten about our converstation, I'll have to go back into the archives and take a look.

re Evolution, I'd just like to point out that Amro's objections to it are valid, I agree with all his points ... but note that even if for the sake of argument we say that macroevolution is true that would mean that the universe had a beginning! When you think about the concept of things "evolving", developing slowly over time, try to imagine how that could happen over infinite time ... it makes no sense unless there was a finite time in the past when things got started. Evolution (of the macro variety) is only intelligible when there is a beginning to the universe.

[Amro]

Also, let me point out that I'm not saying evolution is complete trash- just that evolution without something guiding it makes no sense.

[Amro]

(sorry, I couldn't resist reading the whole topic )

If you mean 'translations', yes there are many different English translations, and also translations into 100s of other languages. It's necessary since few people today read Greek.

Well, I am no expert on the topic, but someone else has dug up something, I'll quote it:

Hello everyone,

I was able to witness the religious discussion going on in guild chat yesterday and thought I would throw in my two cents. When I was in my late twenties I became what many of you appear to despise, a Christian. My faith was strong at first but gradually became weaker as time went on. It took about 7 years before I finally gave up trying to defend my beliefs. I was strong in my faith as long as I parked my brain at the door and believed what I was spoon fed from the pastors. I am glad I went through the whole process though, because I learned so many things that I could not have possibly known otherwise.

The downward fall of my beliefs started when I decided to assist the youth pastor and work with the high school aged people like many of you here in this guild. I was probably 30 at the time and it was one of the best things I had ever done. At first I just did and taught them what the youth pastor wanted. But eventually they realized that I was very approachable and would ask me WHY does the bible say this or that instead of WHAT does the bible say about this or that. At that point I realized that the canned answers that most Christians like to give out would not be good enough for these very smart and curious young people. So I started digging for them. I purchased Greek translations of the new testament and Hebrew translations of the old testament and started doing word studies. I found out over time that many words were either removed or added in our English translations so certain verses in the bible would match certain belief systems. Mad

Let me give you one example (Out of thousands) since some of you brought up Hell yesterday:

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (King James Version)

Rom 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. (New International Version)

It my not be apparent so let me explain. The King James Version is used by many Christians to prove to unbelievers that they must accept Jesus into their hearts in order to be saved from Hell. It basically says that because Adam sinned we are all sinners and because Jesus died on the cross we now have the option to become righteous by accepting Jesus. The New International Version matches the original Greek words and basically says that because Adam sinned we are all sinners and because Jesus died on the cross we are ALL righteous. In other words, none of us have a choice in the matter, because of what Jesus did, we are righteous in Gods eyes, PERIOD. That is why I believe Jesus' original disciples considered the gospel good news. Because ALL are saved and going to Heaven. It doesn't matter what your deeds are because they have been paid for in full. Evil or Very Mad <--- Satan not happy!!! - LOL

The original thread: (11 pages, quite long) http://www.hostingphpbb.com/forum/viewt ... m=totalwar

Unlike the Qur'an (according to most Muslims it only be properly read in Arabic) there's no problem with having translations.

Just thought I'd clarify... there's no problem with translations to help people understand, but they are always accompanied with the arabic text. It reduces error.

Oh btw, one more thing, the reasons I don't believe in God is because why is there starving children in the world? why is so many people dying of cancer when they take wicket care of themselves and someone who smokes for wbout 50 years can live until their 100? why are small children dying and then you see 100 year old women and men walking around rude as hell? why is Isreal the chosen land when all is going on over there is fighting? why do god let terrist attack and kill good people? why do rapist get to live to an old age and someone good dyes at 18? I can keep going on and on... make no wonder a lot of young people don't believe in the almighty "God" he shows us no sign of him being real, all I see is suffering and pain.

Dear, if you compare 100 years with eternity, I think eternity wins =). Winning this life does not mean winning the next- and the next is much more important. I should also note that there are trials in life- some people believe in God, then once they're in trouble they're like "Where's God? God can't exist because He's not helping me!". Happened alot during the Holocaust. Bad situations bring out the best in some and the worst in others. God is testing to see if you are worthy.

One argument could be, "But can't God know if I am worthy without resorting to trials?"

Sure, but do YOU know? And that's what's important. God is not going to throw you in hell for believing weakly- there is no proof, since not even you know your faith is weak until you are tested. Thus the trials.

I was just wondering of an example where lately "god" has shown exsistence or even a little good.. anyone got an example?

God is not a human being. He doesn't need to show Himself to you.

But He is Merciful, and there are many things that point to his existance. However, I don't want to be seen as preaching or trying to convert people to my religion, so I will avoid quoting (unless you want me to, I'd be more than happy to show you )

Also, God has done you enough "good" by giving you a body, ears to listen, a nose to smell with, eyes to see through, and a mind superior to all other species.

