The Religion Discussion

[JF.K]

Please don't quote the man-made bible when you're answering.

This is why I don't argue with bible runners...
If their reference book and basis of argument is flawed then what can I tell them.

[toyota2nr]

why was it ok for the god of the old testament to condone slavery?

And incest among others...........

After the great flood who did Noah sleep with? Where did the rest of people come from? Sorry but the bible is filled numerous accounts of many acts that we would condemn today. Same book that many people use to judge others.

Strangely enough though the bible is also the biggest historical record of UFO encounters.
Read Ezekiel chapter 1 v 1-28.

[meccalli]

uhhhh, it was noah, his wife, his sons and their wives?
oh and its not unidentified, we watch inter dimensional beings and their power and call it ufos today. Lets see how much people fall for the cosmic origin theory when they decide to return to save us from ourselves, their creation like all the propaganda in ads, movies and tv shows suggest.

[JF.K]

Question for all those who dont delieve in god : if knowledge is power then explain to me who give man knowledge and y cant man make blood and body parts ag man and others ur misconseption of life is a manifeistation of ur ignorance to accept wat gave life and takes life ! Hence the reason y u all are the fool and weak ones hope when ur batteries die u can change it and come talk on this forum

Good grief, god did not give man knowledge. In fact human beings are born with very little instinctive knowledge when compared to other animals.

And I see you're totally ignorant of the field of bioengineering.

BTW… what is “Acquiring Knowledge”?

In terms of Physics/Chemistry…
Forever figuring out the properties of elements that was here since the beginning of time?
“Miraculous Discoveries” of materials and elements within the mere, restricted, grasp of human limited intellect..
Trying to use materials (that were already here) to make, build, construct things?

In terms of Biology…
Trying to figure out how things (organisms etc, that were already here) work?
(Forever) Learning about a (simple) human body and its contents?
Trying to find cures for diseases that we (man) created?
Trying to replicate (already existing) DNA, tissue, organs?

We are only like children in a playpen… playing with toys given to us by parents!

[Advent]

This christian god is so incompetent eh, he needs humans to convince other humans he (it) exists pfffffffff

As said above you are wrong. Where does it say that?
God suggests to us that we should tell people about him and contrary to popular belief he didn't say to force religion on people and to kill because of it.
Even the Muslim religion says Allah wants Muslims to be like prophets and tell non Muslims about the religion and culture

EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN

[toyota2nr]

uhhhh, it was noah, his wife, his sons and their wives?
oh and its not unidentified, we watch inter dimensional beings and their power and call it ufos today. Lets see how much people fall for the cosmic origin theory when they decide to return to save us from ourselves, their creation like all the propaganda in ads, movies and tv shows suggest.

Please tell me more about these inter-dimensional beings...I saw something like that on Fringe. And while you're at it tell me about the Nephilim....

[meccalli]

The nephilim are basically the offspring of man and the fallen angel(bene ha elohim) sons of god. The book of enoch as well as jasher covers this account in great detail. We get a hint of the action in genesis 6. These great men of old as described in gen were giants as well as their offspring. Now when God decided to purge the earth, the said he chose noah and his family because they were taymim. This is a word used to describe usually for a sacrificial lamb that is unblemished in that it is a genetically good animal, no sort of traits caused by mutation or otherwise. In enoch and jasher we read the accounts of these old ones teaching man an array of skills.

And Azazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all
2 colouring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they
3 were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjaza taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, 'Armaros the resolving of enchantments, Baraqijal (taught) astrology, Kokabel the constellations, Ezeqeel the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiel the signs of the earth, Shamsiel the signs of the sun, and Sariel the course of the moon. And as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven .
This is just a very short excerpt, it was even documented by the author that one particular angel taught the 'dashing of the embryo in the womb that it might die.'

As you rightly pointed out in ezekiel, we find a motherload of strange descriptions of God's covering cherubims. And its apparent that somehow, they also utilize extra dimensional objects, chariots/vimanas in hindu texts etc that the 'Gods" or aliens nowadays lol use. Yahushua made the remark, that the end of days would be like that of noah's. And that's a huge statement to make given how new testament writers like Peter confirmed these particular occurrences that happened in this time. i.e the imprisoning of the angels in the earth that committed the act for creating nephilim.

With this understanding, we see that after the israelites are freed from egypt, the land is amazingly full of these abominations, and God gives the order- wipe em out, particular nephilim tribes man, woman and child. God already made a promise with noah to never destroy the earth like he did before. Their only goal was to repeat early genesis, corrupt both mankind as well as animals (this is documented as well, mixing of them- sound familiar today?) and the lay the land to waste, consuming everything. Most of all, to wipe off God's people so that the prophecy of man bruising the serpents heel, the mashiach's birth and death could not happen. The ammalekites was a simple example by name alone today- rabbinical teachings have suggested, a people who lick up (blood) fe fi fo fum? Seems giant culture globally reflects this gruesome attribute in many stories including native american.

If you read my earlier post about jack parsons, you'll see that 1. after the babylon working, the ufo phenomenon kicked off. coincidence? 2. the nazis tried hard to bring back these men, the ubermensch, a superman like fabled heracles, part man, part 'god'. Aleister crowley at the time, 40 years earlier from the appearance of the ufo phenomenon, claimed to be in contact with this being called lam. This is his sketch.

