Logic dictates that there is a God!

[jay_a2j]

I dunno, most of the major discoveries were taken that way when revealed, so I'm not being skeptical.

I am.

[Guiscard]

I wonder how many guys were names jesus in the same era.

The hebrew or aramaic name for Jesus is Yeshua, and (from wikipedia):

Among the Jews of the Second Temple Period, the Biblical Aramaic/Hebrew name יֵשׁוּעַ‎ "Yeshua" was common: the Hebrew Bible mentions ten individuals with this name. This name is a feature of biblical books written in the post-Exilic period like Ezra and Daniel and in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[Guiscard]

I dunno, most of the major discoveries were taken that way when revealed, so I'm not being skeptical.

I am.

For the first tiem we seem to be in agreement, Jay. Unfortunately for you it is an agreement that we should apply proper scientific principles to the discovery (not just blind faith).

[Backglass]

It's very simple...you just have to have faith. You cant trust Science to actually prove they are real...science is flawed. If you would just open your heart, you would know that these are the holy remains of jesus, his wife and son.

It is written: "Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel" - Ezekiel 37:11

Hallelujah! Go forth and proclaim the good news!

[jay_a2j]

It's very simple...you just have to have faith. You cant trust Science to actually prove they are real...science is flawed. If you would just open your heart, you would know that these are the holy remains of jesus, his wife and son.

It is written: "Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel" - Ezekiel 37:11

Hallelujah! Go forth and proclaim the good news!

Jesus didn't have a wife or son. See the kind of non-sense people buy into when things like the Davinci Code are released?

[MR. Nate]

Wait a sec...I thought your god was perfect? Incapable of error? This must also mean that his "word" (your bible) is/was perfect. It seems to me that any change, no matter how slight, would change this "perfect word" making it then imperfect...no? How can you read the altered ACTUAL WORDS of your god and then say the meaning didn't change, when it was perfect to begin with?

The question is one of communication. Does a different language or a translation diminish the ability of God's Word to communicate. How about this, God, in His infinite foreknowledge and power, forsaw the words and ideas that would most effectivly communicate across cultures and languages.

Is that a sufficiantly non-scientific answer?

Just so you know, your line of reasoning is the one the Muslims use to demonstrate you can only study the Qur'an in the original Arbic.

[vtmarik]

Jesus didn't have a wife or son. See the kind of non-sense people buy into when things like the Davinci Code are released?

You don't know that for certain.

The story of Jesus in the New Testament has an 18-year gap in it. Who knows what happened during that time? Only the early ecumenical councils, and they didn't see fit to fold these documents into what we now know as the Bible.

I suggest that you do what I do and reserve judgment until all the data has been gathered.

[Guiscard]

I myself don't doubt the possibilty (and to me it seems a good one). Just the sillyness of taking these new 'revelations' about his tomb at face value.

[vtmarik]

I myself don't doubt the possibilty (and to me it seems a good one). Just the sillyness of taking these new 'revelations' about his tomb at face value.

It's all bunk, it's just Cameron and everyone else trying to cash in on the Da Vinci Code idiocy.

There's nothing new here, just the repeated ramblings of morons from 27 years ago.

[jay_a2j]

Jesus didn't have a wife or son. See the kind of non-sense people buy into when things like the Davinci Code are released?

You don't know that for certain.

The story of Jesus in the New Testament has an 18-year gap in it. Who knows what happened during that time? Only the early ecumenical councils, and they didn't see fit to fold these documents into what we now know as the Bible.

I suggest that you do what I do and reserve judgment until all the data has been gathered.

Oh, I know it for certain. Jesus' purpose on Earth was not to have a family. He was/is God. His purpose was to show us how to live and then die that we might live. "Blessed is he who does not marry" (So as to devote his life to God). This is yet another topic we just won't agree on.

[vtmarik]

Actually, in lieu of the previous post, allow me to backtrack back to the beginning of the thread.

First off put aside any bias that you may have...weather it be religious or anti-religious.

You first, but that's not important. You're pontificating, i'm sorry for interrupting you!

Now science has said, Life cannot come from non-life. Which is common sense... a rock will never reproduce since it is not living.

Yup. So far so good, you haven't been strange yet.

Then you trace back all life to its orgin...the very first living thing.

I do? I don't know anything about that part of the world. Also, what does this have to do with Logic and God? Are you trying to create a tenuous link here?

Where did it come from?

Yep, you sure are. We don't know, so forming a conclusion based on the lack of data shows the exact opposite of logic. Logic dictates that you get all the facts before you start stamping your foot and proclaiming that there is only one possibility and it just so happens that your particular group of hallucinating cavemen ancestors all took the same dose at the same time.

Remember, one does not declare the fact-finding mission over when no facts have yet been found.

The ONLY answer is someting or someone has always existed. And that someone or something must have the power to create (or reproduce).