Tell me why should I believe IN God? I believe there is something beyond our imagination, but I don't believe IN IT!
Why should I believe in God, any God? I just think of all the crimes commited in the name of A god. Think of the old Greek wars. Think of the Holy Wars. Think of the Wich Hunts. Think of the nowadays exorcisations. Why should I believe in a God in whose name so many people died? Think of the Jihad. Think of the Night of St. Bartolomeu. If God truly exists why did HE let all these slaughters even exist? Even HE orders: "DO NOT KILL".
I understand(or at least I believe I understand) that religion is a lot about helping others and turning the other cheek but why? Why should I believe that there is afterlife? Why should I spend a large portion of my life praying? I'm not the kind of guy that passes past a beggar and says "Away from me you bumb!" I'm not like that, I DO help people less fortunate than me but I don't do it because my religion states this way!
One must truly wonder out of all the religions in the world what is the true one? Or is there a true one?

God lets us make our own decisions in this life. If we want to kill people, make people suffer, so be it. We will be punished in the afterlife.
But you might say, wait that's evil why does he let people suffer? As I mentioned earlier suffering in this life is insignificant to God- there's an eternity waiting for you in the afterlife.

I don't remember the exact quote, and I'm too lazy to look it up, but it's something like this:

"If this life had meaning to God, sinners would not get a drop of water in it."

So be patient, and you shall be rewarded

thats the kind of thing that im saying about contradictions people kill in the name of god but god command thou shalt not kill as you just said. but there are those contradictions in the bible aswell

Sadly enough, some people are misguided. But you shouldn't generalize.

Larry: That's sort of my stance. I live by Christian rule...but don't beleive. I think God will forgive us if He exists.

That's understandable. But look at it this way: You're telling God that he is lying by denying His words. Merciful He is, but maybe not to that extent.

Zounds! Methinks I hast underestimated most dubiously thine posting competencies. For mine transgression, I henceforth dub thee Sir Dubious Inconsequential Posting Guy (esquire). Forsooth! Verily, wouldst thou partake upon another post, mote it be of similarly sumptuous calibre!

*applaud* Nice


Sorry for the huge post

[Amro]

(sorry for triple post, forgot something, and that post is already freakin huge)

I'd like to add an analogy for those having trouble with the concept of a God.

I am a programmer. Say I create a virtual world with virtual people. I am in full control of that world. Only things that I define can exist in said world.

Now let's say I'm a badass AI programmer and the virtual people begin to question their existance. Would they conclude I programmed them? Probably not. They may eventually discover the machine code that is their existance... they will study it (science) and conclude it is the essence of their existance. Unless I prod them, they won't know I'm here.

It is also difficult for them to 'believe' in me. They each take up a certain amount of memory. I don't. That concept doesn't apply to me. If I do not define gravity in their world, such a concept would be incomprehensible to them. If I do not define love, they cannot love and would never understand love. They would never fully understand me, because while they are made of 1s and 0s, I am made of something else.

Not trying to compare myself to God, but I think you get the point.

[Larry Laffer]

I like the analogy!

We're all living in a Computer! Arrrrgh!!! MATRIX!!!! NOOOOOO!

[emmzee]

Note: My apologies to most who come across this post. The topics discussed here probably will seem frivolous, and in a sense they are. But it annoys me to no end when I read bad, superficial "theology", so I feel I have to respond.

I found out over time that many words were either removed or added in our English translations so certain verses in the bible would match certain belief systems.

I don't doubt that this sometimes occurs, which is why it's always best to use more than one translation when doing specific studies of texts. But I object to the wording here because it makes it sound like the meaning of texts has been entirely changed, which as we'll see by looking at this person's example below, is either a gross misunderstanding or an outright lie.

The King James Version is used by many Christians to prove to unbelievers that they must accept Jesus into their hearts in order to be saved from Hell. It basically says that because Adam sinned we are all sinners and because Jesus died on the cross we now have the option to become righteous by accepting Jesus. The New International Version matches the original Greek words and basically says that because Adam sinned we are all sinners and because Jesus died on the cross we are ALL righteous. In other words, none of us have a choice in the matter, because of what Jesus did, we are righteous in Gods eyes, PERIOD. That is why I believe Jesus' original disciples considered the gospel good news. Because ALL are saved and going to Heaven. It doesn't matter what your deeds are because they have been paid for in full.

Firstly, the King James is the older than the NIV. At the time it was written, the King James was the best English translation available. However, since then as scholars have learned more about the Greek language and many more manuscripts have been found, it's hardly a surprise that the NIV is a closer translation. So I don't understand this person's argument. They're saying that they can't trust the translations because scholars are constantly working to improve them and make them as accurate as possible?!

Secondly, no serious scholar (nor any of the church fathers) would agree with this person's conclusions. Why? Well let's take a look at their example.