Then we get flooded with reports 50-60 years later of these so called beings, abductions, mutilations, transplants and one intriguing detail. The description of so called greys that psychologists would say that globally, these people fabricated this in their mind so detailed and uncannily accurate across the board. how many people knew about lam?, even today. there were 2 particular early researchers, can't recall their names right now. They were atheists and they had no spiritual background, their conclusion from reports and eyewitness observation was that these beings were not subject to our laws and understanding of physics and universal forces. They defy all of them. They said they were inter dimensional. in my world view, those are what we know as evil spirits or demons, they have that ability. Many ufologists have come off the record anonymously to state that despite what they wrote in their books about the abduction phenomenon being impossible to stop once it began was that- there were certain cases when a person would cry out the name of Jesus, that the abduction stopped. Many would lose their credibility today if they were to state it among their peers, its the unmentionable observation. I think you get my point of what I believe and why given these reports.
Its currently a fact that reports are flooding in by the thousands each month around the world, increasing at a rapid pace. Things are ramping up and the media is doing a great job with, independence day, prometheus and transformers. Its like we're waiting for this. Pope has his L.U.C.I.F.E.R telescope,( im serious lol-google it) what's he doing with that? he's also stating, we'll welcome them with open arms if they come. I probably wrote too much already, but its just the surface. i'll leave you with actual work by Dr. Roger Leir and the carbon nanotube like stuctures he extracted from actual patients. he believes in the stitchin material/nibiru stuff.

[nareshseep]

10426634_759487060775108_8395225860998579530_n.jpg (43.62 KiB) Viewed 3499 times

Thunder and lightning for the unbelievers of Zeus...

[bluesclues]

[Slartibartfast]

BTW… what is “Acquiring Knowledge”?

In terms of Physics/Chemistry…
Forever figuring out the properties of elements that was here since the beginning of time?
“Miraculous Discoveries” of materials and elements within the mere, restricted, grasp of human limited intellect..
Trying to use materials (that were already here) to make, build, construct things?

In terms of Biology…
Trying to figure out how things (organisms etc, that were already here) work?
(Forever) Learning about a (simple) human body and its contents?
Trying to find cures for diseases that we (man) created?
Trying to replicate (already existing) DNA, tissue, organs?

We are only like children in a playpen… playing with toys given to us by parents!

Chemistry
1. Not all elements were here since the beginning of time. The big bang created mostly Hydrogen and a little bit of helium. Most of the other elements were created through fusion within stars over the billions of years since. (Not explicitly stated in any spiritual text)
2. A lot of discoveries are the product of thousands of man hours of research and labour. Failures are many times more numerous that successes but are recorded to aid in the research using the scientific method. (No fixed religious method of research has ever been developed and failures are either denied or somehow justified as successes)
3. A lot of materials are man-made and widely used in ways that naturally provided materials cannot be use. (eg. concrete) No major building material developed by religion has contributed to the advancement of our society on a comparable scale.

Biology
1. I will give you this one. Biologist are unable to figure out how organisms that have not existed as yet work. (Religion has not provided any comparable text on the subject either)
2. Scientist know exactly how simple humans work. Religion also seems to be able to define the lives of simple humans as well. However, biologically speaking, the human body is extremely complex. It is more complex than any artificial system that exists today, some of which are extremely complex. Religions seem unable to explain how simple systems developed by science work (eg. a car)
3. Yes a lot of diseases are man made, but don't think that all are. In fact, here is a small list of non-man made diseases for which man has found a cure (No research or solutions have yet been supplied by Religion or God).
-Chicken Pox
-Diphtheria
-Malaria
-Measles
-Polio
-Tetanus
-Typhoid Fever
and the list goes on...
4. First of all, you cannot replicate something that does not exist. Second of all, why create non-existent tissues (unless it is to be used for research). Thirdly, if God is so good at creating human tissues, then why didn't he give us the ability to regrow our own tissue as well?

Now let me as you this. It was question I asked long ago that went unanswered.
What significant contribution has any religion or God made to our society (or any society really) that could not have been made without religion or God (or a belief in either)?

[JF.K]

BTW… what is “Acquiring Knowledge”?

In terms of Physics/Chemistry…
Forever figuring out the properties of elements that was here since the beginning of time?
“Miraculous Discoveries” of materials and elements within the mere, restricted, grasp of human limited intellect..
Trying to use materials (that were already here) to make, build, construct things?

In terms of Biology…
Trying to figure out how things (organisms etc, that were already here) work?
(Forever) Learning about a (simple) human body and its contents?
Trying to find cures for diseases that we (man) created?
Trying to replicate (already existing) DNA, tissue, organs?

We are only like children in a playpen… playing with toys given to us by parents!

I would first just like to say that I was not saying that these (scientific) things are mentioned in any script or predicted by any religion. I was also not saying that religion or scriptures had impact on the development brought about by humans. I was merely responding to a statement “God did not give man knowledge”. So I was expanding on this “knowledge” that was previously being discussed.

Chemistry
1. Not all elements were here since the beginning of time. The big bang created mostly Hydrogen and a little bit of helium. Most of the other elements were created through fusion within stars over the billions of years since. (Not explicitly stated in any spiritual text)

Well I guess the question is, what do you consider to be “the beginning of time”…
Because even with your example, those elements were already there when “man” came around.
So we met the elements ‘already here’ – we did not make any of them from scratch.

2. A lot of discoveries are the product of thousands of man hours of research and labour. Failures are many times more numerous that successes but are recorded to aid in the research using the scientific method. (No fixed religious method of research has ever been developed and failures are either denied or somehow justified as successes)

The statement I made on “Miraculous Discoveries” is just to show that ‘miraculous’ is simply things that are already existing but man is now able to “discover” it since we have limited ability, intellect, knowledge and resources.