Actually, there are an infinite number of possibilities given the size, mystery, and scope of the universe as a whole. Just because we can't even come to comprehend this number doesn't change this fact.

There must be a God.

Or there's a mystical Cheese Oracle that created all of society and then once he was done he turned into the Moon. Or perhaps the world was created in a cosmic cauldron of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen that coalesced under the tremendous force of gravity and squished together into a planet. Or maybe the world was created by a timid man who lives inside of a shack in the middle of the universe.

Science also dictates evolution could never have happened (but lets save that for a later thread).

Does it? Considering that science dictates that evolution is happening all around us, that would be sort of difficult. If by "science" you mean "a group of theologians who don't understand that religion is a private, family-oriented thing and doesn't belong in school science classes," then you just might have a point there.



Remember, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, it is a theory designed to explain the diversity between different species of animals first observed by Charles Darwin on the Galapagos Islands when he noticed the myriad of different characteristics between similar species of bird when he traveled between the various islands.

[Fish Breeder Boy]

Amen.

[jay_a2j]

(yada, yada, yada)
Your fundamental premise that Logic dictates that God exists is flawed in this respect. Thank you for trying, but you lose. Good fighting soldier, now go bury your nose in that tome of yours and stockpile spam and toilet paper for the coming End Times©®™

Logic dictates there is a God. The premise here is that one has logic to begin with. Life comes from other life.... all life is traced back to the origin of all life. Problem.... where did first life come from? Solution: the origin of all life is eternal. What can be eternal? God. I don't need nor desire to win. God already won.

[vtmarik]

Logic dictates there is a God.

Only when we gather all of the facts in the entire universe will logic begin to dictate anything. I don't know what you read in that book that I missed, but it sure doesn't explain everything in completeness.

The premise here is that one has logic to begin with.

Sticks and stones, friend. You can ad hominem at me all you like, but that won't change the soundness of my argument.

Life comes from other life.... all life is traced back to the origin of all life. Problem.... where did first life come from?

Nobody knows. I can guarantee you that 2000-year old theological speculators didn't know for certain either. You have to remember, these are people who thought that the sun revolved around the earth, and that it was some kind of magic ball.

Solution: the origin of all life is eternal. What can be eternal? God. I don't need nor desire to win. God already won.

You know what else can be eternal? Twinkies, lead, cockroaches, and Micheal Jackson's nose. I don't care what you think, I ain't worshipping something just because it might have a longer life span than most public school textbooks.

Logic dictates that you don't really have a leg to stand on. Until you can go to the top of the mountain and attain a knowledge of all time, space, and possibility can you even begin to think about proclaiming that you know it all.

Remember, there's no such thing as consensus reality. Just because a mighty fuckload of people happen to buy into your particular vein of religious teaching doesn't change the fact that you are all just as lost as the rest of us when it comes to real answers. "God did it all" isn't an answer, it's an attempt to explain the unexplainable. It's not supposed to be the end answer, it's supposed to be a place-holder until the real answers are found.

I know it may sound naive to someone as learned as you. I forgot, you're saved and you've got a space already reserved in Heaven. You've surrendered your life to God and don't feel like exploring or really trying to figure out what's going on.

If we weren't supposed to find out what's really happening, than why does science exist. Surely if the answer is God, then everyone would've found it by now.

Maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't be so quick to judge the whole of science as needless. If you think God's responsible for it all, then maybe you should go live in a cave and become a hermit. After all, your God will provide for you. Supermarkets, medicine, and technology are all the work of secularists who want to kill your God.

[Guiscard]

If an infinite God can exist then why can't an infinite universe exist? Without a God?

[vtmarik]

If an infinite God can exist then why can't an infinite universe exist? Without a God?

Precisely. To quote Douglas Adams, "In an infinite universe anything, even the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, is possible."

[AlgyTaylor]

Or maybe the world was created by a timid man who lives inside of a shack in the middle of the universe.

With a cat called "The Lord"?

[unriggable]

Wait a sec...I thought your god was perfect? Incapable of error? This must also mean that his "word" (your bible) is/was perfect. It seems to me that any change, no matter how slight, would change this "perfect word" making it then imperfect...no? How can you read the altered ACTUAL WORDS of your god and then say the meaning didn't change, when it was perfect to begin with?

The question is one of communication. Does a different language or a translation diminish the ability of God's Word to communicate. How about this, God, in His infinite foreknowledge and power, forsaw the words and ideas that would most effectivly communicate across cultures and languages.

Is that a sufficiantly non-scientific answer?

Just so you know, your line of reasoning is the one the Muslims use to demonstrate you can only study the Qur'an in the original Arbic.

Well it is more holy in its original language - 'The little Prince' for example is a pretty good book but in english its not as well written as in french. In the same way the qoran (how many different ways are there to spell this anyway!?) is most holy in arabic, and least holy in, say, eskimo language, where it went through hundreads of translations.