Let's look at the verse the person chose as their example of how the text has supposedly changed. Read it yourself and judge whether these are saying the same thing: (KJV on top in <b>bold</b>, NIV on bottom in <i>italics</i>)

1 <b>Therefore</b>
1 <i>Consequently</i>
2 <b>as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation</b>
2 <i>just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men</i>
3 <b>even so</b>
3 <i>so also</i>
4 <b>by the righteousness of one the free gift</b>
4 <i>the result of one act of righteousness</i>
5 <b>came upon all men unto justification of life</b>
5 <i>was justification that brings life for all men</i>

<u>The verses are saying the exact same thing in different words.</u> The KJV of course uses old/middle English (of the Shakespeare variety). The person's claim that the KJV is saying something different than the NIV is absurd. In fact, neither of his interpretations of this passage is accurate. This is what happens when you try to interpret passages in isolation from the rest of the Bible! If <i>"ALL are saved and going to Heaven. It doesn't matter what your deeds"</i> then why did Jesus speak more about hell than anyone else in the Bible? Where exactly does the KJV verse above say that we "become righteous by accepting Jesus" as the person quoted claims?

The explanation for someone who has read the Bible (and it's difficult to believe this person actually was a teacher of the Bible to anyone, and if that is the case I am shocked and appalled) is that Jesus died for all, but not all will accept the "free gift" or "justification" that He offers. Jesus' disciples considered the gospel good news because it offered grace; the free gift of salvation to anyone who accepted that gift!

Finally, it must be noted that even though there are many differences between the manuscripts we have of the New Testament such as spelling mistakes, word order, etc (just as there are variants in other ancient literary works that are universally accepted as historically accurate) none of these affects any doctrine of the church in the slightest; that is, none contradicts any of the beliefs held by Christians.

[Amro]

Thanks for the reply,

Here's something else from the same guy that might make sense to you (doesn't to me, I don't have any bibles): http://ronweber.home.mchsi.com/

Now since I don't have bibles to compare I can't really argue here, but my point is Catholics/Orthodox/etc do have different beliefs somewhat. Heck, I've even come accross different catholics with different beliefs. And I think that's what his point is- he realized he couldn't trust the bible to guide him.

I have a question though- you say the KJV version does not say "become righteous by accepting Jesus", and I agree. But how do you interpret it as meaning that in the next paragraph?

[emmzee]

I have a question though- you say the KJV version does not say "become righteous by accepting Jesus", and I agree. But how do you interpret it as meaning that in the next paragraph?

I'm not sure what you mean? I wouldn't say we "become righteous by accepting Jesus", more that God accepts us <i>as though</i> we are righteous because of the cross. But now we're getting more into semantics. I meant only to point out that <i>that</i> particular verse doesn't state what it was claimed it states.

I'd agree that Catholics/Protestants/Orthodox Christians do have different beliefs of peripheral issues. That's why there's differenet groups! But all agree on on central tenants of the faith.

Re the website, I'm not interested in the subjects discussed (the "ELSs" he talks about to me are the same as that "Bible Code" stuff so therefore = bunk) so I'm not interested in commenting on it.

Before the thread goes too far afield into esoteric religious/Christian theology discussion, lets try to pullllllllll things back a bit ...

<b>Question for discussion (For everyone!): Would you say that it would be better if God exists than if God doesn't exist? Why or why not?</b>

(Note for clarity that I'm not proposing that "it would be better if God exists, so therefore we all should believe it's true". If that logic worked, then I'd believe I'm a millionare and good-looking! Now, I don't believe that, even if it would be "better", because it's not true I'm asking only if God existing would be better for us than God not existing.)

[AdamN]

If the person upstairs exists, then the creature downstairs exists as well.

[Amro]

I'm not sure what you mean?

Here:

Where exactly does the KJV verse above say that we "become righteous by accepting Jesus" as the person quoted claims?

The explanation for someone who has read the Bible ... is that Jesus died for all, but not all will accept the "free gift" or "justification" that He offers.

You said it doesn't say that, and then said the explanation of that verse is... that. Or are you takling about something else?

Re the website, I'm not interested in the subjects discussed (the "ELSs" he talks about to me are the same as that "Bible Code" stuff so therefore = bunk) so I'm not interested in commenting on it.

There are other pages on that site too. I'm saying this because I don't have a bible or much knowledge to study the issue, so I'm asking you (if you don't mind).

Question for discussion (For everyone!): Would you say that it would be better if God exists than if God doesn't exist? Why or why not?

I would say it would be much better. People would be more motivated to do good things and help each other out. I would be selfish. I have only one life to live, so why waste it?

To quote General Carl Stiner (US Army): I have never met an atheist in combat, and I don't think I ever will.

If God didn't exist, people wouldn't sacrifice their lives for others. Or at least, they'd be much less likely to.

[cyb3r.god3]

first i must say to amro very relavent avatar for the talk about nothing.
second, dont say this explaination is stupid because it does make sense. life, universe and everything is all th imagination of some other person, and when one dies it is that person waking up from a dream. now this continues with the person who dreamed life (eg. my life is the dream of daniels life and daniels life is the dream of...ect). this is an endless loop. another way to think of it is back to my "the sims" post about how god gets bored and stuff like that, but think of it more like habbo hotel, an internet hangout where people alll over can talk and make friends. this is what im talking about. cross some ideas together and you get: a person goes to sleep and dreams (logging on) and become an overseer (god) creates a landscape (biulds) and watches life.