3. A lot of materials are man-made and widely used in ways that naturally provided materials cannot be use. (eg. concrete) No major building material developed by religion has contributed to the advancement of our society on a comparable scale.

Well, like I was saying… I never said that religion created or predicted anything that man is doing right now, but your example of concrete simple shows my point that man can only use what was already here on earth to “make” their products.

Biology
1. I will give you this one. Biologist are unable to figure out how organisms that have not existed as yet work. (Religion has not provided any comparable text on the subject either)

I never said that religion provided any info on this. My point is that humans can only vaguely understand what they presently have to ability to, raising the question of who or what is responsible for these well thought out, fully self operating, systems that are called organisms.

2. Scientist know exactly how simple humans work. Religion also seems to be able to define the lives of simple humans as well. However, biologically speaking, the human body is extremely complex. It is more complex than any artificial system that exists today, some of which are extremely complex. Religions seem unable to explain how simple systems developed by science work (eg. a car)

It is clear that you misunderstood what I was saying, since my use of the words: “(simple) human body” was just to show that something as basic as the human body, which operation resembles and is similar to all other organisms.. still cannot be fully understood by scientists much more for them to actually replicate one – 100% manmade!

3. Yes a lot of diseases are man made, but don't think that all are. In fact, here is a small list of non-man made diseases for which man has found a cure (No research or solutions have yet been supplied by Religion or God).
-Chicken Pox –Diphtheria –Malaria –Measles –Polio –Tetanus -Typhoid Fever and the list goes on...

Can you be 100% certain that man had no influence in the creation of these diseases?
When I said “man made”, I did not necessarily mean “on purpose”. They could have been derived from the actions of man not directly relating to the disease but still contributed to its creation – which was my point. In other words, we are trying to fix problems that we created ourselves.

4. First of all, you cannot replicate something that does not exist. Second of all, why create non-existent tissues (unless it is to be used for research). Thirdly, if God is so good at creating human tissues, then why didn't he give us the ability to regrow our own tissue as well?

(1) If you cannot create something that does not exist then clearly the power that you think man has is very limited – since this is exactly what happened through “random actions” in science… according to some!
(2) If knowledge and related power is something man developed on their own, then my point is that we should be able to make tissue from scratch but a better more ‘durable’ version of it.
(3) When you get a cut… does the cut remain open or does your body create new tissue to heal itself without the injured victim’s conscious control over the process? You will answer you own question with this.

Now let me as you this. It was question I asked long ago that went unanswered. What significant contribution has any religion or God made to our society (or any society really) that could not have been made without religion or God (or a belief in either)?

Your question comes from your misunderstanding of what I said and hence headed in the wrong direction.

So back to my initial point…..
God did not give man knowledge but he gave us the ability to learn, develop, improve – while restricting our knowledge and power to only this… without the ability to create.

Just to explain further – I was only making statements that man’s knowledge is very very limited and what we can do (with all the technology etc) is only based on what we came in this world and met, since we are yet to develop anything that never existed before using materials that we also created 100%.

Also, if knowledge is power, then we basically have no significant power since we are only able to use what is given to us (by the supreme being) to make and develop things – just like children in a playpen (eg. with Lego Blocks).

It’s not a “miracle” when one element reacts in a particular way with the other – it was all created, planned, organized in that way (by a supreme being).
Just the same way you’d give your children pieces of a puzzle to put together when you yourself knows the eventual end result.

Just my two cents… (explained).

[Kasey]

^^all day and you still eh answer the man question. Ok we'll I have one, if there is a creator, which religion is correct about it?

[Slartibartfast]

Ok, I'll try to stick to the original point of "God did not give man knowledge"

Well I guess the question is, what do you consider to be “the beginning of time”…
Because even with your example, those elements were already there when “man” came around.
So we met the elements ‘already here’ – we did not make any of them from scratch.

I assume the Big Bang to be considered as the beginning of time. To describe time before that requires an understanding that I do not possess (but is present in the field of quantum physics). Also, there are several man-made elements that have been created in a laboratory. A quick google search shall suffice.

The statement I made on “Miraculous Discoveries” is just to show that ‘miraculous’ is simply things that are already existing but man is now able to “discover” it since we have limited ability, intellect, knowledge and resources.

This is a blanket statement that is so vague, it looses all meaning. Everything has limitations. Even your God has limitations. In fact, judging by societal impacts, God has more limitations that a bacteria (as the effects of those have had a bigger direct impact than God since ever). Also, it is impossible to discover something that does not exist (unless you are counting man-made elements as a discovery of something that was non-existent). Am I to understand that you are saying man's limitation is his existence, and by extension the existence of the world around him?

Well, like I was saying… I never said that religion created or predicted anything that man is doing right now, but your example of concrete simple shows my point that man can only use what was already here on earth to “make” their products.

Again, it is impossible to use something that is not there. I don't know the point you are trying to make here is. God can't even use the materials that exist for anything (eg. abundance of food on Western continents to feed starving mouths in deserted places on the African continent).

I never said that religion provided any info on this. My point is that humans can only vaguely understand what they presently have to ability to, raising the question of who or what is responsible for these well thought out, fully self operating, systems that are called organisms./quote]
I suggest you read a book by Darwin called "The Theory of Evolution" that was written 100 years ago. It's a lot less vague than you imagine and it even states it's limitations. Also, keep in mind that 95% of scientists to have ever lived are alive today. We have developed bionic arms that are controlled via brain signals and it still has a long way to go in terms of useability etc. I will say scientists have a lot more that a "vague" understanding of how the human body works. And we are only a few decades into the information era. It took hundreds of years for Christianity to realise slavery was wrong. You need be reasonable and to give scientists a chance.