[unriggable]

Jesus didn't have a wife or son. See the kind of non-sense people buy into when things like the Davinci Code are released?

You don't know that for certain.

The story of Jesus in the New Testament has an 18-year gap in it. Who knows what happened during that time? Only the early ecumenical councils, and they didn't see fit to fold these documents into what we now know as the Bible.

I suggest that you do what I do and reserve judgment until all the data has been gathered.

Oh, I know it for certain. Jesus' purpose on Earth was not to have a family. He was/is God. His purpose was to show us how to live and then die that we might live. "Blessed is he who does not marry" (So as to devote his life to God). This is yet another topic we just won't agree on.

Wait, I thought Jesus was the son of God?! He can't be the son of himself! Checkmate, I win.

[AlgyTaylor]

Ah, it's no use. Whenever you say something, Jay's entire arguement against it is "Well, the Bible says this so this is correct" then uses some really deluded logic to prove that he's right.

To be fair, there's very little wrong in his reasoning per se, it's just that his assumptions are totally wrong. So he's bound to come to an incorrect conclusion.

[heavycola]

Ah, it's no use. Whenever you say something, Jay's entire arguement against it is "Well, the Bible says this so this is correct" then uses some really deluded logic to prove that he's right.

To be fair, there's very little wrong in his reasoning per se, it's just that his assumptions are totally wrong. So he's bound to come to an incorrect conclusion.

True, but you have to consider just how much a bible literalist has invested in his/her belief. Any inconsistency/imperfection/contradiction and the whole house of cards has to topple.
Which is where creationist nonsense come from, and why you won't find an argument for creationism, only attacks on the perceived gaps in eveolutionary theory (and plenty of sophistry, too).
Biblical inconsistencies and errors - like the creation as told in genesis, the description of a flat earth in job, or of the sun orbiting the earth in... joshua i think - HAVE to be argued against, because if even a single error is admitted, the entire belief collapses. And think what that would mean.

And anyway, arguing with anyone who honestly thinks - on the basis of what an old book says - that the earth is 6,000 years old and that they will be spirited up to heaven at any moment is kind of pointless (as i realised after 50-odd pages ) because rationality and logic obviously have no place in these beliefs.

[WL_southerner]

jay come to england and i take you to the lab of the natral scince,I let you have a chat with the tech there

[RenegadePaddy]

True, but you have to consider just how much a bible literalist has invested in his/her belief.

You have to question their education, as anyone with a knowledge of language can tell you where there are phrases proven by other contemporary works to be symbolic (probably a better word for it somwhere).

ie
Nowdays - I'll be 5 minutes, means I'll be a short period of time, not a literal 5 minutes

Medieval - He walked for a day,and he walked for a week, and he walked for a year and a day, means he walked for a very long time, not literally 374 days

Back then - 40 days and 40 nights, means a very long time, not a literal 40 days and 40 nights


This is what really pisses me off, people ignorant of the damned bible trying to tell me that what they read is a literal truth, when anyone - mainly other believers - with intelligence knows this is not so.

I'm not saying the bible isn't the word of God, I'm just saying these berks don't know what they're talking about

You want to spread the word, thats good, but try and spread the actual one, not your crackpot ignorance version.

[Guiscard]

To be honest, the best insights into the benefits and messages we can take from the Bible have been given to me by atheists and non-religious bible scholars. If God did exist then I;m sure he'd look much more kindly upon those who interpret their own moral message from the Bible, and accept that parts cannot and should not be taken literally.

Jay, may I ask whether you take the Apocalypse in the Book of Revalation as literal? The whole whore of babylon, ten headed beast, four horseman stuff?

Even if you do take it literally, could you not see how at least at some level the events in revalations are symbolic, an analagy for something else?

[jay_a2j]

To be honest, the best insights into the benefits and messages we can take from the Bible have been given to me by atheists and non-religious bible scholars. If God did exist then I;m sure he'd look much more kindly upon those who interpret their own moral message from the Bible, and accept that parts cannot and should not be taken literally.

Jay, may I ask whether you take the Apocalypse in the Book of Revalation as literal? The whole whore of babylon, ten headed beast, four horseman stuff?

Even if you do take it literally, could you not see how at least at some level the events in revalations are symbolic, an analagy for something else?

First to address another post about the 5 minutes thingy..... God remains the same.... He does not change. So where fat used to describe being overweight, phat (language evolution) takes on a whole different meaning. But God does not evolve or change.

The Book of Revelation was written so that Paul could disguise is message and because coming from his time he would not know how to describe what he was seeing... (What Paul describes as "giant locusts" could be attack helicopters but he used something familiar to him....he had never seen a helicopter before).


Yes, I believe it is literal. That there will be a literal 7 year tribulation, a literal antichrist, a literal Armageddon and a literal return to Earth by Christ.