It is clear that you misunderstood what I was saying, since my use of the words: “(simple) human body” was just to show that something as basic as the human body, which operation resembles and is similar to all other organisms.. still cannot be fully understood by scientists much more for them to actually replicate one – 100% manmade!

Just because there are human bodies in abundance around us (literally billions), which is why I think you call it basic, that does not mean it is not complex. It is a lot harder to reverse engineer something, which is basically what scientists will have to do to understand the human body. But seeing that the human body took millions of years to evolve, I think if scientist take just 100,000 years to figure it out, they would have done an amazing job (also, remember we are only a few decades into the information age)

Can you be 100% certain that man had no influence in the creation of these diseases?
When I said “man made”, I did not necessarily mean “on purpose”. They could have been derived from the actions of man not directly relating to the disease but still contributed to its creation – which was my point. In other words, we are trying to fix problems that we created ourselves.

The world is not as pretty as you think it is. Animals have been dying of diseases since they have been living. A quick google search should turn up a bunch of diseases that have absolutely nothing to do with man. Btw malaria is one for sure.

(1) If you cannot create something that does not exist then clearly the power that you think man has is very limited – since this is exactly what happened through “random actions” in science… according to some!
(2) If knowledge and related power is something man developed on their own, then my point is that we should be able to make tissue from scratch but a better more ‘durable’ version of it.
(3) When you get a cut… does the cut remain open or does your body create new tissue to heal itself without the injured victim’s conscious control over the process? You will answer you own question with this.

I hope this is not your whole argument. I tackled the first point already. As for #2, just look at the advancements of stem cell research. This is exactly what they are doing. They have even developed "spray on" skin for burn victims with second degree burns that leaves no scarring and heals within a couple days as opposed to a few weeks/months.
As for 3, just google skin grafting. They don't need to replicate the exact tissue as long as they can replicate the function in a cost effective manner. BTW I never saw God make a cell phone. Why can't he replicate that? Has he ever replicated something that can serve the same purpose as a cell phone or any other man made device?

Also, my question is not meant to be related to my answers at all. It was meant to be the start of a new discussion so you can go ahead and answer it accordingly. As for that last part, there are just too many fallacies in it for me to take the time to point out. Answer my question first and if you still want me to point out the mistakes in your last statement then I will.

[Dizzy28]

So Brazil prayed before the match during the match and after the match. Germany didn't.
God didn't listen to the Brazilian prayers?

[Slartibartfast]

So Brazil prayed before the match during the match and after the match. Germany didn't.
God didn't listen to the Brazilian prayers?

God has limitations bro. He could not create goals for Brazil because Neyma didn't exist (on the field)

[Dizzy28]

So Brazil prayed before the match during the match and after the match. Germany didn't.
God didn't listen to the Brazilian prayers?

God has limitations bro. He could not create goals for Brazil because Neyma didn't exist (on the field)

But God is capable of anything...maybe even allowing for 1 day Fred to have some level of Footballing talent.

[bluesclues]

what God is supposed to help a country that puts out it's people out their homes for a football competition? karmic law tends to all the misfortunes of the brazillian team and great shame on the event they spent lots of money to facilitate with pride.

and it aint done yet.

[Slartibartfast]

So are you saying that the people that got put out of their homes didn't want Brazil to win?

[bluesclues]

So are you saying that the people that got put out of their homes didn't want Brazil to win?

english is a hard language lol

im referring to brazillian team praying to God, fans in the stands shedding tears for a football match but not one for the people currently made destitute so they can enjoy entertainment. the cries of the downtrodden outweight the cries of the opressor. what God, or rather what JUST God is supposed to answer the prayers of a football team in the face of the mass misfortune it created?

[Slartibartfast]

I think you getting some things mixed up here.

1. It is possible to be sad for more than one thing at the same time. There were many protest, outcries and tears shed for the corruption that took place in order for the World Cup to be held in Brazil. Being sad from that would not stop them from being sad for the match

2. The people responsible for the World Cup being held in Brazil would not have had any negatives effects from any of this. They would have made a crap load of money for themselves so they can't care less about either the people they displaced or the outcome of the match. The team and the citizens did not create the misfortune, but, they are the ones suffering from it.

3. Can you blame the Brazilians for expecting an answer from God. As far as they are concerned, corrupt politicians did a bunch of horrible stuff that affected them badly just so they could host this world cup. Now they are praying that God will at least grant them a win so they have something to be happy about. Similarly, the team will pray for a win to give their distressed fans something to smile about when they go home because in places where life can already be pretty crappy in Brazil, football is one of they few good things that they have.

[bluesclues]

precisely. and a wise God will ensure that justice is served in all the right places. u might say they making plenty money. but they have not a faithful wife. son or daughter is a drug addict. suffering from various internal illness. u dont know what good and bad in who life until u walk not a mile, but the whole stretch from start to finish in their shoes. too many factors an external human observer wouldnt even know about to calculate that a God would know and administer in his infinite wisdom. from what i see, everything have a reason. and even if you vex with God because u might say he allow some evil person to kill your child or otherwise cause u a life of pain and innocents die. God have the power to give them eternal life in the spirit but he wont give the others. thas josstiss too. this life isnt all there is. and karmic law is there to lash us harder and harder until we stop doing the wrongtings we doing. especially regarding other people.

is plenty negative karma hanging over brazil. and if u say even the fans who get put out their house hoping for a good worldcup that make it worse. the either ignorant/innocent, or forgive their oppressors to support the event while destitute. all that have its price.

doh study how much money who make. what is not rightfully theirs is taken back in another way. that is the balance that rules the universe known as karmic law.

[bluesclues]

the simplest answer to what is God for the profane.. is

everything that is beyond the limits of human potential. and every rule that is in place that cannot be circumvented.. in science and all aspects of existence. the things man cannot yet achieve are attributed to God. e.g death is your God because u cannot circumvent or defy it. when it comes to take u there is nothing u can do to stop it. and who put that rule in place must be pretty powerful and of course, able to defy that rule himself/herself.

[Slartibartfast]

is plenty negative karma hanging over brazil. and if u say even the fans who get put out their house hoping for a good worldcup that make it worse. the either ignorant/innocent, or forgive their oppressors to support the event while destitute. all that have its price.

wow... just wow

Just so you know, they don't have to forgive their oppressors to want to watch the match and support their team. Here are some reasons I came up with for them to support their team that does not include forgiving their oppressors.
1. The Brazilian players are not their oppressors
2. Football is an extremely important part of their culture and life (as it is for a lot of trinis)
3. They accepted that it's already happening and decided to postpone the ongoing battle for a couple hours to support the Brazilian team (refer to point 1). Also, if you are going through a crappy time in your life, wouldn't you take the opportunity to partake in something that makes you happy.
4. It's the World Cup! The biggest sporting even on our entire planet! Just let that sink in for two seconds
One...mississipi...two mississipi
I guarantee you that for more than 99% of the people living there (refer to point 2) this is going to be the only chance they have to ever see a world cup match live.

Here are the people you call arrogant/ignorant. A generalization without any merit at all. So according to you, this is what God did because he saw it fit. Why didn't God stop the corruption from happening then?

doh study how much money who make. what is not rightfully theirs is taken back in another way. that is the balance that rules the universe known as karmic law.

Ahhh right. The excuse made for wrongdoers. Another generalization without merit. I'm a Strong German fan and even I would have only allowed Germany to score like 3 goals if I was God. Maybe even let Brazil get a next one. Or just make everybody forget the first half and think the second half lasted 90 mins.

[Dizzy28]

So are you saying that the people that got put out of their homes didn't want Brazil to win?

english is a hard language lol

im referring to brazillian team praying to God, fans in the stands shedding tears for a football match but not one for the people currently made destitute so they can enjoy entertainment. the cries of the downtrodden outweight the cries of the opressor. what God, or rather what JUST God is supposed to answer the prayers of a football team in the face of the mass misfortune it created?

Given all the war and misfortune for a large portion of the Earth's current 7 billion people many of whom are believers and pray in God's name, it doesn't seem that he is that just or answers a lot of prayers.

[bluesclues]

u viewing my posts with one eye. there was an 'Or' after ignorant innocent.

and yes they have to forgive their opressors if they arent innocent/ignorant because they could naturally hate the worldcup competition on the grounds of what it caused their families. u cant talk generalized statements and claim that EVERYONE who got put out their homes is supporting the world cup. some of them will hate the world cup for life.

and ignorant/innocent meaning they are brainwashed into football culture and cant take themselves out of it no matter what happen or what strife it cause them and their loved ones. they would die for football. that aint nothing to die for in my view. its just a translation of the roman colloseum days, just men not fighting with swords or against tigers.

but its normal. just like man fighting for this and that while the environment goes to sheit. they biggest issue is who win world cup or which basketball team is the best, or the world end because big bang theory episodes done.man have his priorities mixed up and as i say.. there are consequences that will lash us harder and harder until we change course. that is life.

me i just lol from my little corner yes. everyone has their choices to make and teachings to learn. the easy way, or the hard way.

[JF.K]

Ok, I'll try to stick to the original point of "God did not give man knowledge"

The few words that I initially mention from that statement was to simply show that the knowledge and associated power that we claim to have is limited since it is only based on discovering / learning about stuff that was already there around us.
Of course your belief in god or not will change that perception.

Also, there are several man-made elements that have been created in a laboratory. A quick google search shall suffice.

Can these manmade elements be used alone to make/create something without the ‘natural’ elements (that some believe were created by god)?

This is a blanket statement that is so vague, it looses all meaning. Everything has limitations. Even your God has limitations.

What example can you use to come to the conclusion that God has limitations?

Also, it is impossible to discover something that does not exist (unless you are counting man-made elements as a discovery of something that was non-existent).

How is this impossible?
The question really is… what the term “does not exist” actually mean?
At several points in history… many things that we know now as “common sense” was once believed that it “does not exist”
(eg) at one time… An atom does not exist…. An electron does not exist… - Other Planets does not exist…Other Galaxies does not exist… etc.
So what you say now that “does not exist” might be commonly known some centuries in the future.
In other words your use of the word “exist” in human terms is limited to extent or advancement of human discovery.

God can't even use the materials that exist for anything (eg. abundance of food on Western continents to feed starving mouths in deserted places on the African continent).

Man is the one responsible for the starving mouths in deserted countries… a little historical research on your side will provide evidence.
Also… Are you saying that after man is placed here to live and dwell and after we choose to make a mess of it and suffer those around us then God must step in and help clean up the mess?
So then… on one hand you are saying that man is so supreme and able to replicate God’s creation but on the other hand you want god to come and feed part of our own civilization because somehow we can’t find a solution to that problem…

I suggest you read a book by Darwin called "The Theory of Evolution" that was written 100 years ago. It's a lot less vague than you imagine and it even states it's limitations.

I never said that I didn’t believe in evolution… But all science research only goes back so far to a point that they cannot explain. The beginning of the beginning – before the Big Bang etc... According to human understanding: Something cannot come from nothing. Science therefore is at a standstill understanding the start of it all.

Also, keep in mind that 95% of scientists to have ever lived are alive today. We have developed bionic arms that are controlled via brain signals and it still has a long way to go in terms of useability etc.

Is this your proof that man is just as good as the god people believe in?
Because man can make a metal machine arm that requires a brain (created by god) to control it?

And we are only a few decades into the information era. It took hundreds of years for Christianity to realise slavery was wrong. You need be reasonable and to give scientists a chance.

“A few decades into the information era” is not an accurate statement since it discredits the efforts made by those thousands of years ago. Since the times of the Pyramids, physics was used to construct these. So we can safely say that where man reached now, took them well over 2000 years to get there. If after so long and we are yet to even visit other planets in our own galaxy then how supreme is man vs the god that people believe in. I’ll be reasonable then and give man another 2000 years.

Just because there are human bodies in abundance around us (literally billions), which is why I think you call it basic, that does not mean it is not complex.

I referred to it as basic, because almost all other organisms operate / function under the same principles. So if scientists think they are the most supreme but they are yet to replicate this fundamental operation then how far have they really reached when they want to compare themselves to the god that many believe in?

I hope this is not your whole argument. I tackled the first point already. As for #2, just look at the advancements of stem cell research. This is exactly what they are doing. They have even developed "spray on" skin for burn victims with second degree burns that leaves no scarring and heals within a couple days as opposed to a few weeks/months.
As for 3, just google skin grafting. They don't need to replicate the exact tissue as long as they can replicate the function in a cost effective manner.

Firstly, I never had an argument really; I just made a point from a particular stance. You are free to believe whatever you want…. my intention was never to convince anyone to change what they convincingly think to themselves of something.
Your arguments however is comparing a god that many people believe in with man’s knowledge and ‘power’ to do the same as god.
Using “stem cell procedures” and “spray on skin” as a method of comparison will not achieve any points. Especially since these procedures simply speed up the natural healing process of the human body that already exists. So they did not create skin – they just found a way to get wounds to heal faster. Works on the same principle as many other drugs on the present market..
http://www.biotechnology-innovation.com ... _skin.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_cell_gun

BTW I never saw God make a cell phone. Why can't he replicate that? Has he ever replicated something that can serve the same purpose as a cell phone or any other man made device?

This statement is one that will make me end my responses due to its ridiculousness. First you were showing failed attempts of man to replicate god’s creation that took them over 2000 years and counting. Then you try to compare an invention of man to the power of the being that created the same man (according to many).
So in other words, you are trying to compare the creation of this universe, eco systems, organisms (what we can see and what we can’t), etc to a cell phone?
You asked why can’t god replicate a cell phone… as if this invention is superior to what he already created!

You tend to highlight things that are happening in this world that you do not understand and blame god for the negative end result. Just because you can’t find a logical reason doesn’t mean that this God is negligent with taking action. A lot of people jump to the worst conclusion about something just because Google can’t give them a logical answer.

There are many things that are happening in this world that we have no knowledge on the cause and the people responsible behind it. Blaming God is just an easy excuse to stay in ignorance, especially if you claim that you don’t believe in God but yet you blame him.

Almost all of the present day calamities, natural disasters, human suffering, etc… are as a result of man’s negative impact on societies, etc… along with their neglect of natural planet earth itself.
So much technologies and advancement is mentioned, but what is being done to safeguard the natural earth that we live and occupy?

Create an impressive robotic arm but emit radioactive waste into rivers and streams as a result.
So we create and develop medicines and instruments to help persons deal with sickness and disease but then we emit harmful waste that cause the same sickness and disease that we are trying to help!

Only minimum attention is placed on global warming, rainforests, reefs, pollution, etc.
So we have these minimum advancements but with maximum destruction to the natural habitat as a result of this.

Which system that was created by god produced waste that destroyed another system?
Every ounce of waste from one creation was designed to be used by another creation for its sustainment creating eco-systems of an everlasting cycle.
Then comes man’s advancement in one direction but the total neglect of the impacts of waste etc…creating unbalance in natural aspects.
But some people compare man’s evolution and intelligence to god?

You previously asked to “be reasonable” and give man time to reach further in research – that would make your Man vs God argument stronger… even though they have been trying over 2000 yrs now and can’t reach close to god’s creations.
But even if they get another 2000 yrs… these same scientists have said that with the rate of increasing global warming etc etc… the earth and its civilization will not be able to survive due to the endless natural disasters that will be the result.
So when will man be able to prove that they are as good as god when they are destroying themselves?

At the end of the day, I really prefer not to continue with discussions of whether god exists or not…
Mainly because almost everything that me and you will ask and answer at this time has already been discussed and the cycle just continues. (just look at the page#)

I respect your views at the end of the day though…

[Slartibartfast]

This statement is one that will make me end my responses due to its ridiculousness.

The sentiments are the same.

I respect your views at the end of the day though…

Hey it's an open debate. As long as you keep reading and questioning you will have my respect also.

BTW you can forget all of the other stuff I said and just answer that one question. Everyone has sidestepped that question so far.

[bluefete]

[bluefete]

Slartibartfast:

Can the created be greater than the creator?

Can a robot (created) be greater than a human being (creator)?

[bluefete]

A bit long but very, very interesting reading.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... egion&_r=0


Does Evolution Explain Religious Beliefs?
By GARY GUTTING
July 8, 2014 7:30 pmJuly 8, 2014 7:30 pm
The Stone

The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless.


This is the eighth in a series of interviews about religion that I am conducting for The Stone. The interviewee for this installment is Michael Ruse, a professor of philosophy at Florida State University and the author of the forthcoming book “Atheism: What Everyone Needs to Know.”

Gary Gutting: What do you think of the claim that scientific accounts provide all the explanations needed to understand the existence and nature of the world, so that there’s no need to posit God as the ultimate explanation?

I don’t think science can explain everything. As far as I am concerned, if you want God to have a crack at the job, go right ahead!

Michael Ruse: Let me start at a more general level by saying that I don’t think science as such can explain everything. Therefore, assuming that the existence and nature of the world can be fully understood (I’m not sure it can!), this is going to require something more than science. As far as I am concerned, if you want God to have a crack at the job, go right ahead!

G.G.: Could you say a bit more about why you think that science can’t fully explain everything?

M.R.: In my view, none of our knowledge, including science, just “tells it like it is.” Knowledge, even the best scientific knowledge, interprets experience through human cultural understanding and experience, and above all (just as it is for poets and preachers) metaphor is the key to the whole enterprise. As I developed my own career path, as a historian and philosopher of evolutionary biology, this insight grew and grew. Everything was metaphorical — struggle for existence, natural selection, division of labor, genetic code, arms races and more.

G.G.: It’s clear that metaphors are useful when scientists try to explain complex ideas in terms that nonscientists can understand, but why do you think metaphors have an essential role in the development of scientific knowledge?

M.R.: Because metaphor helps you move forward. It is heuristic, forcing you to ask new questions. If your love is like a rose, what color is the rose? But note that it does so at a cost. A metaphor puts blinkers on us. Some questions are unanswerable within the context of the metaphor. “My love is a rose” tells me about her beauty. It does not tell me about her mathematical abilities.

Now combine this fact with history. Since the scientific revolution, one metaphor above all — the root metaphor — has dictated the nature and progress of science. This is the metaphor of the world as a machine, the mechanical metaphor. What questions are ruled out by this metaphor? One is about ultimate origins. Of course you can ask about the origins of the metal and plastics in your automobile, but ultimately the questions must end and you must take the materials as given. So with the world. I think the machine metaphor rules out an answer to what Martin Heidegger called the “fundamental question of metaphysics”: Why is there something rather than nothing? Unlike Wittgenstein, I think it is a genuine question, but not one answerable by modern science.

Coming now to my own field of evolutionary biology, I see some questions that it simply doesn’t ask but that can be asked and answered by other areas of science. I think here about the natural origins of the universe and the Big Bang theory. I see some questions that it doesn’t ask and that neither it nor any other science can answer. One such question is why there is something rather than nothing, or if you like why ultimately there are material substances from which organisms are formed.

G.G.: So do you think that we need religion to answer the ultimate question of the world’s origin?

M.R.: If the person of faith wants to say that God created the world, I don’t think you can deny this on scientific grounds. But you can go after the theist on other grounds. I would raise philosophical objections: for example, about the notion of a necessary being. I would also fault Christian theology: I don’t think you can mesh the ancient Greek philosophers’ notion of a god outside time and space with the Jewish notion of a god as a person. But these are not scientific objections.

G.G.: What do you think of Richard Dawkins’s argument that, in any case, God won’t do as an ultimate explanation of the universe? His point is that complexity requires explanation — the whole idea of evolution by natural selection is to explain the origin of complex life-forms from less complex life-forms. But a creator God — with enormous knowledge and power — would have to be at least as complex as the universe he creates. Such a creator would require explanation by something else and so couldn’t explain, for example, why there’s something rather than nothing.

M.R.: Like every first-year undergraduate in philosophy, Dawkins thinks he can put to rest the causal argument for God’s existence. If God caused the world, then what caused God? Of course the great philosophers, Anselm and Aquinas particularly, are way ahead of him here. They know that the only way to stop the regression is by making God something that needs no cause. He must be a necessary being. This means that God is not part of the regular causal chain but in some sense orthogonal to it. He is what keeps the whole business going, past, present and future, and is the explanation of why there is something rather than nothing. Also God is totally simple, and I don’t see why complexity should not arise out of this, just as it does in mathematics and science from very simple premises.

Traditionally, God’s necessity is not logical necessity but some kind of metaphysical necessity, or aseity. Unlike Hume, I don’t think this is a silly or incoherent idea, any more than I think mathematical Platonism is silly or incoherent. As it happens, I am not a mathematical Platonist, and I do have conceptual difficulties with the idea of metaphysical necessity. So in the end, I am not sure that the Christian God idea flies, but I want to extend to Christians the courtesy of arguing against what they actually believe, rather than begin and end with the polemical parody of what Dawkins calls “the God delusion.”

G.G.: Do you think that evolution lends support to the atheistic argument from evil: that it makes no sense to think that an all-good, all-powerful God would have used so wasteful and brutal a process as evolution to create living things?

I don’t want an argument that convinces me that the death of Anne Frank in Bergen-Belsen ultimately contributes to the greater good. If my eternal salvation depends on the death of this young woman, then forget it.

M.R.: Although in some philosophy of religion circles it is now thought that we can counter the argument from evil, I don’t think this is so. More than that, I don’t want it to be so. I don’t want an argument that convinces me that the death under the guillotine of Sophie Scholl (one of the leaders of the White Rose group opposed to the Nazis) or of Anne Frank in Bergen-Belsen ultimately contributes to the greater good. If my eternal salvation depends on the deaths of these two young women, then forget it.

This said, I have never really thought that the pains brought on by the evolutionary process, in particular the struggle for survival and reproduction, much affect the Christian conception of God. For all of Voltaire’s devastating wit in “Candide,” I am a bit of a Leibnizian on these matters. If God is to do everything through unbroken law, and I can think of good theological reasons why this should be so, then pain and suffering are part of it all. Paradoxically and humorously I am with Dawkins here. He argues that the only way naturally you can get the design-like features of organisms — the hand and the eye — is through evolution by natural selection, brought on by the struggle. Other mechanisms just don’t work. So God is off the hook.

G.G.: What do you think of the claim that evolutionary accounts show that religion emerged not because of any evidence for its truth but because of its adaptive value?

M.R.: It is interesting that you ask this question because recently I’ve found myself wrestling with this issue more than just about any other. As an ardent Darwinian evolutionist I think that all organisms, and I include us humans, are the end product of a long, slow process of development thanks to the causal mechanism of natural selection. So this means that I think features like the eye and the hand are around because of their adaptive value; they help us to survive and reproduce.

G.G.: Of course, evolutionary explanations are empirically well established on the biological level. But is the same true on the level of social and cultural life, especially among humans?

M.R.: I include society and culture here although I would qualify what I say. I don’t see being a Nazi as very adaptive, but I would say that the things that led to being a Nazi — for instance being open to indoctrination as a child — have adaptive significance. I would say the same of religion. The biologist Edward O. Wilson thinks that religion is adaptive because it promotes bonding and he might be right. But it can go biologically haywire, as in the case of the Shakers, whose religious prohibition on procreation had an adaptive value of precisely zero.

So it is true that in a sense I see all knowledge, including claims about religious knowledge, as being relative to evolutionary ends. The upshot is that I don’t dismiss religious beliefs even though they ultimately can be explained by evolution. I think everything can! I wouldn’t dismiss religious beliefs even if you could show me that they are just a byproduct of adaptation, as I think Darwin himself thought. It is as plausible that my love of Mozart’s operas is a byproduct of adaptation, but it doesn’t make them any the less beautiful and meaningful. I think you have to judge religion on its merits.

G.G.: Is one of religion’s merits that it provides a foundation (intellectual and practical) for morality through the idea of God as divine lawgiver?

M.R.: I am on record as an “evolutionary skeptic.” I don’t deny substantive morality — you ought to return your library books on time — but I do deny objective foundations. I think morality is a collective illusion, genetic in origin, that makes us good cooperators. And I would add that being good cooperators makes each one of us individually better off in the struggle for existence. If we are nice to other people, they are much more likely to be nice to us in return. However, as the philosopher J.L. Mackie used to argue, I think we “objectify” substantive ethics — we think it objectively the case that we ought return library books on time. But we do this (or rather our genes make us do this) because if we didn’t we would all start to cheat and substantive ethics would collapse to the ground.

So I don’t buy the moral argument for the existence of God. I think you can have all of the morality you need without God. I am a follower of Hume brought up to date by Darwin. Morality is purely emotions, although emotions of a special kind with an important adaptive function. I don’t, however, think that here I am necessarily denying the existence of God. Were I a Christian, I would be somewhat of a natural law theorist, thinking that morality is what is natural. Caring about small children is natural and good; killing small children for laughs is unnatural and bad. If you want to say that God created the world and what is good therefore is what fits with the way God designed it, I am O.K. with this. In fact, I think you should say it to avoid the problem (raised in Plato’s “Euthyphro”) of simply making the good a function of God’s arbitrary will.

G.G.: There seems to be a tension in your thinking about religion. You aren’t yourself a believer, but you spend a great deal of time defending belief against its critics.

M.R.: People often accuse me of being contradictory, if not of outright hypocrisy. I won’t say I accept the ontological argument for the existence of God — the argument that derives God’s existence from his essence — but I do like it (it is so clever) and I am prepared to stand up for it when Dawkins dismisses it with scorn rather than good reasons. In part this is a turf war. I am a professional philosopher. I admire immensely thinkers like Anselm and Descartes and am proud to be one of them, however minor and inadequate in comparison. I am standing up for my own. In part, this is political. Religion is a big thing in America, and often not a very good big thing. I don’t think you are going to counter the bad just by going over the top, like in the Battle of the Somme. I think you have to reach out over no-man’s land to the trenches on the other side and see where we can agree and hope to move forward.

I should say that my Quaker childhood — as in everything I do and think — is tremendously important here. I grew up surrounded by gentle, loving (and very intelligent) Christians. I never forget that. Finally, I just don’t like bad arguments. In my case, I think I can offer good arguments against the existence of the Christian God. I don’t need the inadequate and faulty. In “Murder in the Cathedral,” T.S. Eliot has Thomas à Becket say, “The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason.” Amen.

This interview was conducted by email and edited. Previous interviews in this series were with Alvin Plantinga, Louise Antony, John D. Caputo, Howard Wettstein, Jay L. Garfield, Philip Kitcher and Tim Maudlin.
Gary Gutting

Gary Gutting is a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, and an editor of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. He is the author of, most recently, “Thinking the Impossible: French Philosophy Since 1960″ and writes regularly for The Stone.